Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Imaro" data-source="post: 5648525" data-attributes="member: 48965">@<a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=27160" target="_blank">Balesir</a> : I want to address the rest of your post whnen I get a chance but I saw these statements and thought this might be the crux of some of our failure to communicate, as well as why I provided the definitions I did...  Please re-read the definitions I provided... Simulationist agenda in no way requires realism, they are two different things and this, IMO, is where most people get coinfused.  IMO, it seems you want D&D 3.5 to be realistic... not that you were in fact trying to get a simulationist agenda in play from it. At least that's what I get from the above post... I mean Toon is cited as a game with a simulationist agenda... it's not realistic though. EDIT: I find your first post above akin to asking why doesn't Elric of Melnibone the greatest sorcerer of his age rule the Young Kingdoms as opposed to having adventures... or better yet why do people as skilled as Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser involve themselves in petty larceny... or maybe even why don't Tolkien's super elves subjigate mankind... and so on. The adventurers of extreme power who adventure when they could (and some do such as Conan) become rulers, tyrants, demi-gods, etc. is a trope of Sword and Sorcery fiction as well as some High Fantasy.</blockquote>