I can see why extremes are reviled, but at the same time, it's good to have combat now and then, interact with some NPCs, and a random encounter or two can certainly add spice, so we all crave parts of all three. It's as Aranna says: Everyone has a preference, and a pretty strong one.
Except the bolded bit is precisely the opposite of what Aranna is saying, as far as I can tell. If I've got it wrong, I'm sure she'll let me know ;)
No, it's not. I say none of us (probably) want campaigns that ONLY EVER give us one style. We don't want campaigns where EVERY SINGLE ELEMENT is in concordance with the chosen style, no matter what the style is.
We have a VERY strong preference for one, and while we spice that style with some elements of the other two, we pretty quickly lose interest in games that do not fit our style at least most of the time.
At least that's how I interpret her.
Sissyl is right. That IS what I am saying.
When you strip away everything else and get to the very core of what you look for in a game you will find your one preference. In my case that is simulationism. I love adding elements of the others toolboxes to make my simulationist game better, especially gamism. BUT at my core I am simulationist in my view of gaming.
No, it's not. I say none of us (probably) want campaigns that ONLY EVER give us one style. We don't want campaigns where EVERY SINGLE ELEMENT is in concordance with the chosen style, no matter what the style is.
We have a VERY strong preference for one, and while we spice that style with some elements of the other two, we pretty quickly lose interest in games that do not fit our style at least most of the time.
At least that's how I interpret her.
Oh. Well, that's quite different to how I've interpreted her. I used her Christianity/Shinto/atheism example to suggest that a person could incorporate aspects of all three into their life, and was told I was flat out wrong.
And I'm honestly not trying to be contrary, but I really do like and dislike certain aspect of all three styles. If forced to pick a "winner" for me, it would be narrativism, but it'd be like a 30/30/40 split. I have no strong preference myself. I like a realistic, coherent world in which to place constantly evolving characters that face identity shaking events in between healthy bouts of entertaining combat.
Sigh. I know, I'm a weirdo.
Sissyl is right. That IS what I am saying.
When you strip away everything else and get to the very core of what you look for in a game you will find your one preference. In my case that is simulationism. I love adding elements of the others toolboxes to make my simulationist game better, especially gamism. BUT at my core I am simulationist in my view of gaming.
I was obviously paying too much attention to the bit where you said the very idea of combining simulationist and narrativist elements made your head hurt, and ignored the bits that Sissyl focused on. I honestly don't recall you saying all three styles could be combined.
It happens every week at my house :)
Edit: If the first para of this post comes across as being sarcastic or cynical, that's not my intended tone. Text-based medium, yada yada...
Maybe I was a bit confusing?
There are three ideologies in gaming that are alien to each other.
BUT they each have a big toolbox that can be used in any ideologies games. In fact the best games borrow elements from all three ideologies toolboxes. But we all have one preference... one root ideology about games and if we don't get that focus the game isn't interesting.
PS: Yes in my case an evolving persona that the world is supposed to realistically react to does make my head hurt... even if the example confused my point.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe I was a bit confusing?
There are three ideologies in gaming that are alien to each other.
BUT they each have a big toolbox that can be used in any ideologies games. In fact the best games borrow elements from all three ideologies toolboxes. But we all have one preference... one root ideology about games and if we don't get that focus the game isn't interesting.
Well, I still disagree just a wee bit with the last part (I just don't have a strong preference, sorry!), but I think I understand your position better.
You have to remember that these ideologies are not reality, though. They're just some people's best effort to describe reality. I've read lengthy posts on how the whole GNS model is a pile of crap, and they were very intelligent posts that made lots of sense. Gamist, narrativist, simulationist, they're labels that we use to describe concepts in a general sort of way, but they're not Truth.
And I don't believe that the various facets of these labels are as continuous and coherent within each label, nor as antipathetic and opposed between labels, as the model and its proponents would have us believe. But that's just me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"instant death on three straight 20's"that rule makes no sense to me. three crits in a row sounds like an excellent opportunity for a GM to create a dramatic story. "you die" is no story - that's being lazy.
