Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="tomBitonti" data-source="post: 4020216" data-attributes="member: 13107">Some IdeasI've not played in a narrative game, so I don't feel qualified to comment on such games.&nbsp; (But see below, as narration is an important part of my games.)For &quot;Simulationist&quot;, I view games that create a model, then have players basically run through that model, with little game master intervention.&nbsp; That is, strictly and fully modelled.For &quot;Gamist&quot;, I view games that immerse players in more or less abstract &quot;Games&quot; that do little to convey any kind of realistic scenario.As for &quot;Realism&quot;, I discount this as an actual goal and insteal look to &quot;verisimilitude&quot; and &quot;immersion&quot;.&nbsp; I want to be able to take myself outside of the specific rules and describe a scenario -- using a simple narrative description -- and have the players imagine what their characters would do -- again using simple descriptions, then have the game evolve an outcome that the players have fun with, and believe.&nbsp; Within this outlook, I look for the rules to be sound &quot;arbitrators&quot; of the outcome.&nbsp; The rules provide a common framework so that I can play the game with my friends, and add in both structure and uncertainty.From this point of view, all of the rules have to &quot;make sense&quot;.&nbsp; This seems best captured as being &quot;non-arbitrary&quot; and &quot;amenable to interpolation&quot;.&nbsp; For example, the rule on no rings until 10'th level.&nbsp; That sounds like legacy weapons, only applied to rings.&nbsp; So, the basic idea is sound.&nbsp; But it breaks down in the interpolation part.&nbsp; There ought to be some &quot;1/2&quot; power ring that can be worn at 5'th level.&nbsp; Or, there ought to be more classes of items, not just rings, that have this sort of limitation.&nbsp; Having just the rule with rings, and with hard points that magically map to the range of available levels, feels a bit arbitrary.If we look at another rule, the 5' step.&nbsp; That is a little odd, but one can picture that while you are engaged with an enemy in a sword fight, you ought to be able to adjust your position a little.&nbsp; The rule is a little arbitrary, but it has a sense to it that makes it acceptable.Now, let me imagine an ability that wreathes your sword in flame when you get a critical on an opponent, and not provide any background reason for it.&nbsp; That to me sounds gamist.&nbsp; You can have a fun game using that as a rule, but without some grounding, the rule doesn't fit into role playing.&nbsp; This gets at a fundamental aspect of role playing, which is that it must tie to some imaginable explanation.&nbsp; If you added the rule to balance the fighter against mages, but provided no explanation, that's gamist.&nbsp; On the other hand, the fighter was a member of a desert tribe devoted to the sacred phoenix, who had imbued their weapon with the sacred fire of the phoenix, then the ability makes sense.&nbsp; (But has become a specialized class ability and a magical one.)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="tomBitonti, post: 4020216, member: 13107"] [b]Some Ideas[/b] I've not played in a narrative game, so I don't feel qualified to comment on such games. (But see below, as narration is an important part of my games.) For "Simulationist", I view games that create a model, then have players basically run through that model, with little game master intervention. That is, strictly and fully modelled. For "Gamist", I view games that immerse players in more or less abstract "Games" that do little to convey any kind of realistic scenario. As for "Realism", I discount this as an actual goal and insteal look to "verisimilitude" and "immersion". I want to be able to take myself outside of the specific rules and describe a scenario -- using a simple narrative description -- and have the players imagine what their characters would do -- again using simple descriptions, then have the game evolve an outcome that the players have fun with, and believe. Within this outlook, I look for the rules to be sound "arbitrators" of the outcome. The rules provide a common framework so that I can play the game with my friends, and add in both structure and uncertainty. From this point of view, all of the rules have to "make sense". This seems best captured as being "non-arbitrary" and "amenable to interpolation". For example, the rule on no rings until 10'th level. That sounds like legacy weapons, only applied to rings. So, the basic idea is sound. But it breaks down in the interpolation part. There ought to be some "1/2" power ring that can be worn at 5'th level. Or, there ought to be more classes of items, not just rings, that have this sort of limitation. Having just the rule with rings, and with hard points that magically map to the range of available levels, feels a bit arbitrary. If we look at another rule, the 5' step. That is a little odd, but one can picture that while you are engaged with an enemy in a sword fight, you ought to be able to adjust your position a little. The rule is a little arbitrary, but it has a sense to it that makes it acceptable. Now, let me imagine an ability that wreathes your sword in flame when you get a critical on an opponent, and not provide any background reason for it. That to me sounds gamist. You can have a fun game using that as a rule, but without some grounding, the rule doesn't fit into role playing. This gets at a fundamental aspect of role playing, which is that it must tie to some imaginable explanation. If you added the rule to balance the fighter against mages, but provided no explanation, that's gamist. On the other hand, the fighter was a member of a desert tribe devoted to the sacred phoenix, who had imbued their weapon with the sacred fire of the phoenix, then the ability makes sense. (But has become a specialized class ability and a magical one.) [/QUOTE]

Verification