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!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dungeoneer" data-source="post: 5452502" data-attributes="member: 91777">I read a couple of video game design blogs, including one by the lead designer of Civlization IV, Soren Johnson.  He has written a really interesting post which I think applies to tabletop games just as much as a strategy game on the PC.  It's about the perennially controversial topics of realism and gamism.There have been a lot of debates on the merits of simulationist versus gamist game design over the years.  Is it better to have a game that closely models reality, or a game that is just fun and intuitive to play?  But Soren suggests that you can't have one without the other.  Fun games need a basis in reality for the gamer to get into them in the first place:You can <a href="http://www.designer-notes.com/?p=302" target="_blank">read the rest here</a>.  (As an interesting sidebar, Soren says that fantasy-based games are among the hardest to get into because they don't 'reflect reality' as much as a contemporary or historical game.  So he says it's actually very important that fantasy based games use well known cliches.  An interesting argument for having elves and orcs in your game if I ever heard one!)Soren Johnson thinks that a game that is 'too simulationist' is one that requires knowledge of reality that a casual player is not going to have.  In a tabletop game like D&D this might be something like detailed rules for encumbrance and movement based on what type of armor you are wearing.  Casual gamers aren't likely to know or care how much full plate armor actually weighs or how far you could run while wearing it.  On the flip side, a game that is 'too gamist' would be one where the rules are so abstract that they have no obvious connection to reality.  Spells that a wizard 'magically' forgets every day might be a good example of this kind of rule.  This is something that is clearly done for game balancing purposes rather than to reflect any 'schema' based on the real world.  A more modern example might be healing surges.Of course these are both relative concepts.  To a group of history buffs, highly detailed armor rules aren't too simulationist because they actually do have a lot of knowledge about medieval armor.  Meanwhile to someone who has read the right fantasy novels, Vancian spellcasting might make sense in terms of the 'fantastic reality' they're familiar with.  But we can't lose sight of the casual gamer.  For a game like D&D, there are a lot of people playing who aren't into historical reenactments and don't have a comprehensive library of fantasy literature.  Arguably you shouldn't be expected to know these things to enjoy the game.I'm curious as to how you think the various editions of D&D, both old and new, rate.  <ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">How hard is D&D to get into for someone who isn't already deeply invested in fantasy or history?</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Does it expect them to know things they're unlikely to know?  </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Or does it throw too many rules at them that don't seem to have any real-world basis?  </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Which version did you start with, and what tripped you up as a rank n00b?</li> </ul>   Or do you just think Soren is just way off the mark?</blockquote>

Verification