The Forge Archives

Following up on the thread at rpg.net:
http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?s=efe57a4370a03c50efce71ed1429cc5a&threadid=96244

There's a lot of negativity being passed back and forth from both those who blindly support D&D and those who (in my eyes) are accurately (for the most part) portraying its flaws and not bowing down to the first group. That's just my take on it. I like D&D (up to a point) but a recent experience with a computer version of the 3.5 rules actually opened my eyes to a few of the issues being thrown back and forth like a hot iron on the above thread.

The reason I wanted to post here, instead of rpg.net, is that I am not interested in getting in another pissing contest with gamers who are not interested in actually discussing these things (but rather want some sort of rubber stamp to affirm that they're not as insecure about their proclivities as they really are). I can discuss the pros and cons of any game that I like or love from a fairly well-informed standpoint. I enlist those among us who share that capacity to join in.

Some of the things that were said on the above forum paralleled my experience last night with a CRPG called "Temple of Elemental Evil." Hey, it was on sale at Sam's and, as much as I like to convince myself I've drifted, I do still like a good dungeon crawl every now and again. Some of the things that gave me "ahas" last night are listed below and presented for discussion:

1) The computer engine was the best DM I've ever had (from a rules standpoint). And this includes my own games in which I've run D&D. It was entirely impartial. It knew every rule. Its interface assisted me with rules that even I was unclear on (despite running D&D for 2+ years). There was no fudging of dice. No DM waxing all benevolent by letting you stabilize instead of lay there and bleed to death after he gets a lucky roll. The rolling was fast too. No sitting around waiting for 7 people to hem and haw and add up simple arithmetic. The CRPG DM got me through a combat in record time. That was nice.

2) There were options in the computer version of the D&D rules that made more sense than those in the printed version. Things like "Ready vs. Approach." I'm not sure if they're codified in 3.5. But in 3.0 these things were always nebulous (at least in the games that I've played). Many DMs that I've played with have ruled that my attack occurs *after* the monster's attack in a self-serving bid of rules tampering. The computer didn't do this. The rules were a social contract between me and my CPU and that was not violated. In fact, I found the wealth of options available to my character refreshing.

These aspects of my experience seem to support the statements posed on the above thread that the DM is the variable which determines whether a session is *fun* or not. I don't entirely agree with that statement, but it also (concurrently) supports many of our Forge members in their assertions that system matters.

Simply put, the CRPG-DM is good because it plays to the strengths of the system, which are primarily combat-oriented. It doesn't try to do Narrative play with D&D. Not saying that you couldn't, mind you...

But...

It's a Gamist system with a Gamist style of GMing offering a Gamist experience. A lightbulb went off.

But, why then was I bored? Why did the game experience suck so badly overall?

The tutorial was fun. A brief crawl through a cave. Fight a few zombies and grab some stuff. I found the actual looting of the bodies to be a tadbit unseemly, but I guess I'll never get past the whole grossness of actually looting something that is dead. I wonder how many people, such as myself, who've actually been exposed to dead things (not just grandpa embalmed in a casket) share my stomach-turning experience whenever something like this is mentioned. Eww. Eww.

Anyway. Back on topic.

The game itself (following the fun of the tutorial) was a total meltdown, for me. And I figured out why from reading the posts above.

The game tried so hard to be Sim. First, it railroads me into helping out this dead cleric chick. I couldn't go anywhere except where it wanted me to go. Very Gamist. Very to-the-point, here-is-your-plothook-now-venture-forth-young-warrior type of play.

Immediately, my brain shut off a number of functions. I wanted to get to the goal. To win. I wanted to get to the next fun part (primarily combat). The CRPG-DM set this playstyle in motion. I expected a follow through.

So I went to the village. And then there's all this brain-dead, psuedo-social interaction with these villagers that I could TOTALLY care less about. It's like that part of the evening where a DM I used to play with would announce: "Now, roleplay!"

