Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="tyrlaan" data-source="post: 4871573" data-attributes="member: 20998">I'm not convinced these are mutually exclusive. In fact, I'm sure they are not. There are plenty of game mechanics that bring meaning to the game world and are balanced.Why am I starting to feel like simulationist/gamist is growing into left wing/right wing? Sure there are some people that need a game to be as close to 100% simulationist as possible, just as there are some that feel the opposite. However, there are actually some people that just expect a happy medium. Ultimately I called out this comment because I feel like simulationist is being tossed around like a derrogatory term, and I think that's a poor trend to start.Some other thoughts:In 4e, PCs and NPCs/monsters do not follow the same rules. So why is the common argument that if PCs can do it monsters have to be able to do it as well? More than any other edition, I think it's very plausible to say PCs can disarm and monsters can't. I think some of the ideas about taking advantage of existing condition mechanics are really good and I don't want to begrudge them by implying a new mechanic is necessarily required here. However, I have trouble reconciling how disarm completely nullifies a character when a mere minor action undoes the damage of the disarm.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="tyrlaan, post: 4871573, member: 20998"] I'm not convinced these are mutually exclusive. In fact, I'm sure they are not. There are plenty of game mechanics that bring meaning to the game world and are balanced. Why am I starting to feel like simulationist/gamist is growing into left wing/right wing? Sure there are some people that need a game to be as close to 100% simulationist as possible, just as there are some that feel the opposite. However, there are actually some people that just expect a happy medium. Ultimately I called out this comment because I feel like simulationist is being tossed around like a derrogatory term, and I think that's a poor trend to start. Some other thoughts: In 4e, PCs and NPCs/monsters do not follow the same rules. So why is the common argument that if PCs can do it monsters have to be able to do it as well? More than any other edition, I think it's very plausible to say PCs can disarm and monsters can't. I think some of the ideas about taking advantage of existing condition mechanics are really good and I don't want to begrudge them by implying a new mechanic is necessarily required here. However, I have trouble reconciling how disarm completely nullifies a character when a mere minor action undoes the damage of the disarm. [/QUOTE]

Verification