Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 4019600" data-attributes="member: 42582">Again, I have to disagree. NPC class rules are really a simulationsit device, an attempt to reconcile PC heroism with an assumption that the PC build rules actually model an in-game process. What NPC classes do is articulate what that process is for the rest of the world.4e is adopting a more clearly narrativist (or gamist) approach to NPC build, by dropping the assumption that NPCs use the PC build rules at all. A consequence of this is that the PC build rules cannot be understood as modelling any in-game process. Hence, the death of simulation (TM).But you leave out the most important point: narrativism secures the right of the players to make choices that affect the gameworld. A game in which the GM explains to the players how their PCs are heroes and protagonists is not narrativist, it is simulationist (in the extreme, simulationist rail-roading).It is a sign of the entrenched status of simulationist thinging that many people have difficulty drawing this sort of distinction between the player and the PC.I don't have SWSE, but what you say fits with my understanding of its rules and approach.I think that the same set of rules can (at least tolerably) support both gamism and narrativism (4e, I'm looking at you!).Supporting gamism and simulationism is also possible, if the rules are intricate enough in their simulationist mechanics to allow meaningful player choices, or if the gamism happens in a part of the game that is not mechanically regulated. RM is an example of the first. AD&D, espcially 1st ed, is an example of the second. RQ or classic Traveller are both games which are highly simulationist, and which I would think it is very hard to play in a gamist fashion (as the rules simply don't have the complexity to facilitate "winning" or "losing" choices).I think it's hard to have a set of mechanics that are both simulationist and narrativist, because any action resolution mechanics that give the players narrative control will almost certainly jar with the simulationist goal. One way to get around this is to locate the narrativist mechanics purely in the character build rules, where even serious simulationists tend to be more tolerant of purely metagame devices (RQ and classic Traveller are the only mainstream RPGs I can think of which completely eschew metagame character build). For idiosynchratic reasons I have GMed RM in this fashion for a long time - but it has only worked in an environment with a lot of player trust that if they send a signal to the GM via character build, the GM will pick up on it in the course of play.Maybe. But it also (like wargaming) had gamist goals as well - in particular, exploiting the physics of the world in order to be a better player is an evident goal of play. As per my response to Lanefan, and also my observation earlier in this post, I think AD&D is somewhat peculiar in locating its gamist elements primarily outside of, rather than within, its mechanics.Following Ron Edwards, can I nominate Tunnels and Trolls? Interestingly, 4e seems to be developing at least on T&T-ism: you build an encounter just by bundling together the right number of XP (just as in T&T you build an encounter just by bundling together the right number of monster dice).You need to rewarch Crouching Tiger - it's the Jade Destiny!As Apoptosis said, narrativists tend to need a rather definite set of rules - or, at least, need there NOT to be de-protagonising rules (such as Alignment, Force Points, Personality Disadvantages, etc). Thus, no earlier edition of D&D has helped them (due to alignment) and nor does WoD, I don't think (as it has de-protagonising Humanity rules).As I noted above, a particular sort of simulationist ruleset can be used, especially if it allows metagaming in character build. But (from long experience) I know that it is much easier to achieve narrativist goals if the players actually have metagame action-resolution mechanics that they can use.Agreed.</blockquote>

Verification