Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Balesir" data-source="post: 5581232" data-attributes="member: 27160">Ehhmmmm - you do realise that post was about the most tongue in cheek one in this entire thread, don't you?&nbsp; Try reading it again.On some random topics:I realise that lots of folk would love to see a &quot;simulationist&quot; D&amp;D.&nbsp; I sympathise; I would love to see the D&amp;D worlds treated in a proper, sim-focussed system.&nbsp; But realise that such a system would look nothing much like &quot;classic&quot; D&amp;D - and if it did, you would be swamped by optimisers wondering why the system is so &quot;broken&quot; now that they can exploit it mercilessly and with impunity.&nbsp; D&amp;D, by its nature, both because of its core systems (hit points, xps, levels) and because of its position in the market (most popular = most players = inevitable gung-ho &quot;play to win&quot;-ners who will, by nature, dominate where they touch). To have the core of the brand be simulationist-focussed won't work from a marketing perspective, so I don't think you'll see it again.A modular system is problematic for the same reasons.&nbsp; Modules would work OK-ish for a narrativist-focussed game (c.f. HeroQuest), but not for a simulationist or a gamist one.&nbsp; In gamist-focussed groups the modules would become part of the &quot;game play&quot; - inevitably one would give better chances for success than another. Then there would be the issues of balancing the game for all the possible options - a nightmare! For simulationist-focussed groups a world that exhibits different &quot;physics&quot; at different times would be simply anathema.Finally, expecting a game to be balanced and &quot;gamist-focussed&quot; in its rules and &quot;simulationist-focussed&quot; in its interaction between the rules and the &quot;fluff&quot; (so that all possible rules actions &quot;make sense&quot;) and yet be simple and quick - great god on a unicycle, who is going to create this miracle??</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Balesir, post: 5581232, member: 27160"] Ehhmmmm - you do realise that post was about the most tongue in cheek one in this entire thread, don't you? Try reading it again. On some random topics: I realise that lots of folk would love to see a "simulationist" D&D. I sympathise; I would love to see the D&D worlds treated in a proper, sim-focussed system. But realise that such a system would look nothing much like "classic" D&D - and if it did, you would be swamped by optimisers wondering why the system is so "broken" now that they can exploit it mercilessly and with impunity. D&D, by its nature, both because of its core systems (hit points, xps, levels) and because of its position in the market (most popular = most players = inevitable gung-ho "play to win"-ners who will, by nature, dominate where they touch). To have the core of the brand be simulationist-focussed won't work from a marketing perspective, so I don't think you'll see it again. A modular system is problematic for the same reasons. Modules would work OK-ish for a narrativist-focussed game (c.f. HeroQuest), but not for a simulationist or a gamist one. In gamist-focussed groups the modules would become part of the "game play" - inevitably one would give better chances for success than another. Then there would be the issues of balancing the game for all the possible options - a nightmare! For simulationist-focussed groups a world that exhibits different "physics" at different times would be simply anathema. Finally, expecting a game to be balanced and "gamist-focussed" in its rules and "simulationist-focussed" in its interaction between the rules and the "fluff" (so that all possible rules actions "make sense") [B][I]and yet[/I][/B] be simple and quick - great god on a unicycle, who is going to create this miracle?? [/QUOTE]

Verification