Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 8673947" data-attributes="member: 22779">Sorry for swimming upthread a ways, but, it's a pretty fast moving thread and I wanted to use this point to springboard off of another question I received earlier, ie. where was the hostility coming from.See, this, right here, is where the hostility comes from.&nbsp; Because I agree with [USER=467]@Reynard[/USER] - I'd love to have some sim elements surrounding wilderness survival, or, social interactions.&nbsp; But, as soon as any are suggested, the &quot;I love simulation&quot; crowd swoops in to decry it and tell all and sundry that having mechanics for social interactions isn't really D&amp;D, that all this stuff MUST be handled by free play and not mechanics.The whole &quot;simulation&quot; thing is 100% disingenuous.&nbsp; It's always made in bad faith.&nbsp; Because it's not &quot;I want simulation (as in real world definition of the word) in the game because it makes it more believable.&quot;&nbsp; That is never the meaning.&nbsp; The real meaning here is always &quot;I want to call the things I want in the game simulation and anything I don't want isn't simulation so I can hold the rhetorical high ground and try to force everyone around me to play in only the way I find acceptable&quot;.&nbsp; Any examples of how the game really doesn't simulate anything are brushed off and ignored - &quot;perfect be the enemy of good&quot; or &quot;there seems to be a real correlation between 4e fans and not wanting simulation&quot;.&nbsp; On and on and on.&nbsp; This was never a &quot;friendly conversation&quot;.&nbsp; This was 100% extension of edition warring from the get go.&nbsp; If it wasn't about forcing preferences on others, then it wouldn't be coming up week after week after week, in EVERY discussion, particularly any discussion about the future direction of the game.&nbsp; &quot;Oh, they are changing design approaches, so, I'm going to take my ball and go home, D&amp;D is dead to me&quot;.&nbsp; When it's pointed out that everything that people call &quot;simulation&quot; in the game is only applied to &quot;stuff I like&quot; and the rest is only simulation by virtue of &quot;make naughty word up&quot;, then we get the victim card played - oh, you're just trying to shut down conversation, you're just trying to badwrongfun!&nbsp; So, yeah, that's where the hostility is coming from.&nbsp; Fifteen YEARS this same conversation, virtually word for word, gets trotted out routinely to make sure that everyone knows who won the edition wars.&nbsp; Only it's getting more strident now because the most recent releases don't seem to be toeing the party line and suddenly the &quot;simulation&quot; crowd is getting scared that the new release of the game might not 100% cater to their preferences.&nbsp; We might even get... wait for it... shudder... quake in fear.... damage on a miss.&nbsp;&nbsp; Hostility is the right word.&nbsp; I am pretty hostile about this.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 8673947, member: 22779"] Sorry for swimming upthread a ways, but, it's a pretty fast moving thread and I wanted to use this point to springboard off of another question I received earlier, ie. where was the hostility coming from. See, this, right here, is where the hostility comes from. Because I agree with [USER=467]@Reynard[/USER] - I'd love to have some sim elements surrounding wilderness survival, or, social interactions. But, as soon as any are suggested, the "I love simulation" crowd swoops in to decry it and tell all and sundry that having mechanics for social interactions isn't really D&D, that all this stuff MUST be handled by free play and not mechanics. The whole "simulation" thing is 100% disingenuous. It's always made in bad faith. Because it's not "I want simulation (as in real world definition of the word) in the game because it makes it more believable." That is never the meaning. The real meaning here is always "I want to call the things I want in the game simulation and anything I don't want isn't simulation so I can hold the rhetorical high ground and try to force everyone around me to play in only the way I find acceptable". Any examples of how the game really doesn't simulate anything are brushed off and ignored - "perfect be the enemy of good" or "there seems to be a real correlation between 4e fans and not wanting simulation". On and on and on. This was never a "friendly conversation". This was 100% extension of edition warring from the get go. If it wasn't about forcing preferences on others, then it wouldn't be coming up week after week after week, in EVERY discussion, particularly any discussion about the future direction of the game. "Oh, they are changing design approaches, so, I'm going to take my ball and go home, D&D is dead to me". When it's pointed out that everything that people call "simulation" in the game is only applied to "stuff I like" and the rest is only simulation by virtue of "make naughty word up", then we get the victim card played - oh, you're just trying to shut down conversation, you're just trying to badwrongfun! So, yeah, that's where the hostility is coming from. Fifteen YEARS this same conversation, virtually word for word, gets trotted out routinely to make sure that everyone knows who won the edition wars. Only it's getting more strident now because the most recent releases don't seem to be toeing the party line and suddenly the "simulation" crowd is getting scared that the new release of the game might not 100% cater to their preferences. We might even get... wait for it... shudder... quake in fear.... [I]damage on a miss[/I]. Hostility is the right word. I am pretty hostile about this. [/QUOTE]

Verification