NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ratskinner" data-source="post: 6015151" data-attributes="member: 6688937">umm....hmmm....uhh....Okay, first off, the GNS terms aren't universally accepted, and even fewer people take the time to understand what they actually mean. Of the three, I would say "Narrativism" is the least understood and the most commonly misused. People tend to use it interchangably with a lot of other things including story and narration, which happen regardless of whether the game is Narrativist or not.D&D has traditionally dwelt primarily along the Gamist-Simulationist end of things, rarely having any mechanics dealing directly with "motivation" or a high-falutin' "premise" about the human condition or other "Narrativist" concerns. (An individual D&D game may, in fact, feature character motivations and the subsequent conflicts, but there is little in the mechanics to reflect or prompt that.)So, the question then arises "How much should the fiction/story/narration stuff be tied directly to the mechanics?" For the gamer who prefers Simulationism, the answer is "as much as possible." An S player, and 3e is about the most S version of D&D IMHO, wants the mechanics to directly reflect what and who their character is. However, for the Gamist player, the answer is "as much as is relevant" or "Who really cares?" 4e, in some ways, is a lot more gamist than 3e. Now flip the question around: "How much should the mechanics make sure the game is fair, challenging, and 'balanced'?" Now the Gamist player rises and say "a lot, that's the primary thing the rules are for isn't it?" The Simulationist player will respond with confusion. "If you want to play a Fighter, then you must be willing to accept that you will be a lesser being than the full caster...because magic would be superior to fighting...its 'realistic'."So, when someone says: "4e is the rules over story edition!" I would tend to think that they are a Sim player. Without the mechanics reflecting their character directly, they "lose" the story. To such a person, 4e's concerns of balance and fairness taking precedence over "realism" destroys the "story".The reverse is also true for the Gamist player and a heavier Sim game. In this case, the ingrained mechanical imbalances can abort their proposed story before it even sees light. For instance, their desire to be an equal partner in the team forces them away from some classes and other choices that might fit their desired story better than what they end up taking. For such a person, concerns of "realism" taking precedence over fair and balanced destroys the story. While others disagree with me, I don't find 4e to be particularly "narrativist" as a rules set, in comparison to the other versions of D&D. So when someone says: "4e is Narrativist not Simulationist." - Well, they're part right. 4e toned down Simulationism quite a bit. However, I suspect they are intending the "Narrativist" part as either a pejorative or just plainly misusing the term. It could also be acting as a stand-in for "Indie", as some gamers find some of 4e's mechanics to be inspired by Indie games, but whether that's pejorative would depend on the source.Anyway, I hope that helps.</blockquote>

Verification