Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6680708" data-attributes="member: 996">I'm not so sure the simulationist would want to make decisions in-character.&nbsp; He'd want to make decisions that would accurately represent the character.&nbsp; If his personality isn't similar enough to the characters, it would be inaccurate to get all 'immersed' and make a decision as if he were the character, and make the simulation better if he were to step back and analyze the character and make the decision from 'outside.'&nbsp; Similarly, a resource not under the character's control, but affecting the character's ability, chance of success, or fate or whatever could be used to make the portrayal of the character more accurate - a better simulation.&nbsp;If you consider the universe of all such games on average, sure.&nbsp; Any given such game deviating from that average is a possibility, though.&nbsp; &nbsp;That seems unduly limiting, to me.&nbsp; It's one thing to play the game how you like, another to insist that everyone at the table conform to your preference.&nbsp;Unassailable tautology as that may be, it misses the point.&nbsp; A DM who prioritizes simulation may tend to present a world that seems real and makes sense to the players.&nbsp; He may also, because he's decided on qualities of the world that the players aren't aware of, present a world that seems arbitrary and driven by 'other considerations.'&nbsp; It's all a matter of appearances and perceptions.&nbsp;The so-called &quot;simulationist.&quot;&nbsp; Though it'd apply equally to a similarly painted 'narrativist.'&nbsp; The idea that players with different&nbsp; stylistic preferences shouldn't be able to get along makes them sound like jerks.&nbsp; &nbsp;I think it's a little unreasonable to dictate how decisions are made.&nbsp; Players should be free to make decisions, including free to decide how they make them.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 6680708, member: 996"] I'm not so sure the simulationist would want to make decisions in-character. He'd want to make decisions that would accurately represent the character. If his personality isn't similar enough to the characters, it would be inaccurate to get all 'immersed' and make a decision as if he were the character, and make the simulation better if he were to step back and analyze the character and make the decision from 'outside.' Similarly, a resource not under the character's control, but affecting the character's ability, chance of success, or fate or whatever could be used to make the portrayal of the character more accurate - a better simulation. If you consider the universe of all such games on average, sure. Any given such game deviating from that average is a possibility, though. That seems unduly limiting, to me. It's one thing to play the game how you like, another to insist that everyone at the table conform to your preference. Unassailable tautology as that may be, it misses the point. A DM who prioritizes simulation may tend to present a world that seems real and makes sense to the players. He may also, because he's decided on qualities of the world that the players aren't aware of, present a world that seems arbitrary and driven by 'other considerations.' It's all a matter of appearances and perceptions. The so-called "simulationist." Though it'd apply equally to a similarly painted 'narrativist.' The idea that players with different stylistic preferences shouldn't be able to get along makes them sound like jerks. I think it's a little unreasonable to dictate how decisions are made. Players should be free to make decisions, including free to decide how they make them. [/QUOTE]

Verification