Eventually, I get up to the temple (which was conveniently hidden on the map as if just walking through the world should be a stupid dungeon crawl), complete my objective and (plop) here come more objectives. And these objectives are just as lame as the first ones. Go get flour for this chick. Go get this guy into the militia. Beyond the obvious DM snafu of saying that I *couldn't* see a temple on a hill from a half-mile away. I was enlisted into another 1 or more hours of farting around with no promise whatsoever of getting back to the "good stuff."

It's like Pavlov gone horribly wrong.

My point here is that the system in the CRPG came alive during combat, much like it does in tabletop. So, I (of course) wanted more. I wanted more hack-n-whack action like in the tutorial. I didn't care about the Farmer's Daughter being in love with so and so. Who would? It was tangential to acheiving my goal of winning or getting to the next good bit. To heck with her, I've got my own problems. See that Rust Monster running out of the woods?!

And yet I see these same tactics used all the time in D&D games that I've played (and some that I've run). The CRPG sucked because I had to spend far too much time farting around the village when what I really wanted to do was find a hole, climb down in it and whack a goblin. The same is true for the last several/many D&D games in which I've played.

The last one, I had to sit around (4 hours) while OTHER players farted around so that I could get whacked by another player who so totally outclassed me (a Vampire Samurai vs. my 3rd level Paladin (with no magic items)). Why did we have to roleplay the Kender-Ghoul going shopping? Was there really ANY point to that? Let's just kill me and get on with it. I know I'm going to "lose" so let me do it so I can get back to "winning."

Game sessions like this, IMO, play so completely against the strengths of the D&D system. This, of course, is the DM's fault. Combat is fun, in D&D. The "roleplaying", IME, is incidental. Not to start a comparison, but it's not like in HeroQuest or the Pool where a social interaction can be the whole point and (in a system sense) as much fun (if not more) than any combat. Combat really is the focus in D&D, IMO. It's where we get to use our spells, roll our dice, etc. So, why do so many DMs insist on 4 hours of "roleplay" and 45 minutes of combat in the average D&D game that I've played? I want to fight in D&D. I want to kill things and, sometimes, take their stuff. But, me personally, I want quick combats. Why? So there can be more of them. So I can kill lots of different things. Puzzles are fine. But it seems more interesting, from a system standpoint, to beat the heck out of a bunch of ghouls than it does to roll my Disable Device against a set DC. One is all or nothing. The other is a "game."

I played in several games whose DMs insist that they are into "story." Maybe some of them are. But my experience with those DMs (who are admittedly heavy-handed and quite sucky) is that their stories revolve around a set (I would posit a Gamist-style) plot from which there can be no deviation, wrapped around a limited-Simulationist exploration of the surrounding area (only to the point where it does not interfere with the overarching plotline), and then a payoff combat or dungeon crawl which (IMO) doesn't nearly payoff as much as the DM thinks it should or would precisely because it took a number of sessions to achieve a silly goal that could have easily been achieved in the time constraints of the first session.

Uncannily, I find the same sort of organization in many D&D modules. In my eyes, it's sort of like using a hotdog for a pencil and living in complete denial that the hotdog doesn't write well but might taste good.

So, to recap, I think some users on rpg.net had a point in that the DMs do have a significant effect on the play experience. But the other side has a point too, IMO, that playing to the system is a big part in being a *good* DM. Knowing where its strengths are and knowing what play it encourages, those are key, IMO. If I try to explore and the DM shuts me down and then rams me down a plothole (as the CRPG did), I find it insulting to ask me to wander around and take in the scenery (as the CRPG did). My mind has already eliminated that as an option. That could just be my mind, however.

The CRPG was quick, impartial and knowledgeable. The CRPG also codified some of the greyer areas, IME, of the D&D rules. This made it, IMO, more playable as a game. Feats did X-> Y, skills did the same. Not many grey areas for the rule disputes I've grown so accustomed to in tabletop.

