Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="innerdude" data-source="post: 6242689" data-attributes="member: 85870">And this is totally valid! @<a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=42582" target="_blank">pemerton</a> proved to me long ago that his style of scene framing and fictional positioning are well-supported in 4e, and allow for the kinds of player narrative control he enjoys. The problem, as you discovered Imaro, is that the baseline 4e physical presentation shifted the focus dramatically towards gamist combat resolution. If all of the "narrativist goodness" is actually in 4e and could be grasped as @<a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=6696971" target="_blank">Manbearcat</a> described, then we should have seen a dramatic shift to adopt 4e as a radically improved overall D&D play experience---because now not only was the tactical gamism improved through balance and ease of preparation for "step on up," but the narrative elements should have created a broader play experience that was superior, or at least comparable to what prior-edition players wanted in the non-combat areas.That didn't happen.And it's my postulate that this was because ultimately 4e failed to serve ANY of the desired masters. The gamists, while finding 4e enjoyable, probably felt like they were having to fight against the whole "Why do I have to pretend to be an elf to do this exactly?" To a gamist, the choice of race and class has little to do with "their character's place in the fiction," it's about challenge optimization. The D&D "sacred cows" and conceits of the RPG as an entertainment medium were getting in the way of their fun. Even as tailored to "step on up" as 4e is, playing D&D is an awful lot of hard work if all you're really interested in is character-building for tactical encounter challenges. There's lots of other easier gamist paths with less time investment, and more immediate payoff than an RPG. The narrativists, except in some rare cases with talented GMs, a la @<a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=42582" target="_blank">pemerton</a> and @<a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=6696971" target="_blank">Manbearcat</a>, kept banging their heads against the gamist overtones and presentation, wondering why the "delve" format sucked so bad.  And the simulationists just threw their hands up in the air and said, "Because 'Come and Get It,' and <a href="http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/17231/roleplaying-games/dissociated-mechanics-a-brief-primer" target="_blank">Justin Alexander</a> FTW."Compare this to Fate, which has gamist elements, but makes almost zero attempt to make the gamists "feel good about themselves" while playing it. Fate makes its narrativist aspirations known, up front and center. It's very unambiguous the type of game you should ostensibly be having with Fate.</blockquote>

Verification