Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Million Dollar TTRPG Crowdfunders
Most Anticipated Tabletop RPGs Of The Year
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Death of Simulation?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 3736927" data-attributes="member: 4937"><p>No, no, no, no, no, no. </p><p></p><p>That statement is so typical of the 3rd edition mindset. Players do not actually have to know what the consequences of thier actions will be. DMs only need to know what the players intend to accomplish. But out in the real world, every one is used to the fact that what we intend to accomplish is often very different than what we actually accomplish. We all live in the 'fog of life'. Characters within the game world similarly live in that fog of uncertainty. It's an entirely gamist perspective to assume that the players in an RPG need to be able to reliably predict the outcome of what they do by analyzing the mechanics and examining the predictable range of results.</p><p></p><p>Yes, it is possible to take this too far (and I've heard lots of horror stories) and have all sorts of arbitrary consequences to your actions, but simulationist approaches fill in the gaps in player knowledge of the game by giving them consistancy and by making the world run in a basis that is logical and consistant with the assumptions of the game world provided the player emmerses himself in it and tries to think like the character would in that situation. If players of just starting out adventurers take thier characters to see the dragon, they are not thinking like inhabitants of the game world - they are thinking like players of the game. If you actually lived in the game world, you wouldn't think, "The DM would never introduce an encounter that isn't reasonable, dragon's have triple normal treasure, so therefore it's a logical decision to go kill the dragon and take its stuff." They would think, "Dragons are extremely fearsome creatures. This dragon has been living here a long time, and no one has killed it yet. And, look at the bones! Until I have a particular quarrel with this dragon and have more reason to be confident of my ability to face a dragon, I best leave it alone."</p><p></p><p>When I decribe the entrance to a dragon's lair, I expect the player to be thinking, "How would I feel in this situation? How would my character feel in this situation?" Unless you've chosen to play an overconfident idiot, the sight of the bones of all the would be heroes that has gone before should scream, "Blunder this way only if you want to have an early death."</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Then they will be clear the next time.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 3736927, member: 4937"] No, no, no, no, no, no. That statement is so typical of the 3rd edition mindset. Players do not actually have to know what the consequences of thier actions will be. DMs only need to know what the players intend to accomplish. But out in the real world, every one is used to the fact that what we intend to accomplish is often very different than what we actually accomplish. We all live in the 'fog of life'. Characters within the game world similarly live in that fog of uncertainty. It's an entirely gamist perspective to assume that the players in an RPG need to be able to reliably predict the outcome of what they do by analyzing the mechanics and examining the predictable range of results. Yes, it is possible to take this too far (and I've heard lots of horror stories) and have all sorts of arbitrary consequences to your actions, but simulationist approaches fill in the gaps in player knowledge of the game by giving them consistancy and by making the world run in a basis that is logical and consistant with the assumptions of the game world provided the player emmerses himself in it and tries to think like the character would in that situation. If players of just starting out adventurers take thier characters to see the dragon, they are not thinking like inhabitants of the game world - they are thinking like players of the game. If you actually lived in the game world, you wouldn't think, "The DM would never introduce an encounter that isn't reasonable, dragon's have triple normal treasure, so therefore it's a logical decision to go kill the dragon and take its stuff." They would think, "Dragons are extremely fearsome creatures. This dragon has been living here a long time, and no one has killed it yet. And, look at the bones! Until I have a particular quarrel with this dragon and have more reason to be confident of my ability to face a dragon, I best leave it alone." When I decribe the entrance to a dragon's lair, I expect the player to be thinking, "How would I feel in this situation? How would my character feel in this situation?" Unless you've chosen to play an overconfident idiot, the sight of the bones of all the would be heroes that has gone before should scream, "Blunder this way only if you want to have an early death." Then they will be clear the next time. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Death of Simulation?
Top