Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 8659923" data-attributes="member: 42582">I think this is why Edwards distinguishes categories of simulation based on how the participants set about ordering an implementing their conceptions.In purist-for-system play, system - <a href="http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/2/" target="_blank">&quot;a means by which in-game events are determined to occur&quot;</a> - is prioritised. The ambition is that the system, in operation, will generate the setting, situations and characters that the participants want to enjoy imagining. In various ways Classic Traveller, RQ, RM and Champions all aspire to this.In high concept play, one (or sometimes more) of character, situation and/or setting is prioritised as the object of exploration, and system is subordinated: <a href="http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/15/" target="_blank">&quot;The formula starts with one of Character, Situation, or Setting, with lots of Color, then the other two (Character, Situation, or Setting, whichever weren't in first place), with System being last in priority.&quot;</a>GM decision-making or &quot;suspending&quot; of the rules is part and parcel of high concept play, precisely because a consistent and &quot;pure&quot; means for determining what happens is not a high priority. And we can easily see this borne out in many discussions about how to GM D&amp;D, how to GM CoC, etc.Part of the cleverness of a system like Fate or GUMSHOE is that it reconciles a consistent means with the prioritisation of character (FATE) or situation (GUMSHOE). I don't think this is as fundamental a pivot as AW (that we were discussing not far above), but I think these systems deserve recognition for having squared an important RPGing circle.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 8659923, member: 42582"] I think this is why Edwards distinguishes categories of simulation based on how the participants set about ordering an implementing their conceptions. In purist-for-system play, system - [url=http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/2/]"a means by which in-game events are determined to occur"[/url] - is prioritised. The ambition is that the system, in operation, will generate the setting, situations and characters that the participants want to enjoy imagining. In various ways Classic Traveller, RQ, RM and Champions all aspire to this. In high concept play, one (or sometimes more) of character, situation and/or setting is prioritised as the object of exploration, and system is subordinated: [url=http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/15/]"The formula starts with one of Character, Situation, or Setting, with lots of Color, then the other two (Character, Situation, or Setting, whichever weren't in first place), with System being last in priority."[/url] GM decision-making or "suspending" of the rules is part and parcel of high concept play, precisely because a consistent and "pure" means for determining what happens is not a high priority. And we can easily see this borne out in many discussions about how to GM D&D, how to GM CoC, etc. Part of the cleverness of a system like Fate or GUMSHOE is that it reconciles a consistent means with the prioritisation of character (FATE) or situation (GUMSHOE). I don't think this is as fundamental a pivot as AW (that we were discussing not far above), but I think these systems deserve recognition for having squared an important RPGing circle. [/QUOTE]

Verification