Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Thomas Shey" data-source="post: 8619414" data-attributes="member: 7026617">Because the question you have to ask if you're looking for something in a simulationist light is, &quot;what is it trying to simulate?&quot;&nbsp; When OD&amp;D came out, there was no strong setting data which was being worked from.&nbsp; Greyhawk and to some extent Blackmoor were just setting created to run D&amp;D games in (the latter is a little more complex in history, but that's how it evolved pretty quickly).&nbsp; So if you're going to do a magic system for a game based on a wide range of fantasy tropes, you either are going to try and hit as many of those with your magic system as is practical, or you just do something mechanically convenient, because it serves your game purpose, and move on.&nbsp; There's no great evil in doing the latter; most generic games with a magic system just did that, and its okay.&nbsp; What it isn't, is simulationist, because you had nothing in particular you were simulating when you started (and again, to be clear, this doesn't have to be the case with a game with fantasy elements and a magic system; but you have to have a set of solid setting assumptions about how your fantasy elements work going out the gate.&nbsp; Otherwise, again, you're just doing what Campbell suggests and filling in the setting after the fact to make sense with your fundamentally gamist magic system--which again, is not any kind of evil, but it doesn't make the magic system retroactively simulationist.)Again, I think you're conflating &quot;value&quot; and &quot;simulation&quot; here.&nbsp; I don't consider them one to one correspondences.&nbsp; I'm not a big fan of the D&amp;D magic system, but that has nothing to do with this; there are other just as gamist magic systems I like much better.&nbsp; But they aren't simulations either, because they came first and were designed heavily for game balance and utility, and any simulation elements were distinctly secondary concerns.&nbsp; I realize my dislike of a lot of D&amp;D mechanics can confuse this, but I really am trying to separate the two out, and its a good idea when reading my responses that simulation is a pretty small part of what I look for in a game these days--if you have to put a thumb on what part of a game I favor most, I'm still probably a gamist more than anything else.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Thomas Shey, post: 8619414, member: 7026617"] Because the question you have to ask if you're looking for something in a simulationist light is, "what is it trying to simulate?" When OD&D came out, there was no strong setting data which was being worked from. Greyhawk and to some extent Blackmoor were just setting created to run D&D games in (the latter is a little more complex in history, but that's how it evolved pretty quickly). So if you're going to do a magic system for a game based on a wide range of fantasy tropes, you either are going to try and hit as many of those with your magic system as is practical, or you just do something mechanically convenient, because it serves your game purpose, and move on. There's no great evil in doing the latter; most generic games with a magic system just did that, and its okay. What it isn't, is simulationist, because you had nothing in particular you were simulating when you started (and again, to be clear, this doesn't[I] have[/I] to be the case with a game with fantasy elements and a magic system; but you have to have a set of solid setting assumptions about how your fantasy elements work going out the gate. Otherwise, again, you're just doing what Campbell suggests and filling in the setting after the fact to make sense with your fundamentally gamist magic system--which again, is not any kind of evil, but it doesn't make the magic system retroactively simulationist.) Again, I think you're conflating "value" and "simulation" here. I don't consider them one to one correspondences. I'm not a big fan of the D&D magic system, but that has nothing to do with this; there are other just as gamist magic systems I like much better. But they aren't simulations either, because they came first and were designed heavily for game balance and utility, and any simulation elements were distinctly secondary concerns. I realize my dislike of a lot of D&D mechanics can confuse this, but I really [I]am[/I] trying to separate the two out, and its a good idea when reading my responses that simulation is a pretty small part of what I look for in a game these days--if you have to put a thumb on what part of a game I favor most, I'm still probably a gamist more than anything else. [/QUOTE]

Verification