Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Crazy Jerome" data-source="post: 5715891" data-attributes="member: 54877">I agree that Gygaxian naturalism is a useful and descriptive term for something that exist in D&amp;D.&nbsp; I disagree that it in any way answers my point about consistent gamism in D&amp;D from the get go.&nbsp; See his views on simulation expressed in the 1st ed. AD&amp;D DMG.&nbsp; Also, there is a difference between &quot;good enough&quot; simulation in setting material versus a simulation focus in the ruleset itself.&nbsp; One of the big ways that D&amp;D, like many early games, has done &quot;good enough&quot; simulation is by pretending things in setting materials that were not supported by the mechanics.&nbsp; Nothing wrong with this, if you like it, but to call the whole big mash &quot;a focus on simulation&quot; is a misnomer.&nbsp;Granted, the inclusion of fluff details like numbers of females and children in a lair does contribute to the whole &quot;system in actual play&quot; at a given table, per the L&amp;L article.&nbsp; Dropping these drops some of the simulation from the &quot;system in actual play&quot;--or would at most tables, in any case.&nbsp; But they were not dropped to make room for more gamist play, and the assertion that they were is a mistaken notion of what narrativist play entails.&nbsp; &nbsp;But we might be getting into an intractable tangent, like some of the relatively recent conversations that have boiled down to an argument between the &quot;immersion is roleplaying&quot; camp versus the &quot;immersion is one of many possible components of roleplaying&quot; camp.&nbsp; If so, I don't see it being resolved here. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin&nbsp; &nbsp; :D"&nbsp; data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Crazy Jerome, post: 5715891, member: 54877"] I agree that Gygaxian naturalism is a useful and descriptive term for something that exist in D&D. I disagree that it in any way answers my point about consistent gamism in D&D from the get go. See his views on simulation expressed in the 1st ed. AD&D DMG. Also, there is a difference between "good enough" simulation in setting material versus a simulation focus in the ruleset itself. One of the big ways that D&D, like many early games, has done "good enough" simulation is by pretending things in setting materials that were not supported by the mechanics. Nothing wrong with this, if you like it, but to call the whole big mash "a focus on simulation" is a misnomer. Granted, the inclusion of fluff details like numbers of females and children in a lair does contribute to the whole "system in actual play" at a given table, per the L&L article. Dropping these drops some of the simulation from the "system in actual play"--or would at most tables, in any case. But they were not dropped to make room for more [B]gamist[/B] play, and the assertion that they were is a mistaken notion of what [B]narrativist[/B] play entails. But we might be getting into an intractable tangent, like some of the relatively recent conversations that have boiled down to an argument between the "immersion is roleplaying" camp versus the "immersion is one of many possible components of roleplaying" camp. If so, I don't see it being resolved here. :D [/QUOTE]

Verification