Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 8638533" data-attributes="member: 18">Sure, and I see that, but this was about you saying it was a &quot;coincidence&quot; that it was the most popular style. I would suggest the opposite is true - it's an inevitability that any popular RPG isn't of a PB-sim-centric design in terms of basic setup.That's interesting. I can't really see it myself. To my eye, for example picking your +2/+1 and having a fixed +2/+1 are both pretty shallow approaches mechanically and intellectually (I presume this is part of what you were referring to), and I know that some PB-sim games would reject both the current WotC method and the older one as simplistic. As you say, it's an opinion though. Certainly 3E's LA-based approach to races allowed for a far more simulationist take (I will admit some sympathy for that approach myself, actually, I feel like D&amp;D could do with finding away to allow more stuff to be playable and whilst LA wasn't perfect, it wasn't awful either).This is not an issue unique to players who like PB-sim games or simulationist games in general, though. It's an issue for literally anyone who doesn't think &quot;D&amp;D is the best&quot;. If you like narrativist games, D&amp;D's current approach is pretty disappointing. If you like game-ist games, well, 5E is slightly less disappointing, but it's still pretty disappointing compared to say, 4E.In fact I'd say, you're probably slightly better-positioned than people who have either of those preferences, because 5E is easier to houserule into a more PB-sim shape than narrativist or game-ist ones, because PB-sim stuff can often be supported by adding rules, sometimes multiple layers of rules, where to make D&amp;D more narrativist or game-ist, you kind of need to remove rules as much as add them, and indeed to really go game-ist you'd pretty much need to strip out 5E's approach to magic I'd suggest.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ruin Explorer, post: 8638533, member: 18"] Sure, and I see that, but this was about you saying it was a "coincidence" that it was the most popular style. I would suggest the opposite is true - it's an inevitability that any popular RPG isn't of a PB-sim-centric design in terms of basic setup. That's interesting. I can't really see it myself. To my eye, for example picking your +2/+1 and having a fixed +2/+1 are both pretty shallow approaches mechanically and intellectually (I presume this is part of what you were referring to), and I know that some PB-sim games would reject both the current WotC method and the older one as simplistic. As you say, it's an opinion though. Certainly 3E's LA-based approach to races allowed for a far more simulationist take (I will admit some sympathy for that approach myself, actually, I feel like D&D could do with finding away to allow more stuff to be playable and whilst LA wasn't perfect, it wasn't awful either). This is not an issue unique to players who like PB-sim games or simulationist games in general, though. It's an issue for literally anyone who doesn't think "D&D is the best". If you like narrativist games, D&D's current approach is pretty disappointing. If you like game-ist games, well, 5E is slightly less disappointing, but it's still pretty disappointing compared to say, 4E. In fact I'd say, you're probably slightly better-positioned than people who have either of those preferences, because 5E is easier to houserule into a more PB-sim shape than narrativist or game-ist ones, because PB-sim stuff can often be supported by adding rules, sometimes multiple layers of rules, where to make D&D more narrativist or game-ist, you kind of need to remove rules as much as add them, and indeed to really go game-ist you'd pretty much need to strip out 5E's approach to magic I'd suggest. [/QUOTE]

Verification