Obsidian's Pillars of Eternity [BETA RELEASED, GO TO THE NEW THREAD]

[IDtenT]

What Jasede is trying to say is that D&D is for gamist fags.

 

[Jasede]

Sometimes being gamist and being in-character are the same thing.

 

[IDtenT]

Sometimes being gamist and being in-character are the same thing.

I don't disagree. I fully agree that the D&D system is created to play the way you play it; it just happens that a lot of PC gamers don't actually like the gamist nature of D&D.

 

[Captain Shrek]

Sometimes being gamist and being in-character are the same thing.

I don't disagree. I fully agree that the D&D system is created to play the way you play it; it just happens that a lot of PC gamers don't actually like the gamist nature of D&D.

Because probably the label Gamist indicates an inherent fallacy?

 

[IDtenT]

Sometimes being gamist and being in-character are the same thing.

I don't disagree. I fully agree that the D&D system is created to play the way you play it; it just happens that a lot of PC gamers don't actually like the gamist nature of D&D.

Because probably the label Gamist indicates an inherent fallacy?

I'm not following.

 

[FeelTheRads]

I'm not following.

LOL U WATCH SPORTS FOR THE SPORT UR A SPORTIST

 

[IDtenT]

I'm not following.

LOL U WATCH SPORTS FOR THE SPORT UR A SPORTIST

I see, but as long as understanding is clear it shouldn't be a problem; there is little room for confusion once people understand what is meant by gamism.

 

[Spectacle]

The entire Gamist/simulationist/ Narrativist trifurcation is UN-necessary wankery. Games are NOT the same as other forms of art. e.g. books may not always be written to be entertaining but rather to explore the realm of ideas. Games are ALWAYS made for Fun or they are not games. So it only depends on the audience and the genre what particular (non-separable, but identifiable) part of them will be emphasized. i.e Story, mechanics or actual interaction element.

But different systems have better support for certain playstyles that others. Picking the right system for how you want to play means you will have easier FUN! Pick the wrong system and you'll be struggling against it instead of having FUN!

 

[Captain Shrek]

The entire Gamist/simulationist/ Narrativist trifurcation is UN-necessary wankery. Games are NOT the same as other forms of art. e.g. books may not always be written to be entertaining but rather to explore the realm of ideas. Games are ALWAYS made for Fun or they are not games. So it only depends on the audience and the genre what particular (non-separable, but identifiable) part of them will be emphasized. i.e Story, mechanics or actual interaction element.

But different systems have better support for certain playstyles that others. Picking the right system for how you want to play means you will have easier FUN! Pick the wrong system and you'll either be struggling against it and having less FUN!

Except that the system does nothing to enhance this, assuming by system you meant Gamist/Simulationist/Narrativist 'ideologies'. What really makes good game is integrated and clearheaded (as in object oriented) design. I am not talking about some technical prison for making games, but rahter mixing all the elements together from Story/Mechanics/Gameplay point of view to target the correct audience. Don't make strategy games for Action oriented player and you should do okay.

 

[IDtenT]

But different systems have better support for certain playstyles that others. Picking the right system for how you want to play means you will have easier FUN! Pick the wrong system and you'll be struggling against it instead of having FUN!

Exactly.

 

[Spectacle]

Captain Shrek, I don't think you actually understand the trifold model and why it came to be, since your criticism is rather outside it's scope.

 

[IDtenT]

The entire Gamist/simulationist/ Narrativist trifurcation is UN-necessary wankery. Games are NOT the same as other forms of art. e.g. books may not always be written to be entertaining but rather to explore the realm of ideas. Games are ALWAYS made for Fun or they are not games. So it only depends on the audience and the genre what particular (non-separable, but identifiable) part of them will be emphasized. i.e Story, mechanics or actual interaction element.

But different systems have better support for certain playstyles that others. Picking the right system for how you want to play means you will have easier FUN! Pick the wrong system and you'll either be struggling against it and having less FUN!

Except that the system does nothing to enhance this, assuming by system you meant Gamist/Simulationist/Narrativist 'ideologies'. What really makes good game is integrated and clearheaded (as in object oriented) design. I am not talking about some technical prison for making games, but rahter mixing all the elements together from Story/Mechanics/Gameplay point of view to target the correct audience. Don't make strategy games for Action oriented player and you should do okay.

However, you need to do the mixing from the ground up. Trying to implement a D&D system into RTwP is doing it the wrong way. Using Vancian mechanics and having you rest anywhere, without risk, is doing it the wrong way. You need to create the mechanics that supports your target market, whatever that mix might be. Trying to throw in mechanics that are heavily leaning a certain direction and then try to create a game that borrows heavily from another is a design disaster.

 

[Captain Shrek]

Captain Shrek, I don't think you actually understand the trifold model and why it came to be, since your criticism is rather outside it's scope.

Enlighten me.

This is how I understand it:

The trifold model essentially highlights upon three separate views of WHY (not how) games should be made. Each model enforces one reason on how they they should be made based on that. e.g. narrativist model considers the story built around the PC to be important from the gaming perspective to keep the player occupied.

The Simulationist model assumes that it is the rendering of "real" (as in IN GENRE, not the real "real" world) world (abstraction of course) is the most important aspect.

