D&D 5E (2014) Mike Mearls on 5e design he regrets. Bonus Actuons.

[Lanefan]

Bad! Of course. I challenge the players so that they can feel accomplished and satisfied--Doing things just to make the world 'feel real' is a bad instinct and goal(To me, though I don't respect simulationism really).

So doing stuff in favour of the players is good but doing stuff not in their favour is bad. Which means, by extension, a 'good' DM ultimately ends up never actually challenging the characters, as to do so is not in the players' favour.

Yeah, not buying this.

 

[bsss]

I'm with you in principle here but I think it's more anathema to a simulationist than a gamist: those eight Goblins are there for an in-fiction reason and suddenly having two of them wander off or disappear is highly unlikely to properly simulate the actions they would be taking if the fiction was real.

Right, I believe a gamist would want the sweet spot of action and challenging combat, in-world justification (or not) be damned.

 

[bsss]

So doing stuff in favour of the players is good but doing stuff not in their favour is bad. Which means, by extension, a 'good' DM ultimately ends up never actually challenging the characters, as to do so is not in the players' favour.

Yeah, not buying this.

"Not in the players' favor" unless, I note empathetically, challenge is important to the players. They can be there for the exciting gameplay and want something different than the characters, the characters being the ones who want the rewards, presumably as risk-free as possible. I don't even remember if it's this thread anymore, but this is the argument I had about how it doesn't have to be only the GM who is pushing for challenge or proper rewards or fun or whatever --- the players can and do take that responsibility too.

 

[Emerikol]

I'm with you in principle here but I think it's more anathema to a simulationist than a gamist: those eight Goblins are there for an in-fiction reason and suddenly having two of them wander off or disappear is highly unlikely to properly simulate the actions they would be taking if the fiction was real.

It is probably disturbing to both but I could very reasonably come up with a reason in world for why those two goblins are missing. Maybe they encountered a wandering monster and lost two. It wouldn't be unrealistic in the broad sense. It's the fact the DM is doing it FOR game reason to help the party that is most offensive I think.

 

[Emerikol]

Right, I believe a gamist would want the sweet spot of action and challenging combat, in-world justification (or not) be damned.

A gamist cares about winning and rules being followed. He often wants player skill as part of the game as well at least in the D&D world.

 

[bsss]

A gamist cares about winning and rules being followed. He often wants player skill as part of the game as well at least in the D&D world.

A "pure" gamist wouldn't care about why the goblins are present, or that there's 8 there because that's what makes sense for the region's ecology, or that it's illogical that you added 2 more despite the inability for the cave to support that kind of strain on their resources for a while, or you removed 2 because the king's guard has been working on eradicating the goblin threat. There's no "rules" for the "right" number of goblins in the cave --- they want the goblin cave to be a fun challenge so they can best it and feel vindicated in their victory.

My point (as much as I truly latch onto the labels, anyway, which isn't a ton, to be honest) is simply that the objection from your players that you're doing the adjustment "for a game reason" is objectionable to the simulationist tendency. To gamist tendencies it's probably perfect --- give them the best possible game, in-world rationale be damned.

 

[Emerikol]

My point (as much as I truly latch onto the labels, anyway, which isn't a ton, to be honest) is simply that the objection from your players that you're doing the adjustment "for a game reason" is objectionable to the simulationist tendency. To gamist tendencies it's probably perfect --- give them the best possible game, in-world rationale be damned.

We are floundering around over definitions and this is a sidetrack. We don't agree on those definitions but who cares and it is not applicable to this thread so lets just drop it.