Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="evileeyore" data-source="post: 6354872" data-attributes="member: 1768">I didn't say &quot;narrativist&quot;.&nbsp; I said &quot;gamist&quot;.&nbsp; D&amp;D (as a rules system) is more worried about whether the door opened or not (gamism) than how you opened the door (sim) to the extent that the &quot;how&quot; isn't a part of the rules, nor is the state of the door afterwards, aside from it being &quot;open&quot;.False.&nbsp; GURPS roll results will indicate the HP status of the door, whether it is open or not, as well as how much damage the PC (or his weapon or shield if used) has taken.At this point GURPS informs the ST of which of those things based on the prior decision of which was weakest.&nbsp; This is more information than D&amp;D provides.You call it &quot;granularity&quot; but miss out on what the actual difference was:&nbsp; D&amp;D didn't care.&nbsp; None of this made an ounce of difference in the gamist pursuit of &quot;Open The Door&quot;.&nbsp; Those things mattered for GURPS.&nbsp; Is GURPS gamist?&nbsp; Of course.&nbsp; It has win states.&nbsp; It has rules to move one towards those win states.&nbsp; However it a simulation of the physics that gets you there.&nbsp; D&amp;D skips the physics and hands you your &quot;Win/Lose&quot; state, the DM supplies all the narrative*, and invents any simulation.* Which is not &quot;narrativist&quot;.&nbsp; It's just narration.Sure.&nbsp; It's just so much easier with D&amp;D. Like radically easier.*How much HP is &quot;meat&quot;?&nbsp; GURPS answers this with &quot;All of it&quot;.&nbsp; Was that sword swing a wound or did it just &quot;shave some luck off&quot;?&nbsp; GURPS answers this (hint it's never &quot;luck&quot;**), but it might not be a &quot;wound&quot;.&nbsp; Is your character bleeding?&nbsp; GURPS answers this.&nbsp; Did the sword thrust skewer an interneal organ?&nbsp; Again...* Though I have a gamist/narrativist system that goes one step farther than D&amp;D.&nbsp; FFG's Star Wars.&nbsp; It doesn't even bother with a thin veneer of verisimilitude.&nbsp; It's as gamist as 4e D&amp;D, a zero sim game.** Okay.&nbsp; It could be.&nbsp; With the right Powers or Options being used.&nbsp; But generally it's not.False on both counts.&nbsp; &quot;Because I said so&quot; is a fine rule in a purely Narrative driven game.&nbsp; And you've never played SEEKRIEG I see... I can't prove it, but I swear Planck's Constant has to be involved those claculations somewhere...&nbsp; *grumble mumble* scientific calculator my butt *grumble mumble*Now, you might mean &quot;I want the whole point to be&quot; which is perfectly cromulent statement.Sure.&nbsp; That's why I place GURPS at about 60% sim (and 40% gamist) and D&amp;D between 15-25% sim (and 75-85% gamist).Though, boith games have &quot;editions&quot; (Optional Rules in GURPS case) that inject plentiful amounts of narrative mechanics.My only point in this thread is this:&nbsp; D&amp;D is a poor choice for simulationism.&nbsp; Unless you're simulating a D&amp;D world* and then it does it better than any other game system ever.* See Order of the Stick for a radically meta take on this premise.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="evileeyore, post: 6354872, member: 1768"] I didn't say "narrativist". I said "gamist". D&D (as a rules system) is more worried about whether the door opened or not (gamism) than how you opened the door (sim) to the extent that the "how" isn't a part of the rules, nor is the state of the door afterwards, aside from it being "open". False. [I]GURPS[/I] roll results will indicate the HP status of the door, whether it is open or not, as well as how much damage the PC (or his weapon or shield if used) has taken. At this point [I]GURPS[/I] informs the ST of which of those things based on the prior decision of which was weakest. This is more information than D&D provides. You call it "granularity" but miss out on what the actual difference was: D&D didn't care. None of this made an ounce of difference in the gamist pursuit of "Open The Door". Those things mattered for [I]GURPS[/I]. Is [I]GURPS[/I] gamist? Of course. It has win states. It has rules to move one towards those win states. However it a simulation of the physics that gets you there. D&D skips the physics and hands you your "Win/Lose" state, the DM supplies all the narrative*, and invents any simulation. * Which is not "narrativist". It's just narration. Sure. It's just so much easier with D&D. Like radically easier.* How much HP is "meat"? [I]GURPS[/I] answers this with "All of it". Was that sword swing a wound or did it just "shave some luck off"? [I]GURPS[/I] answers this (hint it's never "luck"**), but it might not be a "wound". Is your character bleeding? [I]GURPS[/I] answers this. Did the sword thrust skewer an interneal organ? Again... * Though I have a gamist/narrativist system that goes one step farther than D&D. FFG's Star Wars. It doesn't even bother with a thin veneer of verisimilitude. It's as gamist as 4e D&D, a zero sim game. ** Okay. It could be. With the right Powers or Options being used. But generally it's not. False on both counts. "Because I said so" is a fine rule in a purely Narrative driven game. And you've never played SEEKRIEG I see... I can't prove it, but I swear Planck's Constant has to be involved those claculations somewhere... *grumble mumble* scientific calculator my butt *grumble mumble* Now, you might mean "I want the whole point to be" which is perfectly cromulent statement. Sure. That's why I place [I]GURPS[/I] at about 60% sim (and 40% gamist) and D&D between 15-25% sim (and 75-85% gamist). Though, boith games have "editions" (Optional Rules in [I]GURPS[/I] case) that inject plentiful amounts of narrative mechanics. My only point in this thread is this: D&D is a poor choice for simulationism. Unless you're simulating a D&D world* and then it does it better than any other game system ever. * See Order of the Stick for a radically meta take on this premise. [/QUOTE]

Verification