Overall, though, the CRPG was an unpleasant RPG experience. It was heavy-handed, plot-wagony and then (all of a sudden) schizoid. But, if the whole thing had been like the tutorial, it would have rocked beyond belief. Perhaps, this is why I picked up this particular game in the clearance bin and Diablo is still on the retail shelf... hmm.... something to consider?

When I run my next D&D game (and who knows when that will be, I'm rather burnt out on it right now for many of the same gaffes that I mention above), I will certainly keep these tenets firmly in my mind. Do what's fun. Rush through the rest as quickly as possible (at least with D&D).

Any observations? Opinions?

Scott

Hiya,

Great post! And I really hope Christopher Kubasik finds the time to read and comment upon his own experiences with company design of such games.

My response is pure pinheaded theory.

1. Gamist play rides on a foundation of Exploration. The primary topic of Exploration is Situation, subject to System. Character and Setting are expected to feed these without screwing around.

2. Simulationist play (by definition, about non-Gamist-relevant stuff) interferes with Gamist play.

3. Hybrid play (Gamist with interludes of Simulationist, which feed power into the upcoming next Gamist) must keep the Sim extremely subordinate and focused. Added value is ... questionable (because of #1 above).

Best,
Ron

Which mirrors my experience with the CRPG exactly, Ron.

When elements geared towards Simulationism crept into play of the CRPG, they gummed up the works insomuch as they weren't related to the objective.

Now, elements that were related to the objective weren't as obtrusive.

Although mucking about from place to place trying to *travel* to the various objectives was just lame. Either I can see in front of me on a clear day or I can't. Having everything outside of 30' shrouded in some big black cloud was just lame. Here, I think, the Gamist elements (the black cloud denoting field of vision, quite nifty for the old dungeon crawls) interfered ruthlessly with the Simulationist elements. Maybe I would've wanted to go to an apothecary, but I didn't know there was one until the big stinky black fog rolled off of it.

Much like you post, Ron, I don't think that the two ends of Gamist and Simulationist play are inclusive of each other. Yet these are the two, IME, that are most often mucked together in play? Why is that?

Scott

Interesting thoughts.

However, is the GM at fault anytime he or she does not play to the strengths of the system?  I offer that the problem is more of a social contract breakdown.

I offer a tidbit from a recent D&D3 game I ran recently.  PCs are walking down a wide street in a city setting.  I mention how it's started to rain, and how all the residents of the city are donning these funny-looking rain hats.  Now, as a GM, I mention these bits just for flavoring.  Just a backdrop.  However, three of the four PCs decide that the hats are very cool, and decide to procure some for themselves.  Once they find a merchant making the hats, 3 of the 4 get into some light RP about the manufacure of the hats.  Five, maybe ten minutues of play time later, everyone has a nifty new hat.  Tangent done.  Now, it was apparent to me that one of my players was totally uninterested in shopping for hats.  Didn't care one bit.  It's very possible that this particular player, like Scott, wanted to 'get to the good stuff'.  Well, for the other three, finding the hats and talking to the merchant was the good stuff.

So, by allowing the majority of the players shop for hats, did I fail the other?  Should I have told the other three, "Ok, you buy hats" and move them onto finding them a target to kill just because we were playing a game that was written with a strong Gamist slant?  Well, I think I would have been failing my other three players if I had.  Now, had it been just one player who'd wanted to go shopping, I would probably have trimmed it down a bit more.  I tend to play to the majority.

I really do think it's all in the social contract.  Recently, when beginning a new game group (just two weeks ago) I sat my players down for a character creation session & started on with a question and answer period.  I asked what system they'd like to play.  D&D3 was the consensus.  I asked what levels they wanted to play.  I asked what setting they wanted to use.  I asked what flavor of story they'd like to be involved in.  I was trying to set up the social contract of the game early.  That way, I'd know I was playing to my audience.
"Give us a little bit of hack & slash, with lots of mysteries to solve and political intrigue to get involved in."

