Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 9315409" data-attributes="member: 42582">No, of course not. I mean, GURPS is classic purist-for-system, and can be drifted neo-trad only in the way that RM might also be - namely, by leaning heavily into the scope for character definition via the intricate PC build rules, and largely ignoring or overriding the resolution rules as presented.3E is not a game that I feel close to, or would play in any serious fashion. To me it seems to combine gamist PC building with largely high concept simulationist or exploration-heavy gamist play, but without any of the technical innovations that characterise games oriented towards neo-trad play. In Forgist term, this is not a matter of agenda but of what the Forge would call "ephemera", search-and-handling, etc.As do I. Hence why I think (say) DW can be played both "story now" and "neotrad".Likewise, Burning Wheel - probably my favourite FRPG - has PC build mechanics that are redolent of classic purist-for-system design. In that respect it resembles The Riddle of Steel. <a href="http://www.indie-rpgs.com/reviews/4/" target="_blank">As Ron Edwards said</a>,Realism, so-called, was supposed to be the foundation for heroic, mythic tale-creation. However, without metagame mechanics or any other mechanisms regarding protagonism, the realism-Sim took over, and RuneQuest became, essentially, a wargame at the individual level. . . . One functional solution to the problem, as illustrated for just about every Narrativist game out there, is to move combat mechanics very far into the metagame realm: Sorcerer, Castle Falkenstein, The Dying Earth, Zero, Orkworld, Hero Wars, and The Pool take that road to various distances, and it works. Until recently, I would have said these and similar designs presented the only functional solution from a Narrativism-first perspective. However, The Riddle of Steel is like a guy waving his hand in the back of the room -"Scuse me, scuse me, what about that first road? I'm not ready to jettison that idea yet." It's as if someone stepped into The Chaosium in 1977, and said, "Hey, you know, if you don't put some kind of player-modulated personality mechanic in there, this game is going to be all about killing monsters and collecting Clacks." This didn't happen in 1977, and that's why RuneQuest play was often indeed all about those things. But it's happened now . . .It's no coincidence, in my view, that Jake Norwood has written the foreword to BW Gold; nor that <a href="https://forum.rpg.net/index.php?threads/rpg-burning-wheel-revised-reviewed-by-dan-davenport-4-4.309475/" target="_blank">a RPG.net reviewer</a> summarised BW as "If you’ve ever wanted to combine the powerful emotions and epic grandeur of Lord of the Rings with the brutally detailed combat of RuneQuest, then boy, do I have the game for you".Yet purist-for-system engines are built around it!</blockquote>

Verification