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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5586926" data-attributes="member: 42582">Vespucci, good stuff.This is classic incoherent stuff - and it occurs in so many RPG texts that the Forge has a name for it - "the impossible thing before breakfast".The advice in the same book on running skill challenges points in favour of the bit about the story being the players'. The advice in the same book on scenario design points in favour of the game being a GM-driven railroad.I would like to think that WotC could try and clear this up, but they have conflicting interests - between giving coherent guidance to players of their game, and selling scenarios that are primarily about railroading.This makes sense - Paizo is, after all, in the business of selling adventure paths, ie predetermined stories. (Interestingly, though, I think Pathfinder would more often be labelled old school than is D&D, despite this much less unambiguous guidance to GMs. This is one reason why I think new school/old school is not a very illuminating contrast.)Of the story-oriented play that Pulsipher identifes, some is clearly simulationist (the players experiencing the GM's story) while the more gonzo stuff could be either very high concept simulationist, or wacky light-hearted narrativism.Pulsipher himself clearly like a very heavy simulatonist platform to support his gamism.If I've read you right, you're presenting this as old school.But it could equally describe the GMing advice in narrativist games like Maelstrom Storytelling, Burning Wheel etc - which, presumably, are new school (or, at least, not old school).What it does seem to me to contrast with is railroading play (what the Forge, as you note, calls High Concept Simulationism) of the Dragonlance/Vampire/AD&D 2nd ed variety.My conclusion (which may be in agreement with you - I'm having trouble following the precise argument of your posts) is that old school/new school on its own is not a very adequate or precise contrast.Because while modern narrativist games give the same GMing advice as that which I have quoted from you, I think it's pretty clear that they aimed at producing a different play experience from a lot of classic D&D play.I think that Crazy Jerome is closer to the truth here - where I'd quibble is with his use of "illusionism" as a euphemism for "lying".I think illusionism is better used to describe a type of consensual GM-guided play, in which the players - by immersing themselves in the colour of their PCs and the gameworld - wilfully blind themselves to the plot-manipulation in which the GM is engaged. The seeming popularity of so much 2nd ed campaign and adventure material suggests that this approach to play is (bizarrely, to my mind) very popular. The continuing successful publication of adventure paths for D&D is further evidence for the same conclusion.But I can't accept that all these players are being tricked/lied to. They must want the GM to direct the story.</blockquote>

Verification