Hussar
Legend
Been reading the The Ranger You got spell casting in my peanut butter! thead and the following quote really caught my eye:
And, I have to admit, despite all the hoopla over the past few years, I really don't get it. I love sim style games. I do. GURPS is a favourite game of mine that I don't get to play anywhere nearly often enough. But, where does this idea that D&D is a good fit for sim style play come from? In 2001, if you had claimed that you self identified as a sim player and your go to game for that style was D&D, everyone would look at you like you had two heads.
When did D&D become the poster child for sim play? D&D has always been primarily gamist in most of its approaches. The mechanics have virtually always been, "What makes this a fun game" rather than, "How can we model this through mechanics"? This is why we have a combat system that is entirely abstract. We use Hit Points rather than any number of systems model physical damage far better. We have dungeons that make virtually no sense and game worlds that barely pay lip service to the massive impact that the mechanics would have if the mechanics were actually applied to world building.
So, I ask you, why D&D? If you like sim style play where the mechanics are making a statement about the game world, then why on Earth would you choose to play D&D?
It most certainly does not! D&D is not an abstract strategy game. If this logic applied to D&D, there would be no need for "rulings over rules." Chess doesn't need a DM.
At its core, D&D is a game of pretend. It's not all that different from when one kid says "I'm Batman!" and another says "Well, I'm Wonder Woman!" and they start fighting imaginary criminals. The rules exist to help the kids decide what happens when the imaginary Joker throws imaginary razor-edged playing cards at Batman. When the kids start debating whether Batman can dodge the playing cards, the rules offer a common ground and a set of tools with which to reach an answer. Sometimes, strict adherence to the rules produces silly results, in which case the kids can say "That's silly" and ignore them. This is one of the reasons Rule Zero was invented. But in most cases the rules provide decent answers.
Because the rules are tools for answering questions about the fiction, however, they can't be separated from it. When the rules say that Batman can only throw 3 Batarangs per day, that is a statement about the fictional world. It shouldn't be necessary for the kids to dream up ad hoc rationalizations for why Batman is choosing not to throw any more Batarangs. The rules have no authority over what Batman chooses to do, only over the results of his decisions.
And, I have to admit, despite all the hoopla over the past few years, I really don't get it. I love sim style games. I do. GURPS is a favourite game of mine that I don't get to play anywhere nearly often enough. But, where does this idea that D&D is a good fit for sim style play come from? In 2001, if you had claimed that you self identified as a sim player and your go to game for that style was D&D, everyone would look at you like you had two heads.
When did D&D become the poster child for sim play? D&D has always been primarily gamist in most of its approaches. The mechanics have virtually always been, "What makes this a fun game" rather than, "How can we model this through mechanics"? This is why we have a combat system that is entirely abstract. We use Hit Points rather than any number of systems model physical damage far better. We have dungeons that make virtually no sense and game worlds that barely pay lip service to the massive impact that the mechanics would have if the mechanics were actually applied to world building.
So, I ask you, why D&D? If you like sim style play where the mechanics are making a statement about the game world, then why on Earth would you choose to play D&D?