Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ratskinner" data-source="post: 5997916" data-attributes="member: 6688937">Because D&amp;D isn't really sure what it wants to be. (That and poor editing, I guess.)This is one of the ways that D&amp;D has always irritated me.* Its got&nbsp; some sort of strange bipolar disorder with its mechanical motivations.&nbsp; Over in situation X, D&amp;D will act and read like a strict &quot;Sim&quot; game,&nbsp; then over in situation Y, D&amp;D will act and read like a strict&nbsp; &quot;Gamist&quot; game. Then while in play, you're expected to handwave &quot;story&quot;&nbsp; patches over everything to make it sorta&nbsp; work-if-you-don't-pay-too-much-attention-to-it. (D&amp;D has rarely had any&nbsp; &quot;big-N&quot; Narrative elements in it, which is different from &quot;story.&quot;)This is why, IMO, this whole &quot;(dis)associative&quot; argument can even take&nbsp; place. I've played plenty of other games where there isn't even a&nbsp; question about it (usually clearly dissociated, and they are better for&nbsp; it, IMO). D&amp;D, for good or ill, refuses to take a clear stand on its&nbsp; motivations. So we have (historically) often seen Gamist mechanics&nbsp; given whitewashes of story, to make them sound &quot;Sim.&quot; (Why the Gamist&nbsp; motivation isn't seen as legitimate compared with the &quot;Sim&quot; is probably a&nbsp; topic for another thread.)So when a thief runs into a lock that he wants to pick, he might need to&nbsp; roll a 16 to pick it...why? There are (according to GNS theory) three&nbsp; answers:<ul>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Sim: The lock is DC: 28. With all his modifiers (training, ability&nbsp; mod, masterwork tools, etc.) the thief has a +12 Pick Lock modifier to&nbsp; the roll.</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Gamist: 16 gives the right chance of success for this&nbsp; difficulty-level of play.</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Narrativist: Picking the lock would get him into the party's good&nbsp; graces again, and we're still in the early phase of this story arc.**</li>
</ul>D&amp;D tries to say &quot;yes&quot; to the first two, while claiming the third as a result.<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f615.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":confused:" title="Confused&nbsp; &nbsp; :confused:"&nbsp; data-smilie="5"data-shortname=":confused:" /> Note that a story still happens in all three.IME, the games that handle it that way are far faster, easier, and (despite their dissociated mechanics) far more engrossing and engaging than those that imitate D&amp;D's non-method. You can use a really rules-light resolution system and maybe even run gm-less. The problem is that you can't sell a zillion splatbooks for that kind of game.<img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/angel.png"&nbsp; class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":angel:" title="Angel&nbsp; &nbsp; :angel:" data-shortname=":angel:" /> That and it &quot;wouldn't be D&amp;D&quot;<img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/cry.png"&nbsp; class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":.-(" title="Cry&nbsp; &nbsp; :.-(" data-shortname=":.-(" />. I suppose some middle ground must exist (it looks like Dungeon World, is shooting for it.)*Okay, maybe not always, but since the end-times of 2e, anyway. Even if I couldn't have expressed it in these terms.**See how this is the least &quot;D&amp;D&quot; of the three?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ratskinner, post: 5997916, member: 6688937"] Because D&D isn't really sure what it wants to be. (That and poor editing, I guess.) This is one of the ways that D&D has always irritated me.* Its got some sort of strange bipolar disorder with its mechanical motivations. Over in situation X, D&D will act and read like a strict "Sim" game, then over in situation Y, D&D will act and read like a strict "Gamist" game. Then while in play, you're expected to handwave "story" patches over everything to make it sorta work-if-you-don't-pay-too-much-attention-to-it. (D&D has rarely had any "big-N" Narrative elements in it, which is different from "story.") This is why, IMO, this whole "(dis)associative" argument can even take place. I've played plenty of other games where there isn't even a question about it (usually clearly dissociated, and they are better for it, IMO). D&D, for good or ill, refuses to take a clear stand on its motivations. So we have (historically) often seen Gamist mechanics given whitewashes of story, to make them sound "Sim." (Why the Gamist motivation isn't seen as legitimate compared with the "Sim" is probably a topic for another thread.) So when a thief runs into a lock that he wants to pick, he might need to roll a 16 to pick it...why? There are (according to GNS theory) three answers: [LIST] [*]Sim: The lock is DC: 28. With all his modifiers (training, ability mod, masterwork tools, etc.) the thief has a +12 Pick Lock modifier to the roll. [*]Gamist: 16 gives the right chance of success for this difficulty-level of play. [*]Narrativist: Picking the lock would get him into the party's good graces again, and we're still in the early phase of this story arc.** [/LIST] D&D tries to say "yes" to the first two, while claiming the third as a result.:confused: Note that a story still happens in all three. IME, the games that handle it that way are far faster, easier, and (despite their dissociated mechanics) far more engrossing and engaging than those that imitate D&D's non-method. You can use a really rules-light resolution system and maybe even run gm-less. The problem is that you can't sell a zillion splatbooks for that kind of game.:angel: That and it "wouldn't be D&D":.-(. I suppose some middle ground must exist (it looks like Dungeon World, is shooting for it.) *Okay, maybe not always, but since the end-times of 2e, anyway. Even if I couldn't have expressed it in these terms. **See how this is the least "D&D" of the three? [/QUOTE]

Verification