Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5461363" data-attributes="member: 42582">Sure. But I also sometimes feel that some of the 4e critics are saying &quot;4e is a bad game&quot; when maybe what they really mean is &quot;non-simulationist games are bad games&quot; or even &quot;I don't like non-simulationist games&quot;.It's like the &quot;balanced encounters&quot; line in your sig - if I understand it right (in the context of your many posts on and around the issue) you are objecting to &quot;balanced encounters&quot; as interfering with the fiction, because they make the fiction - the gameworld - serve the game. (I assume that you also dislike the idea of the pass/fail cycle in HeroQuest - restated by Robin Laws also in 4e's DMG2 - on similar grounds.)I entirely agree that 4e makes metagame take a predominant place that it doesn't in (eg) 3E. The key is to not let this undermine the place of the fiction, but instead to make this serve the fiction - only because it is metagame-driven fiction, the role of those at the table is more like &quot;creators&quot; and less like &quot;discoverers&quot;. (Of coures, if the creation is at least partly sub-conscious, there can be the experience of the creation &quot;writing itself&quot;.) The GM, in particular, in running the gameworld, is asking less of &quot;what should happend now, given how the world is&quot; and more of &quot;what should happen now, given how the people at the game table are&quot;. But in good non-simulationist play, the players will still be responding to &quot;what is happening now in the gameworld&quot;. And I think that's what makes it an RPG, and makes it different from an MMO.Thanks - good link. It also gives me a better handle on some aspects of your 4e hack.I found the discussion in the comments about using risk rather than resources to pay for advantage. If I understood it right, this is how I tend to run p 42 - risks in exchange for advantage.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 5461363, member: 42582"] Sure. But I also sometimes feel that some of the 4e critics are saying "4e is a bad game" when maybe what they really mean is "non-simulationist games are bad games" or even "I don't like non-simulationist games". It's like the "balanced encounters" line in your sig - if I understand it right (in the context of your many posts on and around the issue) you are objecting to "balanced encounters" as interfering with the fiction, because they make the fiction - the gameworld - serve the game. (I assume that you also dislike the idea of the pass/fail cycle in HeroQuest - restated by Robin Laws also in 4e's DMG2 - on similar grounds.) I entirely agree that 4e makes metagame take a predominant place that it doesn't in (eg) 3E. The key is to not let this undermine the place of the fiction, but instead to make this serve the fiction - only because it is metagame-driven fiction, the role of those at the table is more like "creators" and less like "discoverers". (Of coures, if the creation is at least partly sub-conscious, there can be the experience of the creation "writing itself".) The GM, in particular, in running the gameworld, is asking less of "what should happend now, given how the world is" and more of "what should happen now, given how the people at the game table are". But in good non-simulationist play, the players will still be responding to "what is happening now in the gameworld". And I think that's what makes it an RPG, and makes it different from an MMO. Thanks - good link. It also gives me a better handle on some aspects of your 4e hack. I found the discussion in the comments about using risk rather than resources to pay for advantage. If I understood it right, this is how I tend to run p 42 - risks in exchange for advantage. [/QUOTE]

Verification