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: 5675430" data-attributes="member: 27160">Yeah, I remember some of the original DNS discussions on rgfa, but the GNS of The Forge really is not directly related to that, despite the (confusingly similar) terms.  GNS really is a laser-like focus on what the players (feel they) are doing in the game.  What is their aim, moment to moment, is the question.  Given this, I find it difficult to see how you can have a "balanced mix" - maybe overall you would like to do "all things, a bit", but at any moment you can only be aiming at one.  Perhaps dividing play up (into combat, exploration, social navigation and overall planning, perhaps?) and aiming at different types of goals in each could work, but I still feel it might seem a bit "jerky" or "clunky" - sort of like a film where the cinematography style changes from time to time.In practice, I think every group arrives at a player focus of their own; they then 'drift' the rules (by ignoring some rules and adding houserules) to support what they are doing.My own conclusion at present is that there is no "correct way", so tastes and preferences are natural and perfectly valid.  It's more a case, for me, of "horses for courses"; different styles of play, different "agendas" (and even "sub-agendas", going beyond the basic GNS divisions), require different approaches and mechanisms.Indeed - this should apply to all. It certainly supports a gamist agenda well, yes; whether this was a deliberate design aim I have no idea.  It also supports Narrativism to a degree, as [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] has shown.  The real loser, I think, is Simulationism.Wikipedia says the original "Law" books were released 1980-1982, so your memory is good <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />I think most gamers don't think of GNS agendas at all, but have a habitual preferences, including a focus for attention during play, that they think of as "natural" and possibly even "universal".  They therefore discard rules that "don't make sense" (i.e. don't fit their preferred agenda or other preferences) and add ones that do "make sense".  A system that suits them, therefore, is one that is amenable to "drifting" in this way.  Unfortunately, that means it isn't, as it stands unaltered, much good at anything.  Even with drifting it doesn't become that good at supporting any one agenda, it just becomes tolerable.  When a "tuned" system comes along, therefore, it simultaneously delights those whose "natural" agenda aligns with the focus chosen and appals those who now find it far harder to 'drift' the system to suit their own preference.I think you may well be right, there, but the designers had to consider the engine they were starting with.  I think that several of the features considered inherent to "core D&D" are essentially supportive of a gamist focus in play.  Levels and experience points, hit points, armour class and action (rather than conflict) resolution systems all lean broadly towards supporting a gamist drive.  I think, for D&D, gamist supporting was the logical choice; sadly, many were using D&D to support essentially Simulationist agendas, despite the dubious fit.I think all of the GNS agendas have the potential to be a lot less niche than they are currently - each covers a lot of ground in terms of "variants", in fact.  To some extent I think everybody has a GNS agenda - even if they don't think of it in those terms (and, after all, why should they?).  It's a bit like Myers-Briggs Type Indicators in that way; the fact that you might never even have heard of them doesn't prevent you having one.  The usefulness of knowing what yours is and what that means is open to debate - for both MBTI and GNS preference - but all I can say is that I have found understanding to be useful in both cases.As to the split caused by 4E, that was, sadly, predictable and inevitable, I think.  You might argue that it could have been avoidable, but I think that it would fit the description given by Von Clauswitz about war: "War cannot be avoided, it can only be delayed and, if you choose to delay it, is usually delayed to the advantage of your enemy".  Eventually, I think, the split had to happen, as soon as a "mainstream" game with a single agenda focus came along."Minions" I think has been around for some while - Bushido's "Extras" were the first I am aware of.I am keen to try SW, as I said - I get the impression it is broadly Simulationist (for action-adventure "reality"), but I'm by no means sure on that.I don't think in 4E it is like "read the monster manual" (although you could do that, as well), because it's less about knowing "facts" about the game than grasping the "coup d'oeil" - spotting where the systems may be used to advantage and seizing upon that.  It's not so much a learning of "standard tricks" (although, again, that is possible) as of seeing the opportunity for new ones.  There are so many opportunities for such rules interactions that the scope for new "gotchas" may even be unending.DQ is a great system, yes.  If you want Sim D&D I think DQ does a really good job of it - I converted all manner of D&D monsters to the DQ system and had great fun with it.  I think I still have a conversion of the old White Dwarf adventure "Irilian" for it, somewhere.If arbitration of existing rules is all that is subject to fiat, it wouldn't bother me.  The sticking point is the GM deciding success or failure as a rule.  In this case, the GM will be using some set of criteria or mechanisms in his or her head that are invisible to the players and (unavoidably) biased.  If such criteria are logical I would rather have the logic written down; if they are aesthetic I would rather the aesthetic judgement was more democratic.We would go with the GM deciding an interpretation on the spot and a debate about a long term "fix" afterwards.  4E has been exceptionally good at not having many of these.  Not that it has had none, but compared to other systems it has had few and the developers have been fairly good at rectifying them.This isn't really a case of "GM fiat" that I object to; the fact is that there is a rule - it's just ambiguous or poorly worded.  Where I dislike it is when there is no rule - or, rather, the rule is "the GM makes up the rules and applies them without the players knowing what they are".I think you misunderstand me.  What I am saying is that the GM, in making the judgement calls required by the written system, must use some criteria of some sort.  We don't really have a "random selector" in our brains, we select based on some sort of criteria - generally either logical or aesthetic in nature.  This is what I am saying is "the system" - the criteria used by the GM in making the selection.  This "system" might be perfectly good as a game system, even - my objection to it is that (a) if it is logical in nature it is hidden from the players and (b) if it is aesthetic in nature it is limited to the tastes of one player in the group.Neither of these are decisive objections, but they do explain, I think, why I dislike GM adjudication as a game mechanism.  If you are comfortable with GM 'fiat' as a resolution mechanism, knowing the consequences, then I bow to your preference - I simply do not share it.</blockquote>

Verification