Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="FormerlyHemlock" data-source="post: 6628475" data-attributes="member: 6787650">I'm not sure to what you're referring, but as a simulationist I do expect that professional killers will plan ahead and talk tactics with each other offscreen. As a player I may express it in shorthand as &quot;Pass Without Trace + Dancing Lights = NARC Beacon for missile fire&quot; instead of bothering to translate it into words a PC would use (does he even call it Pass Without Trace? I've no idea), but a PC would absolutely be aware of the fact that shooting orcs in the dark is a smart tactic.In short, I don't think I present any tactical ideas that are gamist in nature. And &quot;gamist&quot; isn't an insult, BTW, it's just a description of playstyle.Edit: another example of the simulationist/gamist difference. We had a disagreement about Planar Binding at one point. You think it's weak, I think it's awesome, because you find the idea of a rich and powerful bad guy binding 40-odd Air Elementals or Invisible Stalkers using 10% of his net wealth and sending them after someone who really annoyed him to be ludicrous, presumably since it's so far outside the &quot;normal&quot; D&amp;D threat parameters. To me, that's precisely why the bad guy would do it that way: he isn't sending out his minions to lose in an entertaining fashion, he's sending them to kill the enemy. And the more force you use, the fewer losses you take. That's a gamist/simulationist divide right there: fairness and fun vs. verisimilitude.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="FormerlyHemlock, post: 6628475, member: 6787650"] I'm not sure to what you're referring, but as a simulationist I [I]do[/I] expect that professional killers will plan ahead and talk tactics with each other offscreen. As a player I may express it in shorthand as "Pass Without Trace + Dancing Lights = NARC Beacon for missile fire" instead of bothering to translate it into words a PC would use (does he even call it Pass Without Trace? I've no idea), but a PC would absolutely be aware of the fact that shooting orcs in the dark is a smart tactic. In short, I don't think I present any tactical ideas that are gamist in nature. And "gamist" isn't an insult, BTW, it's just a description of playstyle. [B]Edit:[/B] another example of the simulationist/gamist difference. We had a disagreement about Planar Binding at one point. You think it's weak, I think it's awesome, because you find the idea of a rich and powerful bad guy binding 40-odd Air Elementals or Invisible Stalkers using 10% of his net wealth and sending them after someone who really annoyed him to be ludicrous, presumably since it's so far outside the "normal" D&D threat parameters. To me, that's precisely why the bad guy would do it that way: he isn't sending out his minions to lose in an entertaining fashion, he's sending them to kill the enemy. And the more force you use, the fewer losses you take. That's a gamist/simulationist divide right there: fairness and fun vs. verisimilitude. [/QUOTE]

Verification