Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 4463120" data-attributes="member: 18280">In this particular case, following what I believe TLR means (because I am quoting him), simulationist is an attempt to follow &quot;in world&quot; logic to simulate something external to the game itself, whereas gamist deals specifically with rules structure itself, in an attempt to create a game format that &quot;works&quot;.In Gygax's quoted bit in the DMG, what hit points are meant to represent is as close to simulationist as he can get without interupting the flow of the game, but they are a gamist construct in that the flow of the game is more important that accurate (or even close) representation.&quot;Hit points&quot; in D&amp;D are a construct of the game, which can be painted any flavour you like.&nbsp; They have an objective rules meaning, but have no objective meaning within the the &quot;in world&quot; simulation that flavours the game (though they may take several subjective meanings).Contrast this with the Wandering Prostitutes table at the back of the DMG.&nbsp; On the surface, this may seem a purely gamist element (as some have claimed in this thread!).&nbsp; However, the chart offers a variety that has no objective meaning within the rules of the game.&nbsp; Only in the &quot;in world&quot; simulation element does any entry on that chart gain any meaning whatsoever.To me (and YMMV), the degree of gamism vs. simulationism in 1e hit points and 4e hit points is quite drastically changed.&nbsp; IMHO, 4e hit points are far more divorced from the simulationist aspects Gary described in the 1e DMG.&nbsp; Whereas others think 4e hit points have solved simulationist problems, I think they have created far more problems than they have &quot;solved&quot; (and I don't see them as having really solved any).&nbsp; Again, YMMV, based upon what you are looking for from the game.RC</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Raven Crowking, post: 4463120, member: 18280"] In this particular case, following what I believe TLR means (because I am quoting him), simulationist is an attempt to follow "in world" logic to simulate something external to the game itself, whereas gamist deals specifically with rules structure itself, in an attempt to create a game format that "works". In Gygax's quoted bit in the DMG, what hit points are meant to represent is as close to simulationist as he can get without interupting the flow of the game, but they are a gamist construct in that the flow of the game is more important that accurate (or even close) representation. "Hit points" in D&D are a construct of the game, which can be painted any flavour you like. They have an objective rules meaning, but have no objective meaning within the the "in world" simulation that flavours the game (though they may take several subjective meanings). Contrast this with the Wandering Prostitutes table at the back of the DMG. On the surface, this may seem a purely gamist element (as some have claimed in this thread!). However, the chart offers a variety that has no objective meaning within the rules of the game. Only in the "in world" simulation element does any entry on that chart gain any meaning whatsoever. To me (and YMMV), the degree of gamism vs. simulationism in 1e hit points and 4e hit points is quite drastically changed. IMHO, 4e hit points are far more divorced from the simulationist aspects Gary described in the 1e DMG. Whereas others think 4e hit points have solved simulationist problems, I think they have created far more problems than they have "solved" (and I don't see them as having really solved any). Again, YMMV, based upon what you are looking for from the game. RC [/QUOTE]

Verification