It is not three crits in a row (which would kill many things anyway).
You rolled a nat 20 to get a critical threat.
On your critical confirmation roll you also got a nat 20.
So then you roll again to confirm your confirmation and if you get another nat 20 the target is dead.
I also don't like it, but know many people that do like it. The odd thing is that it is mostly players that like it.
My response has always been, "Do you realize the GM rolls about 3 times as many attacks as you do? So it is three times as likely to happen to your single character instead of you instant killing some 2 HD mook. The odds are even worse for it to happen when you really need against a powerful creature."
I usually just get blank looks.
... Well, I still disagree just a wee bit with the last part (I just don't have a strong preference, sorry!), but I think I understand your position better...
Me three!!!
I find that if the campaign doesn't have a fairly strong helping of all three, I quickly get bored.
But that is for a campaign. A once-off or short mini-series, can be mostly one of the 3 and it is nice as a change of pace. But not for a long drawn out campaign.
I know there is criticism of the GNS theory, and I fully agree that it is a model, not truth. However, the game CAN be broken down into similar pieces, if no thing else you can see what the time is spent doing. Fighting is a pretty clearly defined activity. Roleplaying within the party and with NPCs is too. Exploring is the third piece in this, dealing with the mundane and fantastical aspects of the setting. It should be mentioned that there is a measure of bleed, certainly, but also that the GMing styles these different foci lead to are rather different.
I know there is criticism of the GNS theory, and I fully agree that it is a model, not truth. However, the game CAN be broken down into similar pieces, if no thing else you can see what the time is spent doing. Fighting is a pretty clearly defined activity. Roleplaying within the party and with NPCs is too. Exploring is the third piece in this, dealing with the mundane and fantastical aspects of the setting. It should be mentioned that there is a measure of bleed, certainly, but also that the GMing styles these different foci lead to are rather different.
Sure - if they're focused on one of these aspects at all, which I'm suggesting is not necessarily the case. Perhaps many tables can be categorised as predominately one of these three playstyles, but I'm suggesting many are not. My group certainly isn't (although a couple of the players could certainly be pegged as mostly this or that style).
I also don't like it, but know many people that do like it. The odd thing is that it is mostly players that like it.
My response has always been, "Do you realize the GM rolls about 3 times as many attacks as you do? So it is three times as likely to happen to your single character instead of you instant killing some 2 HD mook. The odds are even worse for it to happen when you really need against a powerful creature."
I usually just get blank looks.
People still go to casinos, too. Clearly our educational system needs to focus more on statistics and probability.
People still go to casinos, too. Clearly our educational system needs to focus more on statistics and probability.I also don't like it, but know many people that do like it. The odd thing is that it is mostly players that like it.
My response has always been, "Do you realize the GM rolls about 3 times as many attacks as you do? So it is three times as likely to happen to your single character instead of you instant killing some 2 HD mook. The odds are even worse for it to happen when you really need against a powerful creature."
I usually just get blank looks.
I can't decide whether to cry or laugh...
NOBODY DIES IN BLEACH.The two leaders of the 1st Squad did recently.
YOU ASSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
I was waiting until the series was over so I could read all of the last arc at once.
I was waiting until the series was over so I could read all of the last arc at once.You aren't missing anything.
I've heard mixed things about it.
Either it's really stupid, or it's actually pretty good.
Either way, I read so much of it I may as well see how it ends, good or not.
I was going to see The Crying Game years ago. The evening I was to attend, some bleach bottle bimbo at work bleated out the big surprise mid-film—note that I am not doing the same even at this late date—and freakin' ruined it for me.
I saw that one in the theatre. About 20 minutes into the movie, I said to the person next to me:
People still go to casinos, too. Clearly our educational system needs to focus more on statistics and probability.
Sorry, but Yang has already been here and the thread is at it's maximum sarcasm level. Too much more and it may be locked due to the danger of a major "sarcasm event"...
You think things got MORE simulationist with third edition? Why?
