Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Balesir" data-source="post: 5675034" data-attributes="member: 27160">Ah, I only played a little RM in the late '80s and I had no idea it was created that early.  I count it among the vanguard of the "Simulationist by instinct" wave that came along then, in that case.  I think RuneQuest led this and HârnMaster was a late follower.Perhaps more correctly what I am trying to say is that these early games weren't driven by a clear idea of the player focus of attention during play.  For me, the ideas expressed on The Forge are a real window, here, even though imperfect and frequently misused and abused.  The actual focus of the players as they play the game, even though it is hard to divine accurately, seems like a key to game design objective, to me.  A game that doesn't have its aims clear in this respect will tend to be muddled and conflicted in its rules.  This will not stop groups that have a clear aim of their own from ignoring some rules and changing others to make the ruleset fit their own agenda, but if that group finds (and tries out - marketing is always a factor) a ruleset that genuinely supports their focus-of-play agenda without modification they will, I suggest, take to it immediately.Further to this, once rule sets with coherent agenda support exist, I could see players trying out different agendas, consciously (as I have), and finding that they enjoy different ones.  If we get to this degree of "market self-knowledge", at least for a minority, we could see a sea change in the hobby, I think.I think that was/is more or less inevitable.  The groups/players that actually had a play-focus agenda that fitted 4E suddenly felt at home, but those who had drifted the rules of earlier editions to fit different agendas found the rules suddenly resistant to their accustomed "flexing"; they felt alienated and possibly even betrayed that these new rules "were no longer made for them".  In truth, I don't think the rules had ever been built for them, per se - they were just made "sludgy" enough that they could be "adapted for purpose".  "GM fiat" helps, here, as it is essentially leaving creation of the rules in some areas to the GM.Had 4E been created with a clear agenda of Simulationist support, I think there would have been a similar backlash - but from different people!  Essentially the same situation, but with different roles.  Does that mean I think another "sludgy" D&D would have been better?  No - because that way we would never progress beyond muddled compromise.I don't think you misunderstand, as such, but I have probably only partially made my views clear.  My experience of "focussed games" comes mainly from:D&D 4E - I think this is the first really focussed "gamist supporting" game for the fantasy genre; that it is also the marketing/public consciousness giant in the field has proven both a boon and a curse...HârnMaster - not really modern, per se, but a late "simulationist drift" game that managed it better (IMO) than any of the others.  Many games of this era didn't really have the conceptual tools to know what they were trying to do, I think - but this one came closest, despite that.Primetime Adventures - shows how a game that desires resolution based on aesthetics and drama concerns can/should be made, IMO.  The switch from "GM fiat" to "combined player aesthetic input with randomness" showed me that non-system deterministic resolution could be done without the unpalatable aspects of "GM fiat".  The rest of the system then moulds this to focus on Narrativist play, but I think the "voting chances" aspect has wider applicability in Sim systems, as well.Universalis - shows how world building can be collaborative (and fun!) without a GM.  'Nuff said.Pendragon - like HM, got Sim almost right, but for a specific "high concept" genre.Burning Wheel - a game I really want to play more of, it seems to have interesting ideas in several respects.The Riddle of Steel - a new take on Simulationist/'realistic' mechanics combined with Narrativist supporting "spiritual attributes" (drives, hates, etc.).  I was amused by several "Sim-leaning" GMs who promptly dumped the spiritual attributes as "obviously a dumb addition to a decent core system"!In mainstream games I would agree, but I think that's more a case of "inertia" than anything else.  Many roleplayers, after all, want an easy, light pastime, not a session of analysing their own inner agendas to ascertain the most productive way for them to play.  This, as in other fields, leads to market inertia and marketing led popularity.  That can work well, until something genuinely better cracks the status quo; I may well be wrong, but I think we may be approaching the "tipping point" in that regard. I haven't played SW (though I would love to), but it seems to have some leanings to gamist support, in which case a GM is desirable.  