Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 6003543" data-attributes="member: 87792">4e plays a hell of a lot better than it reads.  I don't always think Ron Edwards is on the ball, but you are clearly on the <a href="http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/15/" target="_blank">Simulationist</a> side of his GNS model.How-to-play text A lot of game texts in this tradition reach for a fascinating ideal: that reading the book is actually the start of play, moving seamlessly into group play via character creation. Features of some texts like the NPC-to-PC explanatory style and GM-only sections are consistent with this ideal, as well as the otherwise-puzzling statement that character generation is a form of Director stance. It supports the central point of this essay, that the value of Simulationist play is prioritizing the group imaginative experience, to an extent that expands the very notion of "play" into acts that from Narrativist or Gamist perspectives are not play at all. And if you are looking for a simulationist game this might help.  But the 4e rulebooks are about as related to playing 4e as my VBA instruction manual (I know...) is to programming a computer.  You can decide that that's not what you think a game book should be - but reading the 4e rulebook tells you how to play 4e which is entirely distinct from the experience of playing 4e.  Which means that you probably had more of an understanding of 4e before you tried reading it than after.</blockquote>

Verification