And so, that's what they shall have.

Quote from: Technocrat13However, is the GM at fault anytime he or she does not play to the strengths of the system?  I offer that the problem is more of a social contract breakdown.

I offer a tidbit from a recent D&D3 game I ran recently.
... (snip!) ...
So, by allowing the majority of the players shop for hats, did I fail the other?

The play group needs to address problems together. So, as GM, one of the roles is to keep up with the players' satisfaction. The Players then need to keep the GM abreast of their feelings on the game.

With the Temple of Elemental Evil game, there was no way for Scott to talk to the GM on the side about his dissatisfaction. Certainly a detriment to current CRPGs: The social contract breaks down and play halts.

And to answer your question, you'd potentially be failing the odd-player-out if you didn't discuss it during or after play. Of course, you might get the answer of, "Nah, that's fine. Sure I was a little bored, but no worries. The rest of the game was brilliant!" But there's no harm in asking.

Quote from: Technocrat13Interesting thoughts.

However, is the GM at fault anytime he or she does not play to the strengths of the system?  I offer that the problem is more of a social contract breakdown.

I don't think that's what I posted. I was comparing a bout of unsatisfactory play in a CRPG to past unsatisfactory play (and GMing) using the same system on tabletop. I think it's easier for a GM to play to the strengths of a system (reference my previous posts about a GM I knew trying to use Feng Shui to run an AFMBE style game). But it's certainly not necessary or, even, the norm AFAICT.

My only beef with the hat scenario is that it isn't supported in the system itself. In a game like HeroQuest or Donjon, the Hat could have a rating that benefitted the players in someway for acquiring them, thus quantifiably rewarding the PC for exploring the setting. Now, if the hats gave a +1 to resist the effects of the elements, that would be something entirely different and a different focus of play, IMO.

In the CRPG, I ran into a tailor and several other merchants that were trying to sell me lots of things that wouldn't do squat. I guess it was supposed to be flavor but (guess what) it was sucky flavor. There was just no point to it. Not that all flavor is sucky, mind you. But in a game with a focus on Gamist play, if there is no difference between cloth armor and running around naked (which there isn't mechanically) then why spend the money to wear cloth armor?? From a system standpoint, of course. You'd basically be wasting a limited resource for nil return.

It doesn't sound like you're running that kind of game. So I'm not sure if any of this really applies to you. I only wish I had players that were enthusiastic enough to provide some input into the campaign prior to play. Ask my guys what system they want and they'll say: "I don't know." Ask them what dice they want to use, they'll say: "The ones with numbers on them." I ask them for Kickers and I get back: "I'm in a Tavern."

To extrapolate your example onto my experience, in past RPGs (and this would apply to the cruddy CRPG too) I've played the DM would've made a big deal out of the funny hats and practically forced us to buy one either to complete some random quest that had nothing to do with the heavy-handed metaplot or wound up having nothing at all to do with the storyline. It would've just been a "Pat the Clever GM on the Head" moment and then we would've moved on. Unfortunately, in the worst games I've been exposed to, the "Pat the Clever GM on the Head" moment could take half the night.

It doesn't sound like you run this kind of game, though. I'm thankful for that.

Now, there could be a discussion of how other systems might support your style of running better than D&D does by quantifying matters such as social interaction in the game world and character motivations that D&D leaves in grey terms. But the important matter, IMO, is whether you're enjoying what you do. It sounds like you are, so any discussion along those lines would most likely be irrelevant to you. I'm not trying to win converts. I'm just sharing some comparisons I made last night between unsatisfactory CRPG gaming and unsatisfactory tabletop play.

