Topic: three-headed dog
Started by: joshua neff
Started on: 5/20/2001
Board: GNS Model Discussion
On 5/20/2001 at 1:27pm, joshua neff wrote:
three-headed dog
over on rpg.net, someone posted a question, asking which game he should buy, "rune", "dying earth", or "pendragon"...
& it just struck me: is this a great example of "gamist", "narrativist", or "simulationist", or what? i found it interesting, anyway...
On 5/20/2001 at 2:53pm, james_west wrote:
RE: three-headed dog
Those are just about the most stereotyped examples of the division I can think of, you're right. Strange that the fellow had no better idea than that of what he wanted to play ...
On 5/20/2001 at 4:33pm, Paul Czege wrote:
RE: three-headed dog
Yeah...I saw that question and thought the exact same thing.
On 5/20/2001 at 5:02pm, Ron Edwards wrote:
RE: three-headed dog
What the hell, at least they're three really GOOD versions of the modes of role-playing. I think it significant that he was, tacitly, omitting the large number of mixed&matched RPGs from his pool.
Best,
Ron
On 5/21/2001 at 3:35pm, Ian O'Rourke wrote:
RE: three-headed dog
What amazes me about some of the rpg.net reaction to Rune is the fact that some of them have replied: Why buy Rune if you've got AD&D? As I understand it Rune is gamist on a level that AD&D does not even come close to?
It structures the whole thing as a competition from the start, and even has 'models' for creating fair dungeons so multiple people can GM. It seems like an exciting, and fun, game to me.
The one I would not buy out of the trio would be Dying Earth - it's ethos did not seem to be me…
On 5/21/2001 at 3:54pm, joshua neff wrote:
RE: three-headed dog
interesting, ian, cos i looked at "rune" at my local gaming store the other day, & while i adore robin laws' designs, i didn't buy it, simply because "gamism" isn't really my bag (tho it is much more than simulationism is--& if any gamist game could hook me, it'd be "rune")...but "dying earth" i bought, & while i have yet to play it, having read (most of) it, i LOVE it (& i've only read 2 of the dying earth books by vance)...
but i agree, the "why buy 'rune'" response is an odd one (tho not really surprising--most people on rpgnet tend to overlook mechanics & concept in favor of general "what is this game"--they see "rune" as "viking 'd&d'", & that's it)...
more puzzling to me is the "'rune' isn't a roleplaying game" response...
On 5/21/2001 at 10:04pm, Ian O'Rourke wrote:
RE: three-headed dog
On 2001-05-21 11:54, joshua neff wrote:
interesting, ian, cos i looked at "rune" at my local gaming store the other day, & while i adore robin laws' designs, i didn't buy it, simply because "gamism" isn't really my bag (tho it is much more than simulationism is--& if any gamist game could hook me, it'd be "rune")...but "dying earth" i bought, & while i have yet to play it, having read (most of) it, i LOVE it (& i've only read 2 of the dying earth books by vance)...
I'd hardly say that I'm an avid Gamist either, but sometimes people who say the Gamist angle does not interest them all really puzzle me.
For instance, I probably some sort of 'weak' narrativist or simulationist (under my new understanding) and I like the role-playing and the story driven type of games. If I was to play a D&D game, as in a dungeon crawl, I would quickly get bored.
Now the big BUT: I play boardgames and computer games?
Surely Rune is just a role-playing game driven towards a board game sensibility? You play board games? Besides, having each person in your group create a dungeon/level for the characters to hack through would be fun. Is it something I could play for long periods? No, it's a bit like the Paranoia game in that regard.
How can people, and I'm not saying you, be avid board game fans, yet they refuse to play gamist role-playing games (even on an infrequent basis)?
As for Dying Earth just does not appeal at all, it's not my sort of game. The whole ethos, from what I've picked up just frustrates me.
On 5/22/2001 at 3:44am, joshua neff wrote:
RE: three-headed dog
ian--
i actually did play in a dungeon crawl (using the lastest in "d&d" options, straight from the dealer's floor, w/ all the added options), & i got absolutely fucking BORED--so, i agree w/ you there...but then, yr right, i do play board & computer (& card) games & enjoy them...
maybe it's that computer & board games have either tokens & a colorful board or cool graphics & neat sounds--while "gamist" rpgs just have some dice & yr imagination (i suppose you could add in lead figures, but the last time i even touched a lead figure was 15 years ago, & we never actually used them in our rpgs back then)--for some reason, this makes me think of "star trek"...i quite enjoy watching the various "trek" series, even tho i find the writing to be, on the whole, atrocious & frustrating--but i like the visuals, enough so that i will go out of my way to watch the shows...
so...i don't know...i just know that i tend to get frustrated & bored in rpgs unless i'm part of a collaborative storytelling...tho i'm sure there are exceptions to this...
On 5/22/2001 at 7:06am, Ian O'Rourke wrote:
RE: three-headed dog
You're probably correct, I'd get bored with Rune if I played it a lot. If it was every so often between regular sessions, it would probably be fun.
As for Star Trek, bad writing? Well, may be on Voyager...but then this is a discussion for another forum :smile: