Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Desdichado" data-source="post: 5715847" data-attributes="member: 2205">I hadn't ever really given it much thought until I read a post some years ago in the blogosphere about something called "Gygaxian naturalism", i.e., the inclusion of mechanics that have no purpose other than to simulate reality, i.e. tell us something about the setting by letting us know, for example, the number of females and children to possibly be found in a monster lair.Granted, D&D doesn't really simulate the real world very well, but certainly since the release of AD&D, if not before, there was a slant of rules that serve no purpose other than simulationism of the fantasy mileu in which the game takes place.  The 3e family of games made some attempts to be gamist, i.e., the abstraction of combat to the grid being a notable example, while still maintaining a fair amount of simulationist flair.  4e really was the first edition of D&D to decide that simulationism wasn't an important goal, and focused more exclusively on gamism.Yes, but it's more implicit rather than an artifact of the rules.  It's more like the implicit rules of social communication (in fact, arguably, it is the implicit rules of social communication exactly) rather than game rules that are a factor here in "negotiating" what happens in game, especially with regards to those examples you gave.I agree, but I don't see that as a contrast to Monte's claim, as you assert; I merely see that as a different way to stating the same concept.Eh, maybe it made more explicit something that was implicit, but I don't see that as a substantive change.  Heck, I don't even see that as a change at all.Rather, I'd say that's just an example of taking something rather arbitrary ("save vs. poison") and making it something more systematic (Fortitude save) without having a significant effect on whether the game itself is more simulationist.  You could argue, I suppose, for that very narrow mechanic, that it is, but you'd be hard pressed I think to make the claim that that was a trend throuhout the game overall.  Hit points, for example, remain hit points, and what that means when you take a hit that doesn't kill you in narrative terms is still very much more a question of player style than of anything else.Detail of rules doesn't necessarily make a game more simulationist vs. narrativist, although they could.  It simply means that there are more tools for me as the GM and as a player to get to various results in game.I think that most players would tell you that the game merely made explicit what was already implicit, which means that there was no substantive change unless you played with some other paradigm other than the implicit one that the older versions of the game did.  I doubt the designers set about trying to change the fundamental nature of saving throws; in fact, I seem to recall quite clearly that the 3e designers were merely trying to simplify arbitrary systmes into less arbitrary systems for purposes of system lean-ness and aesthetic harmony.</blockquote>

Verification