Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5615739" data-attributes="member: 42582">Yes. It was used to try to contrast high-concept simulationism with narrativism.What you're describing here is (in Forge terms) purist-for-system simulationist play.I think mechanics can be important, but are a secondary issue - you can play narrativist Rolemaster (I know, I've done it) but you will find some of the action resolution mechanics getting in the way.The rationale for the roll-to-minionize (which I see as an application of page 42) was that the real conflict here wasn't a combat one. The ingame time pressure from the collapsing temple wasn't a factor, but the real life, at-the-table fact that we were focusing on the escape rather than a combat was a big factor.The lack of page 42 or comparable mechanics in Rolemaster is one of the ways its action resolution mechanics can be sub-optimal for narrativist play, where - at least as my game works - keeping the conflicts in mind is important (because if you don't, you can get caught up in all the mechanical minutiae of a game like 4e or Rolemaster).Of course you're right that the collapsing temple is a genre piece. But what, for me, marks the contrast between narrativism and high concept simulationism, is that the genre piece is a backdrop against which the players do their thing, rather than the point.Is this where you see the spectrum idea coming in?For me, once (b) is the focus, and alignment/genre conventions are not governing the answer to it, you've started to move from high concept to narrativism.I'm a big fan of drifting! (Although I think the drifting required to run narrativist 4e is very very minimal.)</blockquote>

Verification