Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 4017679" data-attributes="member: 42582">It would be RQ, I think.I think 1st ed AD&amp;D was primarily gamist, but with the nature of the challenge (surviving and propsering in dungeon exploration) and the scale over which success or failure was determined (timescale: the campaign; character scale: not the single PC, but a whole suit of PCs, henchmen, hirelings etc per player, and with party success probably more important also than in later playstyles) being very different from subsequent approaches to play. In the 1st ed AD&amp;D, Gygax has a discussion of time which Ron Edwards cites as an example of simulationism, but read closely it really seems to be a gamist device, intended to make time in the campaign another useful resource that players can exploit more or less well.I think that 2nd ed really was the peak of incoherence in D&amp;D, with a game promising gamist (or perhaps narrativist) fun delivering (at least in the official modules and gameworlds) simulationist-heavy exploration of someone else's world (either the designers' or the GM's). In light of this, I don't think that it's a coincidence that 2nd ed produced so many spin-offs and supplements - each of them can be seen as an attempt to render the game more coherent for some set of play preferences or other.3rd ed is pretty clearly gamist in overall intent, with a strong simulationist chassis helping it get there - where it goes wrong is with marginal aspects of the rules (like drowning, weather etc) which weren't properly thought through, and more importantly where legacies of previous editions were not thoroughly revisited through the lens of coherence. 4e is now doing that.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 4017679, member: 42582"] It would be RQ, I think. I think 1st ed AD&D was primarily gamist, but with the nature of the challenge (surviving and propsering in dungeon exploration) and the scale over which success or failure was determined (timescale: the campaign; character scale: not the single PC, but a whole suit of PCs, henchmen, hirelings etc per player, and with party success probably more important also than in later playstyles) being very different from subsequent approaches to play. In the 1st ed AD&D, Gygax has a discussion of time which Ron Edwards cites as an example of simulationism, but read closely it really seems to be a gamist device, intended to make time in the campaign another useful resource that players can exploit more or less well. I think that 2nd ed really was the peak of incoherence in D&D, with a game promising gamist (or perhaps narrativist) fun delivering (at least in the official modules and gameworlds) simulationist-heavy exploration of someone else's world (either the designers' or the GM's). In light of this, I don't think that it's a coincidence that 2nd ed produced so many spin-offs and supplements - each of them can be seen as an attempt to render the game more coherent for some set of play preferences or other. 3rd ed is pretty clearly gamist in overall intent, with a strong simulationist chassis helping it get there - where it goes wrong is with marginal aspects of the rules (like drowning, weather etc) which weren't properly thought through, and more importantly where legacies of previous editions were not thoroughly revisited through the lens of coherence. 4e is now doing that. [/QUOTE]

Verification