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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Roman" data-source="post: 4649117" data-attributes="member: 1845">D&D is perhaps not the most simulationist system, but I still want to play D&D with simulationism and not some other fantasy game - I like the D&D magic-wielding dragons, I like D&D's take on planar beings, etcetera. Besides, I think some editions are clearly more simulationist than others - the presence or absence of even more simulationist games does not change that and is irrelevant for me. Besides, there are various levels of simulationism and gamism and even if you prefer say gamism overall, going too far in that direction might not be something you enjoy. 3E is sufficiently simulationist that I can accept it (albeit I do modify it) - I would prefer more simulationism than that (up to a point of course), sure, but take too much simulationism away and I lose interest in the game.  Oh come on - we all know that the way HP, for example, is structured in 3E is not particularly simulationist, but the direction that 4E moved in is even less simulationist (even in the HP example used). There is a point beyond which I am not willing to go. I also want to make sure that we are on the same page here when discussing simulationism, so let me say what I understand by it. For me, simulationism in a game means that the rules strive to be representations of in-game reality. Not that any system succeeds at that completely - nor would I want it to succeed perfectly (that would indeed be going too far) - hence there are degrees of simulationism. For example, if a dragon has certain statistics, he will retain the same statistics if encountered by the party, regardless of the party's level, unless there is an in-game (as opposed to metagame) reason to change them. Simulationism is not fully a function of the ruleset, but also of the DM's/GM's style, but ruleset does play an important role.  That's exactly my point about rationality. By looking at 4E, I can tell with reasonable accuracy that it is less suitable to my gaming needs than 3E. The chance of 4E meeting my preferences better than 3E is pretty small. As such, the invesment of time and money to 'test', on the off-chance that it is correct, the hypothesis that 4E might meet my gaming preferences better than 3E, could well be considered irrational - after all, Potential Payoff = Size of Potential Benefit x Likelihood of Potential Benefit.</blockquote>

Verification