I'm not sure how that works with bennies (handed out by the GM, right?), though.In general, though, I don't think anyone has hit on a real "mother lode" for generic play in one of the three focus-of-play modes accross all play.  4E (most notably for combat) and PTA perhaps come closest, but they are still unpolished and, in the case of PTA, not written to be really generic (yet).  But perhaps we are seeing some mechanisms, and some clear fits with the various requirements, that might mean really coherent rulesets come out soon.  In the meantime, I believe those that exist are better, for their chosen agendas, than the "traditional" and "mainstream" games are - they just don't yet have the "killer app" status needed to break the marketing grip of the older methods yet. No worries - in a field filled with folk making (apparently) absolute statements and "one true way" claims, it's important to remember (and easy to forget) that divining the present and forecasting the future is a notoriously uncertain proposition!Sure - let me try with an example.  It's not so much the GM (alone) challenging the player, but also the players challenging each other while being allied.  What I watch is the social interaction at the table in play; the giving and seeking of kudos, the spontaneous "applause" given by the players.  In this respect, in 4E, I see frequently, in combat encounters, attempts to achieve "gotchas" by the players.  They seek not merely to do optimum damage to foes (though they do that, too), but also to set up "no win" situations for the monsters.  An example:A fighter is adjacent to a monster (a troll) in fairly open ground, and is marking the troll.  The fighter has a flame weapon, but missed the troll on his turn.  The rogue moves into a position flanking the troll with the fighter.  And shoots a crossbow at it.  This sounds mad, but it puts the troll in an unenviable position; it can Opportunity Attack the rogue, obviously, but if it does so it opens itself up to a flaming attack from the fighter - with flanking.  If it does not attack, however, it's going to take a strike from the rogue, with sneak attack damage, flanking (+2) and prime shot (+1).  The rogue's player gets kudos for the setup.  Especially as it has been set up, too, with the warlock; when, predictably, all the trolls gather to hack on the rogue, the warlock does a teleport switch - and then teleports back out in an explosive exit (damaging all the gathered trolls).This is just a very small example - the players are always trying to set up "gotchas" and "ouch!" moments for the monsters - and the monsters occasionally also get one in on the characters.  No detailed knowledge of the DM's predilictions is required - no poring over design choices between sessions (although a certain amount does happen), just an understanding of the game rules, some tactical wits and engagement with the game in play.  These things are all available to any player at any table where 4E is played.Another approach is to set up "killer dungeons", where good tactics are essential if the encounters are to be defeated.  This approach seems a mite pointless, to me, though, since it only really delays things while new characters are created or some sort of Raise Dead effect is organised.  Player rivalry, with encounters challenging enough to make it relevant, works well, for us.  Add in the odd "encounter choice" (e.g. where the players have a clear choice between two challenges - maybe a skill challenge or a combat) and the players can be plenty challenged to use their game knowledge to "win".I'm glad these things work for you.  But they still skew the balance of your game (which may not be an issue for your group).  4E with no skills is a different game; nothing wrong with that, but for some play agendas it would need to be "labelled" as such.  Simpler, then, it seems to me, to just have two games (possibly sharing some core mechanics).Pendragon doesn't have Intelligence, Wisdom or the like, true - but it has a complete profile of "personality" traits.I don't know about "iconoclastic" - I have come to much the same conclusion.  Having "character traits" that are supposed to drive the play of a character is unhelpful; the player should decide the character's conscious/intellectual motivations, the traits just describe how their subconscious habits and limitations restrict their ability to carry through on those fine intentions!  As such, the limitations, where they are represented at all, should be systemic, not subject to player decision.GM fiat is a part of a system sure - but it implies necessarily another part that exists in the GM's mind.  That this part of the system is not visible to the other players can be problematic for certain modes of play, and I can think of no circumstance where it is really useful when applied to action resolution (as opposed to when it is applied to scenario setup or game element definition, when it can be useful).  As such, I dislike GM fiat as an action resolution method.</blockquote>

Verification