Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Thomas Shey" data-source="post: 8608458" data-attributes="member: 7026617">Well, I'm not convinced a more complex game is necessarily inconsistent even within the context of the rules.&nbsp; There certainly can be ones that are (Powers and Perils, I'm looking at you), but games like, say, most BRP derivative strongly stick to the same approach within their context.Well, often that's because, honestly, they may claim to simulation but what they're really about is a vaguely simulationist looking structure that's actually super-gamist.&nbsp; I'm not allergic to some compromises here, but you should be aware that's what you're doing (Hero System melee weapons make some accommodations to not having a very limited number of weapons being a Winning Way, and don't really have the setup where some weapons only make sense during some periods, but the kinds of benefits a weapon has do tend to show some resemblance to the benefits you'd expect for similar weapons--picks being armor piercing for example).&nbsp; The kicker is if you get far enough down the road to paying attention to game benefit, any notable simulationist concern falls by the wayside (13th Age being a poster child here).As you can see, I don't think there's anything intrinsically true about that.&nbsp; I think you see it a lot because what the more complex rules are serving is not a simulation agenda, but a game one.&nbsp; But that's not a necessity in complex rules, its just the fact that at the end of the day, a simulation agenda is not a common one; probably never was, and has become even more so over time. I'd say I can count the number of games that are focused meaningfully on simulation (remembering I peel genre emulation off elsewhere) that came out in the last two decades on the fingers of one hand, and most of them are pretty obscure.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Thomas Shey, post: 8608458, member: 7026617"] Well, I'm not convinced a more complex game is necessarily inconsistent even within the context of the rules. There certainly can be ones that are (Powers and Perils, I'm looking at you), but games like, say, most BRP derivative strongly stick to the same approach within their context. Well, often that's because, honestly, they may claim to simulation but what they're really about is a vaguely simulationist looking structure that's actually super-gamist. I'm not allergic to some compromises here, but you should be aware that's what you're doing (Hero System melee weapons make some accommodations to not having a very limited number of weapons being a Winning Way, and don't really have the setup where some weapons only make sense during some periods, but the kinds of benefits a weapon has do tend to show some resemblance to the benefits you'd expect for similar weapons--picks being armor piercing for example). The kicker is if you get far enough down the road to paying attention to game benefit, any notable simulationist concern falls by the wayside (13th Age being a poster child here). As you can see, I don't think there's anything intrinsically true about that. I think you see it a lot because what the more complex rules are serving is not a simulation agenda, but a game one. But that's not a necessity in complex rules, its just the fact that at the end of the day, a simulation agenda is [I]not[/I] a common one; probably never was, and has become even more so over time. I'd say I can count the number of games that are focused meaningfully on simulation (remembering I peel genre emulation off elsewhere) that came out in the last two decades on the fingers of one hand, and most of them are pretty obscure. [/QUOTE]

Verification