Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Thomas Shey" data-source="post: 8966542" data-attributes="member: 7026617">There are some elements that overlap with OSR play, except the simulationists were not fans of offloading character abilities onto players all that much.&nbsp; And I think, honestly, that even most OSR proponents would be hesitant to go nearly as far as the simulationists of the time went.&nbsp; Too many of them are still too interested in making encounters at least interesting, which was not an intrinsic property the simulationists cared about; the interesting qualities were supposed to be about the setting and characters, and you set up any play benefit when deciding that, and beyond that it either generated interest or it didn't.OSR types might not care about whether a situation was balanced, but they usually don't bother to drop things out there that are, from lack of a better term, pointless other than to show its a living world--other than the ones that, of course, share strong simulationist tendencies.One of the critiques that was directed at GDS at the time was that it seemed to assume a sort of hard line between the agendas, which was a little unfair (almost everyone acknowledged you could mix them) but not entirely unfounded (because a nontrivial number of the dramatists and simulationists really didn't want to, in particular to get any icky gamism in their setups).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Thomas Shey, post: 8966542, member: 7026617"] There are some elements that overlap with OSR play, except the simulationists were not fans of offloading character abilities onto players all that much. And I think, honestly, that even most OSR proponents would be hesitant to go nearly as far as the simulationists of the time went. Too many of them are still too interested in making encounters at least [I]interesting[/I], which was not an intrinsic property the simulationists cared about; the interesting qualities were supposed to be about the setting and characters, and you set up any play benefit when deciding that, and beyond that it either generated interest or it didn't. OSR types might not care about whether a situation was balanced, but they usually don't bother to drop things out there that are, from lack of a better term, pointless other than to show its a living world--other than the ones that, of course, share strong simulationist tendencies. One of the critiques that was directed at GDS at the time was that it seemed to assume a sort of hard line between the agendas, which was a little unfair (almost everyone acknowledged you could mix them) but not entirely unfounded (because a nontrivial number of the dramatists and simulationists really didn't want to, in particular to get any icky gamism in their setups). [/QUOTE]

Verification