Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ragnar_Deerslayer" data-source="post: 1206890" data-attributes="member: 11990">I like your distinction and I have to agree with you.&nbsp; One of the things that bothered me about the Forge's distinction between Gamist and Narrativist gameplay is that too often you wound up being forced to choose between the two.I like crunchy rules for character creation and combat, but I'm not interested in merely wargaming.I also like a good story, with well-developed personalities for the characters and an intricate plotline, but I don't feel comfortable with the vagueness and subjectiveness that plagues many &quot;rules-lite&quot; narrativist games.I think that high drama can come from tactical battles where the DM lets the dice fall where they may.&nbsp; Unfortunately, this often leads to character death, which is sometimes (but not always) dramatically appropriate.&nbsp; And this one reason why I like D&amp;D:&nbsp; resurrection is always possible, although (through cost and scarcity) by no means guaranteed.Metagaming just comes naturally.&nbsp; It's hard to keep from using outside knowledge to help play the game, especially in combat, where your character's life is on the line.&nbsp; That's why I like your &quot;in-game justification&quot; idea.&nbsp; It allows the best of both worlds:&nbsp; the players can make gameplay decisions in combat based on their knowledge of the rules, but to use it, they have to get &quot;in character&quot; and justify it.&nbsp; They can make roleplaying decisions based on what would be &quot;dramatically appropriate&quot; according to the story as a whole, but must justify it from the limited perspective of their character.&nbsp; This synergy is hard to beat.Ragnar</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ragnar_Deerslayer, post: 1206890, member: 11990"] I like your distinction and I have to agree with you. One of the things that bothered me about the Forge's distinction between Gamist and Narrativist gameplay is that too often you wound up being forced to choose between the two. I like crunchy rules for character creation and combat, but I'm not interested in merely wargaming. I also like a good story, with well-developed personalities for the characters and an intricate plotline, but I don't feel comfortable with the vagueness and subjectiveness that plagues many "rules-lite" narrativist games. I think that high drama can come from tactical battles where the DM lets the dice fall where they may. Unfortunately, this often leads to character death, which is sometimes (but not always) dramatically appropriate. And this one reason why I like D&D: resurrection is always possible, although (through cost and scarcity) by no means guaranteed. Metagaming just comes naturally. It's hard to keep from using outside knowledge to help play the game, especially in combat, where your character's life is on the line. That's why I like your "in-game justification" idea. It allows the best of both worlds: the players can make gameplay decisions in combat based on their knowledge of the rules, but to use it, they have to get "in character" and justify it. They can make roleplaying decisions based on what would be "dramatically appropriate" according to the story as a whole, but must justify it from the limited perspective of their character. This synergy is hard to beat. Ragnar [/QUOTE]

Verification