Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="The Crimson Binome" data-source="post: 6680361" data-attributes="member: 6775031">In some cases, the entire group may quit the game, because it's too much effort to reconcile what the rules are saying with any sort of simulationist principles. Not every game out there will work for every group of players.While individual players and groups may have their own preferences, some rule sets do not lend themselves to easily supporting preferred play-styles. If you've read (or played) Savage Worlds, many of the rules are designed to encourage interesting outcomes rather than realistic ones, even within the context of a fantasy world. One of the most frequent refrains within the text is that things should only happen when they are interesting, or make the situation more dramatic.&nbsp;The presence of non-character player resources is a good example of a game mechanic which doesn't lend itself to support of a simulationist playstyle.Presentation matters, too. It may be easier to accept a break from simulationist principles where doing so is necessary to keep the game playable. That's pretty much the underlying principle of GURPS, which is a strong contender for the most-sim-focused game on the market; for the game to be playable at all, it must be simpler than the reality it's trying to model.Narrative concessions might be harder to accept, when presented as such. Again, going back to Savage Worlds, it may be harder for a heavy sim-focused player to accept that anything should happen because it's dramatic.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="The Crimson Binome, post: 6680361, member: 6775031"] In some cases, the entire group may quit the game, because it's too much effort to reconcile what the rules are saying with any sort of simulationist principles. Not every game out there will work for every group of players. While individual players and groups may have their own preferences, some rule sets do not lend themselves to easily supporting preferred play-styles. If you've read (or played) Savage Worlds, many of the rules are designed to encourage interesting outcomes rather than realistic ones, even within the context of a fantasy world. One of the most frequent refrains within the text is that things should only happen when they are interesting, or make the situation more dramatic. The presence of non-character player resources is a good example of a game mechanic which doesn't lend itself to support of a simulationist playstyle. Presentation matters, too. It may be easier to accept a break from simulationist principles where doing so is necessary to keep the game playable. That's pretty much the underlying principle of GURPS, which is a strong contender for the most-sim-focused game on the market; for the game to be playable [I]at all[/I], it must be simpler than the reality it's trying to model. Narrative concessions might be harder to accept, when presented as such. Again, going back to Savage Worlds, it may be harder for a heavy sim-focused player to accept that anything should happen [I]because[/I] it's dramatic. [/QUOTE]

Verification