Search results

Agree very much...your point was more succinctly made..i am guilty of long-windedness.

This is kind of the point i was trying to get at. It is really the intent in designing the rule and not the necessary effect of the rule. Almost any gamist rule can be explained in a way to resemble it having been a simulationist decision. It is really why was the rule made that is important...

This goes back to simulationism is not realism. The world is already fantastical, this we know almost by definition of the game. The next question is what is the impact of fantastical elements. WIth some it is straightforward...wizards use magic (not real).... Otherways it could be less...

I think it is important to think why a rule is being made. All gamist rules can be explained retroactively and *seem* to be simulationist. It is not necessarily always the result that is important but the intent. "Why is the rule being developed that way" For instance I believe spell...

In previous editions, not acting your alignment did have consequences including the DM being able to change your alignment to what he thought you were acting. I am not sure what the social challenge resolution mechanics are so it is hard to say. But the use of these is supposed to keep the DM...

That is a completely valid reason to like a way of doing things. I had some great D&D and RM campaigns that I would love to be able to replicate even if now I tend towards BW and TSOY type of fantasy games.

Simulationism has a pretty (well kinda) specific meaning in terms of game design and play, though it is harder to adequately define compared to narrativism and gamism. But simulationism is basically "simulating a genre" and it only approaches realism as the genre approaches realism. Simulating...

I agree. Some advantages of this are that immersion is never dropped to roll dice or go into some mechanics. It really becomes a Player-to-DM type of contest (not good or bad just a different way of doing things) It though does become very susceptible to DM fiat. Most people dont like DM fiat...

Then I also apologize behind of time

Actuallly Peryton (sorry u will always be the crazy flying half deer thing to me now) i dont think thinks it is a problem. My feeling is that he thinks that giving narrative control to the players is a good thing. Reynard is the one who doesnt like it so much. Now, i could be very wrong about...

Nice post. If the genre is that heroes are really tough to kill then the way D&D did falling damage isnt a problem. The problem was always how people percieved this. They wanted something that should ensure certain death to result in certain death. The problem was most things in a fight...

I love Rolemaster..but not sure I could DM easily again, too much crunch for me....but some of the best games I played were in RM. The criticals are what turned me onto the game. But you definitely cant approach it like you do D&D or the players will be a bit unhappy that they are stunned...

Most games are generally realistic but that is not what simuilationist is about. It is about making choices in game design. What is more important that someone who gets stabbed several times will be severely wounded or killed or that they just lose some hp so that they can keep contributing to...

Except for most cRPGs are really gamist, because that is what people like in cRPGs. They are not trying to simulate a world at all but are pretty much trying to make a game where the players overcome challenges. I just reread what you wrote and you didnt really talk about cRPGs so i pretty much...

Sounds good. Simulation is about simulating some genre (even if the game makes up its own genre). Things happen that would happen logically even the world played-out based on its rules. It has always been a style that is hard to define in terms of mechanics quite often but people know it when...

ummm...YES i agree wholeheartedly.... But some systems work much worse in a low-trust environment.

I am not sure it will be easier but it seems from early information that it will have a social challenge resolution system that is more robust (which is a good thing) compared to earlier versions. But it is not a game I would choose if social challenges and encounters were the bulk of play...

Passive players are no good no matter what the system (same with bad DMs). But giving active players the ability to take greater part in the shared environment is beneficial to the overall game. It used to be with us to play a game, a guy would say I will DM and they would then come up with...

I think there is a point in here that is very valid and has been said. D&D is really not going to try and be the Fantasy toolbox anymore. Though it never was exactly designed to be that way, due to its popularity, the only game on the market (not really but at one time, it was pretty close)...

Absolutely in all editions of D&D the DM has had narrative control of challenges with the exception of wandering monster tables which then gives the power to the rules. 4E possibly might be giving some of this to the player...dont know the rules yet, these Quest cards *might* be a way of doing...