Just out of curiosity, where do the other versions of D&D's evolution fall in this diagram?
Carnac is never wrong.
D&D never belonged to the Narrativist/Simulationist Creative Agendas, in any of its incarnations.D&D is historically a Gamist game, focused on facing adversities created by the DM (with 4E being the most Gamist oriented).
No. DnD was a swords and sorcery SIMULATOR, allowing you and the DM to NARRATE the growth of your characters, employing GAMIST elements to adjudicate conflict.DnD was always firmly in the mushy middle, at least until 4E came along.
No, that vision doesn't stick to the GNS Model.First of all, there can be only 1 primary label: over a long period of time (aka Campaign) there will ALWAYS be 1 dominant label, so D&D can't be equally G+N+S.In addiction, GNS Model has no formale geometrical shape.
Shrug. I'm not a forgite so I don't subscribe to that dogma. Whatever floats your boat.
That confirms it's an apocryphal definition.If so, that's correct saying OSR incontrovertibly embraces 3E and 4E.
Post a Comment