Levels Of Simulationism In Different Modules

[Kaodi]

This thought arose specifically in relation to the domain-building module, a style of play with which I have become obsessed, but it could apply to others as well:

Does it matter whether added modules (which are not created for the purpose for adding simulationist elements) feature a different level of simulation than the core rules? For instance, if you have a fairly streamlined core game, would it be inappropriate to have kingdom building rules which have all matter of very in depth rules? Or, conversely, if you have a very complex core game, would it be inappropriate to have kingdom breaking rules that completely broke versimilitude in the service of simplicity?

The Pathfinder Kingmaker rules could perhaps to be said to be a fair bit more simplified than the Pathfinder game rules, though not too extremely so. Their main problem is that the rules, the basic functioning of which is fairly solid, have specific problems with certain rules that allow them to overshadow the basic rules of the kingdom building "game" . But I imagine, for instance, that those rules would be way out of place in a Hackmaster game.

On a slightly different note: Would be it cool or cumbersome if kingdom rules called for "kingdoms" that worked suspiciously close to the way characters did, with a slate of attributes (that worked in ways similar to character attributes), and their own kinds of backgrounds and themes?

 

[ahayford]

I think it really depends on what you want your game to be about. If you want to have a game that focuses on the characters of "King", "Court Wizard", "Master of Spies", etc and deals with intrigue and maybe a few key battles...you can easily use simplistic rules to hand wave a lot of the maintenance of the empire.

However, if you want to pay less attention to the characters, and more emphasis on running the kingdom itself, it would make sense to take a streamlined character module but a more detailed kingdom builder one.

:TLDR Take the modules that focus on the aspects of the game you are most interested in.

 

[Greylond]

This thought arose specifically in relation to the domain-building module, a style of play with which I have become obsessed, but it could apply to others as well:

Does it matter whether added modules (which are not created for the purpose for adding simulationist elements) feature a different level of simulation than the core rules? For instance, if you have a fairly streamlined core game, would it be inappropriate to have kingdom building rules which have all matter of very in depth rules? Or, conversely, if you have a very complex core game, would it be inappropriate to have kingdom breaking rules that completely broke versimilitude in the service of simplicity?

...But I imagine, for instance, that those rules would be way out of place in a Hackmaster game.

I don't know. I could see it as an addon to HackMaster, especially at High Level when Characters get to form a guild, get a Tower/Keep or Church...

On a slightly different note: Would be it cool or cumbersome if kingdom rules called for "kingdoms" that worked suspiciously close to the way characters did, with a slate of attributes (that worked in ways similar to character attributes), and their own kinds of backgrounds and themes?

Look at AD&D's Birthright for one way to do it. I really liked Birthright back when I played AD&D...