The gamist ideal is the making challenge (and beating it)the most important part of the game.

I understand it because I have taken pains to read literature just to write about games.

 

[Captain Shrek]

The entire Gamist/simulationist/ Narrativist trifurcation is UN-necessary wankery. Games are NOT the same as other forms of art. e.g. books may not always be written to be entertaining but rather to explore the realm of ideas. Games are ALWAYS made for Fun or they are not games. So it only depends on the audience and the genre what particular (non-separable, but identifiable) part of them will be emphasized. i.e Story, mechanics or actual interaction element.

But different systems have better support for certain playstyles that others. Picking the right system for how you want to play means you will have easier FUN! Pick the wrong system and you'll either be struggling against it and having less FUN!

Except that the system does nothing to enhance this, assuming by system you meant Gamist/Simulationist/Narrativist 'ideologies'. What really makes good game is integrated and clearheaded (as in object oriented) design. I am not talking about some technical prison for making games, but rahter mixing all the elements together from Story/Mechanics/Gameplay point of view to target the correct audience. Don't make strategy games for Action oriented player and you should do okay.

However, you need to do the mixing from the ground up. Trying to implement a D&D system into RTwP is doing it the wrong way. Using Vancian mechanics and having you rest anywhere, without risk, is doing it the wrong way. You need to create the mechanics that supports your target market, whatever that mix might be. Trying to throw in mechanics that are heavily leaning a certain direction and then try to create a game that borrows heavily from another is a design disaster.

Have you read anything I ever wrote on games? You should. You would find it... encouraging.

 

[Aeschylus]

For some reason I thought that the first character you create is automatically treated as the MC.

That's not totally wrong -- there's one or two things in the game that treat the first character you make as special. I think there's a named weapon you can buy near the beginning that uses your first characters name.

 

[maverick]

Icewind Dale 3...

 

[piydek]

Well, I missed the start of this but pledged $65 so far.. want T-shirt but WTF?! $25 for a fucking T?! FUCKING INSANELY OVERPRICED!

[EDIT]
They can come back when they hit $15 or less FFS!
[/EDIT]

Of course it's overpriced. That's how it works. It's not a regular store. And neither is pledging on Kickstarter the equivalent of preordering the game. I remember Tim Scafer saying, regarding Psychonauts specifically, that you support the people behind it more by buying a t-shirt directly from them than by buying the game itself on Steam for example. That's just how it works.

 

[Cosmo]

Icewind Dale 3...

A third Icewind Dale that would improve on the second as much as the latter did on the first...
Now that would be something.

 

[Jaesun]

If they did do an IWDIII (which would be awesome period) not sure how I feel about the D&D NEXT though, of which I assume they would have to use.

 

[Arkeus]

Ok, a hurray for 3.2 without paypal!

 

[villain of the story]

So, are they at $3.5M yet, with only 33 hours to go?

 

[Spectacle]

Captain Shrek, I don't think you actually understand the trifold model and why it came to be, since your criticism is rather outside it's scope.

Enlighten me.

This is how I understand it:

The trifold model essentially highlights upon three separate views of WHY (not how) games should be made. Each model enforces one reason on how they they should be made based on that. e.g. narrativist model considers the story built around the PC to be important from the gaming perspective to keep the player occupied.

The Simulationist model assumes that it is the rendering of "real" (as in IN GENRE, not the real "real" world) world (abstraction of course) is the most important aspect.

The gamist ideal is the making challenge (and beating it)the most important part of the game.

I understand it because I have taken pains to read literature just to write about games.

The model is not really about why you make games, but why you play. A game designer may target a particular play style, but that doesn't make the game gamist/narrativist/simulationist. Only what the mechanics actually do matters. That is why D&D is called gamist, since the majority of the mechanics deal with letting the players resolve conflicts using clever tactics and a bit of luck. The main benefit of the trifold model is that it helps us understand that just because a system isn't good for me, it could be good for you since it supports your style. It also let's us understand our own preferences and thus look for games that are made for us. Also, some systems are just bad, and don't support any kind of play well.

E.g up to and including 3E there is also a fair amount of simulationist elements, thought these are less developed and were almost completely eliminated in 4E. This is one of the reasons for why so many don't like 4E, they want that bit of simulationism in their games. But since they lack knowledge of the trifold model they're not able to label their own preference and fully explain what it is they don't like about 4E, apart from "feels too much like WoW" etc.

 

[Captain Shrek]

The model is not really about why you make games, but why you play. A game designer may target a particular play style, but that doesn't make the game gamist/narrativist/simulationist. Only what the mechanics actually do matters.

Excusez moi, but it is the developer who implements the mechanics as well. So it is HE who makes the game gamist/narrativist/simulationist.

The main benefit of the trifold model is that it helps us understand that just because a system isn't good for me, it could be good for you since it supports your style. It also let's us understand our own preferences and thus look for games that are made for us. Also, some systems are just bad, and don't support any kind of play well.

Assuredly. I am not against the idea that it was developed for that reason. All I am claiming is that such a model is inaccurate.

 

[Semper]

So, are they at $3.5M yet, with only 33 hours to go?

no, but they're 600k above your "AT MOST HURR DERP" statement

 

[Infinitron]

So, are they at $3.5M yet, with only 33 hours to go?

Quoted for posterity again.