Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="steenan" data-source="post: 4746106" data-attributes="member: 23240">Are you using word "gamist" as an opposite to "simulationist"? I think that the system traits that empower this play styles are not mutually exclusive. They may get in each other ways, but not completely negate one another. A system may be neither simulationist nor gamist. It may also try to be both and find a satisfying compromise.A simulationist game does not have to use rules as laws of the universe, but it should have rules that, when used, reflect what can and cannot be done in given setting and genre. It should be possible to explain why things work as they work strictly in game (as in: one character explaining it to another). Every game system is an abstraction, but it should be an abstraction that is consistent with the imaginary world. To call the system "simulationist" it must be possible to make decisions in character, without taking into account metagame criteria. Thus, the less the system follows either the real world or well-defined genre, the more the system plays the role of natural laws, because the players have no other experiences to fall back to to imagine how the world works.It is perfectly fine to answer player's question of "But why it works this way?" with "Just because. That is the physics/chemistry/biology of this world." Just do not require the characters not to talk about it and make decisions based on these natural laws. If the system puts "once per day" restrictions on some martial attacks, it still may be played as simulationist - it will just feel like Order of the Stick...Gamist is not "not simulationist". A system is gamist if it may be "played to win" and do not break because of it. Gamist system needs to be balanced. It may encourage character optimization, individual or group tactics, social skills, ingenuity or other kind of players' skill. It does not have to be about combat, but needs fair and precise rules that are used to resolve the important conflicts. Gamist systems gain much from being highly abstract - it's much easier to have a game both interesting and fair if those two traits need not emerge from the same rules.Problems emerge when a part of the game world that is highly abstracted is, at the same time, important for characters' efficiency and achieving players' goals. If it was impossible to increase characters' power by buying appropriate equipment, much less people would rant about D&D "unrealistic" economy. If the game wasn't about killing things, nobody would care if it should be possible to slay an unaware person by slashing their throat from behind. And so on.</blockquote>

Verification