Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="LostSoul" data-source="post: 4619075" data-attributes="member: 386">I didn't mean to imply that simulationism was wrong or bad.  I like it, it's fun.  I don't think I'm very good at it, which was the point I was trying to make (and failing) when I said "which is why I find this a really hard gamestyle to get right."My point is that, just because you have a world that you're running and basing your decisions on what makes sense for that world, that doesn't mean it's necessarily simulationism.I'm not really sure what you're trying to say.Let's say you're playing in a world with no magic item creation.  Those secrets have been lost to time.  Cool.  The rules, however, say that PCs can create magic items and they tell you how.The DM makes a decision here; does he go with what makes sense for the world or with the rules in the book?  Whatever ends up being used at the table, that's the system in play.If it's predefined (by the rules or the world, either way) then you've decided that it can be done or that it can't be done.  That's why I think it's harder to say "Yes" to ideas the players come up with.  If you've already decided how things work, and the players try something that goes against it, you're going to have to say "No" in order to maintain consistency.  (Nothing wrong with that; you probably should be saying no, though it's good to consider that there are always trade-offs.)Probably a good idea, since I did have rules available and I ignored them. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />  I'm not sure if that should be considered a house rule or a ruling.The case in my game (and gameworld) was that I never really thought about magic item creation except that I knew you needed to use a ritual (Enchant Magic Item or whatever) to do so.  That's about it.When the PCs wanted to try, I said, "Yeah, cool, go for it."  It fits the world; it's a magical place, you can always try to do something with magic, even if you're not really ready, but the consequences could be dire.  (Hmm, I guess I had thought about magic item creation beforehand - and magic in general - the basic, vague idea floating around in the back of my head being that it's possible to "reach too far", to play with forces that you don't yet understand or have control over.)Now let's say that I had taken the time to define magic item creation and all that stuff in my worldbuilding prep.  The player's idea doesn't fit with the world.  Tough luck.  I say "No."Which is fine; there's nothing wrong with that (in fact, it can be awesome), but I don't agree with the argument that having pre-existing rules (either in the books or part of the gameworld) means that it's easier to say "Yes".As for "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" - I guess I consider resolution of a Skill Challenge to be that set of formal rules.  But I see what you're talking about (see below).You bring up a good point.  I agree, of course, consistency is very valuable.  This is making me think about working within a framework of some kind versus leaving everything "loose" and "open" and the differences between the two styles of play.  Obviously, different approaches are going to be more or less rewarding, depending on what you want to get out of play.  Working within that framework can be very rewarding (to display your mastery of the system, for example, or to get the feeling that you're there, in a living, breathing world; or both, for that matter), but so can playing it fast and loose (opening the door to player creativity, letting interesting ideas that no one ever thought of before carry play down a different direction).</blockquote>

Verification