Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 8653766" data-attributes="member: 42582">I played Rolemaster as my main game for 19 years, 4 or 5 of which were after I read Edwards on purist-for-system simulationism.In that 19 years I ran two campaigns. One lasted from 1990 to 1997, the other from 1998 to 2008. The first eventually collapsed. The second was brought to a terrific conclusion (if I do say so myself). I couldn't have pulled that off without having read Edwards or other RPG authors/commentators that he pointed me to (like Paul Czege).The idea that only someone who didn't like purist-for-system play would find Edwards insightful is just wrong. His analysis is brilliant. I was fairly active on the ICE forums around the same time I first read Edwards. The comparison in degree of insight was mindblowing. And frankly your assumption that because I like Edwards I must hate and sneer at purist-for-system RPGing is a bit insulting.I also don't mind the odd bit of classic D&amp;D - and certainly enjoy it more since I've been able to work out what it's about, which I was able to do by rereading Pulsipher and Gygax informed by Edwards - but it's not my favourite and I'm not very good at it. But I'm trying my hand at Torchbearer, which is unabashedly a &quot;gamist&quot; RPG in Edwards sense, and which I wouldn't be able to GM if I hadn't read Edwards.As far as high-concept simulationism is concerned, Edwards in my view also explains very well why I enjoy a well-GMed session of CoC but find AD&amp;D 2nd ed a mostly frustrating experience.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 8653766, member: 42582"] I played Rolemaster as my main game for 19 years, 4 or 5 of which were after I read Edwards on purist-for-system simulationism. In that 19 years I ran two campaigns. One lasted from 1990 to 1997, the other from 1998 to 2008. The first eventually collapsed. The second was brought to a terrific conclusion (if I do say so myself). I couldn't have pulled that off without having read Edwards or other RPG authors/commentators that he pointed me to (like Paul Czege). The idea that only someone who didn't like purist-for-system play would find Edwards insightful is just wrong. His analysis is brilliant. I was fairly active on the ICE forums around the same time I first read Edwards. The comparison in degree of insight was mindblowing. And frankly your assumption that because I like Edwards I must hate and sneer at purist-for-system RPGing is a bit insulting. I also don't mind the odd bit of classic D&D - and certainly enjoy it more since I've been able to work out what it's about, which I was able to do by rereading Pulsipher and Gygax informed by Edwards - but it's not my favourite and I'm not very good at it. But I'm trying my hand at Torchbearer, which is unabashedly a "gamist" RPG in Edwards sense, and which I wouldn't be able to GM if I hadn't read Edwards. As far as high-concept simulationism is concerned, Edwards in my view also explains very well why I enjoy a well-GMed session of CoC but find AD&D 2nd ed a mostly frustrating experience. [/QUOTE]

Verification