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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Revinor" data-source="post: 4112993" data-attributes="member: 25037">Maybe we should get some common vocabulary first. Excerpts from wikipedia on GNS theory<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Gamist refers to decisions based on what will most effectively solve the problem posed. These decisions are most common in games which pit characters against successively tougher challenges and opponents, and may not spend much time explaining why the characters are facing them. </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Narrativist refers to decisions based on what would best further a dramatic story or address a central theme.To resolve combat, a narrativist approach might be to consider the thematic implications of the fight, why the fight is important to the characters involved in it (beyond the obvious risk of harm), and what the story would look like if one side or the other won out. </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Simulationist Simulationist refers to decisions based on what would be most realistic or plausible within the game's setting, or to a game where the rules try to simulate the way that things work in that world, or at least the way that they could be thought of working.</li> </ul>Before we go further, please remember that none of those styles is superior or inferior to others. Also, every game can be completely houseruled into anything, questions is about focus of the system as it is presented in books.It is very clear that according to this definition D&D has nothing to do with Narrativist type of play. Narrating actions has nothing to do with Narrativist gameplay - key here is trying to resolve the complications by looking at how the outcomes are fitting in the game we want to have, not by comparing Athletics versus DC number.D&D fits very well for Gamist style of play. Min/maxing combat decisions, creating encounters to provide challenges, instead of telling a story or making a world believable - these are all trademarks of gamism.As far as simulationism is concerned, it is probably bit there, but not too heavy. D&D was always quite abstract in many aspects, but especially in 4e, designers have focused on fun over realism. If you browse Worlds&Monsters book, almost every sidebar is full of "Is it realistic? Yes. Is it fun? No. So let's change it". My first D&D was AD&D 2nd ed and I can clearly see movement from simulation to gamism/fun over the following editions - with 4e seeming to reach the target finally.So, in my interpretation, 4e is 80% gamist, 15% simulationist and maybe 5% narrativist in some corner cases (like handling total-party-kill in story mode "you got captured" instead of rolling new characters).Once again - it is not bad. I'm expecting D&D to be like that. I want my party to defeat the dragon based on their tactics/powers/gear, not on how cool it will be to have the dragon dead. I don't want to have TPK just because somebody pulled wrong rope and dropped tons of rock on their heads.Other question is how much 4e is a gamist RPG and how much it is gamist boardgame - but this subject is already mentioned in many other threads.</blockquote>

Verification