The CRPG short-circuited any "exploration" outside of very limited bounds from the get-go, as many GMs I've known have tended to do as well. So, a sub-scene of buying a hat was thoroughly out of the question. There was what the computer had programmed (or rather what the GM had planned) and that's it. So, exploration was way out of the question. The fact that it was also unsupported in the system further clashed with the game designers' obvious "Pat the Game Designer on the Head" moment that came up later when they made you crawl over every inch of the village to ooo and aah at the falling leaves in order to find a temple that you should've been able to see from the first farmhouse.

Is that a question of social contract? I suppose. It's certainly an instance of a DM overexercising his authority, IMO. You don't seem like a DM who would do that, so you're already one step beyond.

Scott

Quote from: Ron Edwards1. Gamist play rides on a foundation of Exploration. The primary topic of Exploration is Situation, subject to System. Character and Setting are expected to feed these without screwing around.

2. Simulationist play (by definition, about non-Gamist-relevant stuff) interferes with Gamist play.

3. Hybrid play (Gamist with interludes of Simulationist, which feed power into the upcoming next Gamist) must keep the Sim extremely subordinate and focused. Added value is ... questionable (because of #1 above).

I've been playing the CRPG Neverwinter Nights Gold edition through January. I get similar game play in general to Scripty (except the mapping is better :) ). But I'm more interested in the plot than the combat sessions. So when I'm playing the "campaign" and the player created modules, I "cheat" and ramp my character's combat power sharply upwards (Invulnerable, max level and max attributes), so that combat is over and done with like what happens in a fantasy book or movie. I'm not interested in combat, except in defeating the monster as quick as possible with out dying and having to restart so I can get to the next plot point/s.

Dysfunctional? Sure. The more "story" the module has, the better I like it. The more combat in the module, the less I like it.

Quote from: Scripty

Quote from: Technocrat13Interesting thoughts.

My only beef with the hat scenario is that it isn't supported in the system itself. In a game like HeroQuest or Donjon, the Hat could have a rating that benefitted the players in someway for acquiring them, thus quantifiably rewarding the PC for exploring the setting. Now, if the hats gave a +1 to resist the effects of the elements, that would be something entirely different and a different focus of play, IMO.

Scott

Why do the hats have to have some use other then color or flavor? I am not sure how a tailor selling a normal shirt is a failing of the system?  In fact in many ways the entire thread does not make much sense to me ao let me ask a question...

Are you saying that any action in a D&D game session that does not add some bonus (namely combat bonus) to the characters is nice but really a waste of time because the system does not support it?

[Edit: One comment on CRPG's in general. I tend to agree with your comments but I would suggest that if you were to use Sorcerer in a CRPG, even a well done one, that you would get similar, and equally unsatisfying, results.]

Sean

Quote from: ADGBoss

Why do the hats have to have some use other then color or flavor? I am not sure how a tailor selling a normal shirt is a failing of the system?  In fact in many ways the entire thread does not make much sense to me ao let me ask a question...

Are you saying that any action in a D&D game session that does not add some bonus (namely combat bonus) to the characters is nice but really a waste of time because the system does not support it?

[Edit: One comment on CRPG's in general. I tend to agree with your comments but I would suggest that if you were to use Sorcerer in a CRPG, even a well done one, that you would get similar, and equally unsatisfying, results.]

Sean

If you're approaching the game with a focus on the Narrative (which the Pool does, IMO), then I'm perfectly fine with the hat being a hat. If you're focusing your game on an exploration of the setting (which D&D can do, and many other systems do), then the hat just being a hat is fine by me.

But if you're focusing on "winning" or the game system (which this CRPG and every CRPG I've ever played does), then the hat being a hat is a total rip. It's worthless, in game terms.

The whole point of this was a lightbulb going off in my head. Until playing in this CRPG, I didn't truly understand the expectations of a "Gamist" focused player. My games went predominantly like most games do, IME, wandering aimlessly from Gamist objectives/obstacles to Simulationist setting elements or "plotlines." It wasn't until I was in the shoes of a "Gamist" (as in having truly gamist expectations of play not being met in the CRPG) that I understood what I, and others whose games in which I have played, were missing. It wasn't more story. It wasn't more depth. It was more fun stuff (from a gamist perspective). Plot be damned. I don't need more story. I need more whacking things with sharp objects.

