Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ratskinner" data-source="post: 6240709" data-attributes="member: 6688937">4e the least gamist? I know you run it fairly narrative, pem, and maybe it is (or can be run as) the &quot;most narrativist&quot; but that's not really the same thing as &quot;least gamist&quot;. I'd look to 3e, where that funky not-quite-simulationist vibe seemed to bury everything else, if I was looking for &quot;least gamist&quot;. No disrespect intended, but the bits of 4e which I would consider narrativist are fairly compartmentalized from the vast pile of combat powers, etc. Ignore them, and it can play in a very gamist mode. Much more so than 3e, IME. &nbsp;It is, OTOH &amp; IMO, a very different flavor of gamism than that which is represented by more traditional Gygaxian play. In this case, success is not necessarily being defined merely by survival through a nightmarish gauntlet full of horrid puns and shout-outs to elements of pre-80's Midwestern Geek culture. Rather, the players have or encounter a multitude of lesser opportunities to show off their niftyness through the application of their suites of complicated powers vs. opponents who have similar, if less multitudinous, arrays of powers to utilize (shout-outs to culture, Midwestern or otherwise, optional).I'm not so confident that that's directly the lesson to be inferred from 4e's....history. That is, I'm not sure that it was a commercial failure (although perhaps less of a success than hoped), but that may not be as important as the fragmenting effect it had on the audience.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ratskinner, post: 6240709, member: 6688937"] 4e the least gamist? I know you run it fairly narrative, pem, and maybe it is (or can be run as) the "most narrativist" but that's not really the same thing as "least gamist". I'd look to 3e, where that funky not-quite-simulationist vibe seemed to bury everything else, if I was looking for "least gamist". No disrespect intended, but the bits of 4e which I would consider narrativist are fairly compartmentalized from the vast pile of combat powers, etc. Ignore them, and it can play in a [I]very[/I] gamist mode. Much more so than 3e, IME. It is, OTOH & IMO, a very different flavor of gamism than that which is represented by more traditional Gygaxian play. In this case, success is not necessarily being defined merely by survival through a nightmarish gauntlet full of horrid puns and shout-outs to elements of pre-80's Midwestern Geek culture. Rather, the players have or encounter a multitude of lesser opportunities to show off their niftyness through the application of their suites of complicated powers vs. opponents who have similar, if less multitudinous, arrays of powers to utilize (shout-outs to culture, Midwestern or otherwise, optional). I'm not so confident that that's directly the lesson to be inferred from 4e's....history. That is, I'm not sure that it was a commercial failure (although perhaps less of a success than hoped), but that may not be as important as the fragmenting effect it had on the audience. [/QUOTE]

Verification