Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Elder-Basilisk" data-source="post: 4618770" data-attributes="member: 3146">I for one would like to know when and why simulationism became wrongbadfun. I for one rather enjoy the playstyle.I would think that whether or not the players' idea fits with the world is system independent. Either it is possible to make items or it is not. Either it requires special abilities (rituals, feats, etc) or it does not. Either the PCs have those or they do not. (In 4th edition, the players generally can't make magic items without the appropriate ritual and without being the item's level or higher). Either it is possible to make cursed items or it isn't.Consequently, I have difficulty taking the claim that you would have had to say no to the PCs' idea if you had any rules regarding the items at face value. I presume that since you said yes it either means that their idea fit the world and was possible within the world given their resources or you don't care whether or not the idea fits the world. If the former is the case, then there would be a way to work with more formal rules to accomplish the goal and it could well have led to a fun adventure. If the latter (which seems to be the preferred and perhaps only playstyle supported by 4e), I think it is shortsighted. For my part, the feeling of being a part of a consistent world that reacts appropriately to my character and his/her actions is a big part of the fun of the game. I would rather come up with ideas that fit the world and have a world react appropriately than have the answer to all my ideas be yes and be left with a world that is not consistent and does not make sense.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Elder-Basilisk, post: 4618770, member: 3146"] I for one would like to know when and why simulationism became wrongbadfun. I for one rather enjoy the playstyle. I would think that whether or not the players' idea fits with the world is system independent. Either it is possible to make items or it is not. Either it requires special abilities (rituals, feats, etc) or it does not. Either the PCs have those or they do not. (In 4th edition, the players generally can't make magic items without the appropriate ritual and without being the item's level or higher). Either it is possible to make cursed items or it isn't. Consequently, I have difficulty taking the claim that you would have had to say no to the PCs' idea if you had any rules regarding the items at face value. I presume that since you said yes it either means that their idea fit the world and was possible within the world given their resources or you don't care whether or not the idea fits the world. If the former is the case, then there would be a way to work with more formal rules to accomplish the goal and it could well have led to a fun adventure. If the latter (which seems to be the preferred and perhaps only playstyle supported by 4e), I think it is shortsighted. For my part, the feeling of being a part of a consistent world that reacts appropriately to my character and his/her actions is a big part of the fun of the game. I would rather come up with ideas that fit the world and have a world react appropriately than have the answer to all my ideas be yes and be left with a world that is not consistent and does not make sense. [/QUOTE]

Verification