Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 6299291" data-attributes="member: 18">This really is not true, howandwhy, and seems very ignorant of well, collaborative storytelling. Storytelling can very easy be collaborative, and competition between players is not a major element of D&amp;D. There is absolutely nothing that puts &quot;a good game&quot; and &quot;a good story&quot; in absolute opposition. There are conflicting elements, but there's a lot of stuff that lines up, too, and it's just dead, plain, wrong to assert that storytelling conflicts with collaboration.Personally, I would suggest that 5E needs to hew closer to game than simulation, simply because complex dice-driven games are terrible at simulation, and attempts to make them better merely make them more and more complex. All you're really doing when you make a very complex simulationist RPG in 2014 is saying &quot;Look, I made a TT game that does what a computer game/sim could do about a hundred times as well and a thousand times as fast!&quot;.You want enough simulationism that it doesn't seem blatantly gamist, that it doesn't actively pull the average player out of the world to think about the metagame aspects, but it should be simplistic, straightforward stuff, and if there is a conflict between simulation and game-fun, the latter should typically win out.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ruin Explorer, post: 6299291, member: 18"] This really is not true, howandwhy, and seems very ignorant of well, collaborative storytelling. Storytelling can very easy be collaborative, and competition between players is not a major element of D&D. There is absolutely nothing that puts "a good game" and "a good story" in absolute opposition. There are conflicting elements, but there's a lot of stuff that lines up, too, and it's just dead, plain, wrong to assert that storytelling conflicts with collaboration. Personally, I would suggest that 5E needs to hew closer to game than simulation, simply because complex dice-driven games are terrible at simulation, and attempts to make them better merely make them more and more complex. All you're really doing when you make a very complex simulationist RPG in 2014 is saying "Look, I made a TT game that does what a computer game/sim could do about a hundred times as well and a thousand times as fast!". You want enough simulationism that it doesn't seem blatantly gamist, that it doesn't actively pull the average player out of the world to think about the metagame aspects, but it should be simplistic, straightforward stuff, and if there is a conflict between simulation and game-fun, the latter should typically win out. [/QUOTE]

Verification