Search results

I have sim ways around all those things (to my satisfaction), but fair enough. I know there are non-Sim things other than hit points that can be pointed to. I'm just very tired of beating the hit point horse. It can't have many left by this point.

Maybe not for a lot of people, but for some I believe it is.

The class system can fit into a sim agenda, particularly if the classes have enough options available to represent many different ways to accomplish one's goals. In my view, class features feed into the fiction all or nearly all the time, and if they don't a little adjustment can make that...

Point. I prefer damage reduction personally. But to be fair most of my sim work for RPGs is for outside combat anyway, because my players are used to how D&D does things and I prefer to pick my battles. I have lots of different ways to make combat (including heavy armor and hit points) more sim...

Is it possible in your view for a game to have laudable approaches to sim in some ways and not be particularly sim in others? Does it have to be all or nothing?

It sounded to me that you were disregarding GM goals of play in favor of player goals. Both are important and IMO need to be met for a successful game.

You suggested sim isn't a play agenda. I strenuously disagree.

I don't believe the world remains in stasis unless the PCs act. NPCs have their own motivations that lead them to make moves. That means the GM does stuff that is not in reaction to the PCs. Plus, the passage of time causes things to happen no matter what PCs do or don't do.

Can we try to find an example arguing against simulation that doesn't involve hit points? Just as a change of pace?

Well first of all I play Level Up, which has more sim-focused rules added to play, like the journey system. I add stuff from other games and my own head on top, mostly on the GM side, to make the setting feel more verisimilitudinous to me and my players. And because sim is my focus, I use a more...

Yeah, if that's your definition, 4e was all spellcasters.

The version of 5e I play? Absolutely yes.

Don't GMs have goals too though?

Or maybe we can stop trying to tell people their playstyle isn't real. Seriously, please stop. It's incredibly insulting.

Not my game. Or any I've ever played.

Except they don't use magic. What's your definition of a melee character?

The fully reactionary role of GMs in these games (once the initial premise is presented) is one of those things one can point to that to my mind proves that there is more of a difference in playstyles than just whether or not principles of play are written down.

Haven't done that for a while. Got in trouble for it actually.

Things codified are things expected to followed by all participants. They set expectations you might not want to feel forced to meet.

Since you said you didn't read closely, I want to note that Level Up characters make meaningful choices at every "level up". Many of the abilities you were looking at are either/or.