My statement here was: I get it. I understand the joy at the core of Gamist expectations. I think now that I could meet those at the table (even exceed them).

Which has seemed to cause some confusion. I'm not saying that you can't run D&D to meet the expectations of other kinds of play. But if your group comes together with an interest or expectation of meeting their Gamist tendencies and all you throw at them is a Sim plot or Narr exploration of premise (which I've been guilty of in the past), then you're not going to truly satisfy them.

The CRPG-DM is a Gamist GM. It knows 1 (the winner) and it knows 0 (the loser). It is, in my estimation, an impeccable Gamist GM. But when it steered me down that path, I came to expect more. I realized I wasn't here to explore the life-questions raised by being a halfling tomb-robber in a predominantly human land. I didn't expect to have to wander around appreciating the scenery. The CRPG-DM defined things in very simple and Gamist terms. Then it went schizoid and tried to "show off" by going into a heavy Sim "Let's walk around for no reason at all" episode.

I've been in games like this. Hell, I've run games like this. You start out with a combat. Everyone moves their pieces on a mapboard. It ends. Everyone's pretty satisfied with themselves. And then the DM narrates the long journey from Point A to City B. It's 15 minutes of irrelevant tedium. If the DM introduces, say, a wandering tinker for "flavor", it becomes 45 minutes of tedium. Especially if anyone decides to buy something from him. But if the tinker sells you a magic dagger. That's still tedium, IMO. And probably pretty boring. But it's no longer irrelevant.

IMO, all players want to get to the Next Good Thing. That could be a lot of things, for them. For a player with expectations centered around Narrative play, that could be the next big moral question. The next defining moment/decision for their character. For a player with Sim expectations of play, I suppose it could be finding the tinker or meeting a new NPC, just as colorful as the last one. For a player with Gamist expectations of play, it's the next tactical exercise, the next chance to win.

What I learned from the CRPG is that:
a) Gamist play can be fun. Removed from the tedium of arithmetic and long waits for your "turn" to roll the die. Gamist play can be a really great time.
b) By focusing on certain elements of play (in this instance a dungeon crawl filled with a string of combats and little else), the DM sets the expectations of play to a degree. In my case, I quickly realized what this game was and was going to be about. I also settled nicely into the expectation that I was going to have and could have fun in this context.
c) By changing focus willy-nilly, the DM steps on his on toes. It's sort of like dropping "Pride and Prejudice" right in the middle of the latest Vin Diesel movie. Rightly, the players (your "audience" to a degree) will be blown out of context and, rightly, there should be a lot of "WTF?" moments.

In the past, I've played in games like this. These were the games were everything was based in and on the combats but the DM still had tons of NPCs running about on tangential paths to the metaplot (which of course revolved around a final big combat). These NPCs were all flavor. The setting description was all flavor. In fact, the game was 80% flavor with the other 20% focused on "plot" resolution through combat. I mean, really, if all we're here to do is kill the evil Lord in the tower do we really have to visit the spot where he was born? If it has no use in defeating him, why are we there?

It's sort of like Eugene O'Neill's statement of "If you show a gun on the wall in Act I, it should be used to kill someone in Act III" except extrapolated to the expectations of the Gamist perspective. If we here to "win" or "beat" Count Darkhand and you have us spend 30 minutes haggling with a street vendor for a hat, the hat better have some utility in reaching that objective.