I haven't really thought about it, it just seems "obvious" that OD&D and AD&D made no attempt to simulate "fantasy reality" and that 3.5 did:
Monsters using the same rules as PCs (one of the most obvious simulationist evolutions, I think) a focus on rules subsystems rather than just "make something up" (together with the endless debates about whether those subsystems are "realistic"). That dreaded word verisimilitude, springs to mind - we never used [i]that[/I ] in the seventies. The shift from design of adventures - the evolution from a monster hotel a short walk from a tiny village with a full catalog of PH equipment to an adventure site within a logically consistent game world.
What features of OD&D suggest it is more simulationist than 3.5?
I know that TSR D&D has certain claims to sim that 3.x doesn't have. For example, I distinctly remember the 2e DMG talking about lethal traps that are well...lethal. (A collapsing room, or a lava pit, for example.) No saving throw, no hit point depletion; you're just dead, because nobody could possibly live through such a trauma. Whereas in 3.x, lethal traps aren't truly lethal -- there's usually a saving throw or a damage roll that can be overcome if you have enough save bonuses and/or hit points. (I'm sure there are individual exceptions to this generalization, but the 3.5 DMG does give a damage value for full submersion in lava.)
That's just off the top of my head; I'm sure a fan of a pre-3e edition could come up with other exclusive claims to sim. ("If monsters follow the same rules as PCs, why don't they get max HP for their first HD? PCs in my edition don't get such special treatment," etc.)
Anyway, I think 3.x is a stronger attempt at sim than other editions. But there are enough inconsistencies and downright absurdities that in the end, D&D is D&D. It's just not geared toward simulation of anything other than its own quirky trope universe.
The main set pieces of simulationism are exploration and roleplay both of which have always been a part of RPGs, I think... since I am not THAT old.
I am not sure you fully grasp GNS theory if you think all three exist side by side without conflicts. Narrativism is focused for example on the drama of a character's internal conflict of motivation and game conflict is centered on scenarios that pit the character against himself. The ever popular lose/lose scenario many paladin's end up facing under many GMs is a good example of narrativism. The playing out of a complete character in a realistically represented and internally consistent world is Simulationism. And by complete character I mean background, motivation, and personality, Simulationists take a much more static view of the character. Having a trait such as cowardice would lead to the character fleeing from many fights in a simulationist game where the same trait in a narrativists game would be continually challenged pitting that cowardice against the character's other goals directly and allowing the character to dramatically evolve over time. Gamism as many realize discards all elements of character in favor of a mechanical challenge system where all fights are as balanced as can be. As you can see they DON'T see eye to eye at all. And while you CAN use elements of more than one in a game they stand in stark contrast to each other.
No I fully understand the GNS theory...I just disagree with it. Atleast from my experiences. I am not saying that there are not extremist Narrativism, stimulationism, or gamist out there. But I do generally find people are willing to compromise more than you suggest.
Maybe I am a oddity but I like the play to a complete character in a realistic world but I am not static with my characters as the world, other characters/NPCs, and events continue to grow my character...and use the game rules to represent it. So what in your opinion am I? Maybe I am just a oddity.
Exploration and roleplay are mainly narrativism. Simulationism focuses on realism and accurate representation of physics and anatomy and injury.
To me this is some of the problem with trying to label things in GNS terms. Exploration can actually be each of the game types, very easily. Simulationists exploration would more precisely track movement speeds, food and water resources and rely on accurate mapping.
Ok Hama no...
Simulationism is about interaction with a consistent world with developed NPCs. There is an extreme group of simulationists that like tracking "real world" into their games but most just want the setting to be internally consistent.
And the roleplay of narrativists is very different from the roleplay of simulationists. Simulationists want to use their persona to interact (roleplay) with NPCs and other PCs. Narrativists also roleplay but they focus on the challenges to their own persona (does the paladin rescue an innocent goblin child or kill it because it will grow up evil?)... I don't really see exploration in the Narrativists camp at all. Unless you are talking about exploring your persona's feelings?
