Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon 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 Next
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
*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!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
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
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
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
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Dice Fudging and Twist Endings
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="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8964346" data-attributes="member: 6790260"><p>My favorite edition is 4e, my favorite D&D-child game is 13A, and my favorite non-D&D game is Dungeon World. I'm about as far away from a "simulationist" as you can get, assuming the term means something useful to you.</p><p></p><p>But.</p><p></p><p>In order for the dramatic action to have meaning, there must be a world with durability, where consequences can occur and amount to something. That world must have true facts of the matter--even if nobody (not even the DM) knows what those facts are yet. Once something is established, even in a relatively weak way, it must be preserved <em>unless and until</em> new revelations appear.</p><p></p><p>Usually, I find "simulationism" (or at least what people call that) produces very bad outcomes. "Simulationism" as I have seen others advocate leads almost inevitably to worse gameplay (usually becoming tiresome, overwrought, and/or pulled away from the <em>point</em> of play), and also to worse stories, as it encourages a cold, calculating, dry approach, turning everything into an optimization problem or a logic puzzle to be dispassionately evaluated or ruthlessly exploited, rather than an engaging narrative or an exploration of a theme or concept.</p><p></p><p>As far as I'm concerned, the things I hear people call "simulationism" are the siren-song of tabletop game design: they <em>sound</em> so good, so beautiful, so deeply and fundamentally <em>right</em>, they HAVE to be good for the game! But they aren't. I do not at all blame people for wanting a world they can apply rational thought to--I also want that. I do not at all disagree that, where possible, the rules should support a reasonable imitation of a world that follows naturalistic rules. The problem comes in when we elevate that "naturalism is valuable, and should be preserved when you can" concept into an absolute and universal maxim, where <em>every</em> action taken which improves conformity to a naturalistic procedure is <em>guaranteed</em> to make the game better. Because it doesn't. It might seem like it does; it very much feels like it <em>should</em>. But it doesn't. Having a game you can reason about naturally in order to get good results is a <em>good</em> thing, a high honor worth pursuing. But it cannot be pursued at the cost that so many fans of "simulationism" are willing to pay. It's...like achieving absolute, pitch-perfect audio playback fidelity, at the cost of not actually being able to <em>record</em> any music with it. Sure, you've made an astounding technical breakthrough, but to do it you had to give up the entire <em>point</em> of making the breakthrough in the first place.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 8964346, member: 6790260"] My favorite edition is 4e, my favorite D&D-child game is 13A, and my favorite non-D&D game is Dungeon World. I'm about as far away from a "simulationist" as you can get, assuming the term means something useful to you. But. In order for the dramatic action to have meaning, there must be a world with durability, where consequences can occur and amount to something. That world must have true facts of the matter--even if nobody (not even the DM) knows what those facts are yet. Once something is established, even in a relatively weak way, it must be preserved [I]unless and until[/I] new revelations appear. Usually, I find "simulationism" (or at least what people call that) produces very bad outcomes. "Simulationism" as I have seen others advocate leads almost inevitably to worse gameplay (usually becoming tiresome, overwrought, and/or pulled away from the [I]point[/I] of play), and also to worse stories, as it encourages a cold, calculating, dry approach, turning everything into an optimization problem or a logic puzzle to be dispassionately evaluated or ruthlessly exploited, rather than an engaging narrative or an exploration of a theme or concept. As far as I'm concerned, the things I hear people call "simulationism" are the siren-song of tabletop game design: they [I]sound[/I] so good, so beautiful, so deeply and fundamentally [I]right[/I], they HAVE to be good for the game! But they aren't. I do not at all blame people for wanting a world they can apply rational thought to--I also want that. I do not at all disagree that, where possible, the rules should support a reasonable imitation of a world that follows naturalistic rules. The problem comes in when we elevate that "naturalism is valuable, and should be preserved when you can" concept into an absolute and universal maxim, where [I]every[/I] action taken which improves conformity to a naturalistic procedure is [I]guaranteed[/I] to make the game better. Because it doesn't. It might seem like it does; it very much feels like it [I]should[/I]. But it doesn't. Having a game you can reason about naturally in order to get good results is a [I]good[/I] thing, a high honor worth pursuing. But it cannot be pursued at the cost that so many fans of "simulationism" are willing to pay. It's...like achieving absolute, pitch-perfect audio playback fidelity, at the cost of not actually being able to [I]record[/I] any music with it. Sure, you've made an astounding technical breakthrough, but to do it you had to give up the entire [I]point[/I] of making the breakthrough in the first place. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Dice Fudging and Twist Endings
Top