In the past, I've played in games like this and actually felt guilty about not taking notes. Just like in the CRPG, I didn't *care* about the Tailor's daughter wanting to marry this other schmoe. Or the town drunk wanting me to buy him a battle axe. Where does it apply to what I'm doing? I'm all for a nice twist or something where things go topsy-turvy and that guy with the stammer that you met in the first scene is actually Big Bad Kaiser Soze. That's great. But when I'm inundated with 40 potential Kaiser Sozes, doesn't the point get lost? I've actually felt bad, at times, for not taking notes in games such as this. I know, in the CRPG, that one or two of these random people I met are going to have some kind of significance. But I just don't care. Because in the game, it will all be resolved by whacking something with a broadsword. I don't care which of the Tailor's daughter actually turns into the Demon Queen in the end. My knowledge of her love for Guy #34 will not help me defeat her (in this game!). But I don't feel bad now about not taking notes in schizoid games like this anymore because I see the preponderence of irrelevant "flavor". I didn't take notes then because I, somehow, knew it wouldn't matter and, guess what, it didn't. We still beat up the bad guy (or got killed) and it didn't mean a hill of beans when I told the Count that he wasn't really his father's son.

Most games, including the CRPG, that I've been associated with were 80% flavor (most of it pointless) and 20% good stuff. Define good stuff how you want, but I think that ratio should be reversed. The point of this thread is that by focusing on the player's expectations (be they Gamist, Narrativist, or Simulationist) and remaining focused in what you bring to the table (combats/puzzles for gamists, moral questions for Narrativists, new places to explore for Sims) could help in turning that around.

Here, I'm the horse being led to water (by a CRPG) and, finally, I'm taking a drink.

Scott

P.S. Regarding your Sorcerer comment, I think you've taken this as affront towards D&D, which it isn't. I don't think that a Sorcerer game *could* be done on a computer. Not unless there are remarkable advances made in AI. Just look at the difference between "King of Dragon Pass" and HeroQuest or HeroWars. But this is not a slight towards D&D. It's a fun game and that is reflected in the video game versions. But I do think that this is the key to Sorcerer and other similar games' longevity. Computers will replace the DM, eventually. They already do the rules better. Have better graphics and comparable "storylines". But computers can't invent moral questions. They can only run for you what they've been programmed to run, much like the many DMs I've known who can only run what they've prepared. IMO, computers will take the place of my DM, but I'll still play HeroQuest, the Pool and Sorcerer because a computer *couldn't* run those games. Maybe HAL could, but that's a long way away. I think this is something that should be considered in our hobby. What are we doing that a computer could do better and what are we doing that a computer couldn't do. The future of this pastime, IMO, lies in the latter not the former.

Ok NOW I think I get it.  Forgive me for being dense :) I think I can see your point with the idea that all elements of the pure Gamist game should be relevant to that game and its goals.  Every interaction should represent an attempt to gain advantage or at least maintain advantage.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Sean

Quote from: ADGBossOk NOW I think I get it.  Forgive me for being dense :) I think I can see your point with the idea that all elements of the pure Gamist game should be relevant to that game and its goals.  Every interaction should represent an attempt to gain advantage or at least maintain advantage.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Sean

No problem. No density to forgive. I tend to ramble and forget that people actually try and wade through all these random thoughts. Forgive me for not being more concise. I do forget that less is sometimes more.

This thread is a realization, on my part, that focusing on what kind of play your group wants is important and that, once this element is decided, play/system/story/DM should work to support that kind of play. For some, that's a no-brainer. This thread is for "those other people" like me who are still bumping into these things with the lights off. I think focus could also help other styles of play as well, not just Gamist play (although that is what led me to my epiphany). The point being (good god there's another one?) if you're going to take a Gamist game in a Sim direction it should be for a reason. And a good one, IMO.

I think it's possible to mix styles of play. HeroQuest, IMO, mixes Narr and Gamist elements (and can even be played Sim if you want) but if your players are focused on Narr elements it would, IMO, be counterproductive to focus on the minutae of an Extended Contest. Unless, of course, that Extended Contest was pivotal to the moral questions or premise that is being explored. And why wouldn't it be if you chose to make it an Extended Contest?

Scott