Here is a helpful link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNS_Theory
No I fully understand the GNS theory...I just disagree with it. Atleast from my experiences. I am not saying that there are not extremist Narrativism, stimulationism, or gamist out there. But I do generally find people are willing to compromise more than you suggest.
Maybe I am a oddity but I like the play to a complete character in a realistic world but I am not static with my characters as the world, other characters/NPCs, and events continue to grow my character...and use the game rules to represent it. So what in your opinion am I? Maybe I am just a oddity.
I can't answer that from what you wrote. Ask this:
Do you want a game were unlikely events happen just to showcase a moral dilemma? Or do you prefer a game where such moral dilemmas are NOT forced but only happen when it would be realistic for them to happen?
The former is Narrativist the later is Simulationist.
No I fully understand the GNS theory...I just disagree with it. Atleast from my experiences. I am not saying that there are not extremist Narrativism, stimulationism, or gamist out there. But I do generally find people are willing to compromise more than you suggest.
Maybe I am a oddity but I like the play to a complete character in a realistic world but I am not static with my characters as the world, other characters/NPCs, and events continue to grow my character...and use the game rules to represent it. So what in your opinion am I? Maybe I am just a oddity.
I can't answer that from what you wrote. Ask this:
Do you want a game were unlikely events happen just to showcase a moral dilemma? Or do you prefer a game where such moral dilemmas are NOT forced but only happen when it would be realistic for them to happen?
The former is Narrativist the later is Simulationist.
Interesting question. I would say I would not want then it to be forced....but I kinda dislike it that kinda of approach in movies, novels, etc. Also as I believe the story suffers when these things are forced.
Interesting question. I would say I would not want then it to be forced....but I kinda dislike it that kinda of approach in movies, novels, etc. Also as I believe the story suffers when these things are forced.No I fully understand the GNS theory...I just disagree with it. Atleast from my experiences. I am not saying that there are not extremist Narrativism, stimulationism, or gamist out there. But I do generally find people are willing to compromise more than you suggest.
Maybe I am a oddity but I like the play to a complete character in a realistic world but I am not static with my characters as the world, other characters/NPCs, and events continue to grow my character...and use the game rules to represent it. So what in your opinion am I? Maybe I am just a oddity.
I can't answer that from what you wrote. Ask this:
Do you want a game were unlikely events happen just to showcase a moral dilemma? Or do you prefer a game where such moral dilemmas are NOT forced but only happen when it would be realistic for them to happen?
The former is Narrativist the later is Simulationist.
See much like me you are a simulationist that borrows from another toolbox, just in your case you prefer to borrow from the narrativist toolbox more than the gamist one. But ideolologically you are simulationist at your core.
See much like me you are a simulationist that borrows from another toolbox, just in your case you prefer to borrow from the narrativist toolbox more than the gamist one. But ideolologically you are simulationist at your core.
DON"T PIGEON HOLE ME!!!!
I am kidding you are probably right I am a simulationist at my core...though I do think that can change. It can also change when I am playing a RPG that is not PF like 7th Sea...than I might become a narrativist that borrow from the simulationinst's tool box.
Also I can sit at a table with a narrativist's GM's table and enjoy the game. I play with gamist and such and we can both enjoy the same game. All it requires is a open mind and to respect the other people at the table. I am not saying conflict can't arise...but conflict can arise ag roup that is pure of any given type also. Simulationist might disagree about the realism....narratvist might disagree on the direction of the story...gamist disagree on rules interpertaions...etc.
While people have a preference...I don't think it is as absolute as you make it out to be. It is like my favorite type of ice cream is Choclate Chip Munt...but I will happily eat other flavors of ice cream also.
Either way, I read so much of it I may as well see how it ends, good or not.I'm only continuing out of inertia myself.
That sums up why I am reading Bleach and Naruto...
I stopped reading One Piece too but I actually fully intend to pick that one back up.
Seemed like One Piece hit its stride in full once the other two of the "Big 3" started to peter out.
Though apparently One Piece has slipped down to like #5 most read/bought for whatever reason while Naruto/Fairy Tail/Bleach keep the top spot and Kenichi (which I honestly thought was over) has crept up again.