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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Roman" data-source="post: 4018541" data-attributes="member: 1845">I agree with those who say gamist concerns should not take precedence over other concerns. I can only speak from personal experience, but a degree of simulationism* is important for me, whether I am in the role of the player or the role of the DM, but especially in the latter. It is precisely because of what I perceive to be utter disregard for simulationist* concerns during 4E design that I am now heavily leaning towards staying with 3.5E. I do not want to commit myself to not switching over yet, as something might yet convince me that my assumptions about 4E were wrong, but the chance of that is not very high. If somebody else buys the books (so that I don't have to pay for them) and wants to run a 4E game, sure I will not boycott the game on that basis, but I am not planning on buying the books myself or running a 4E game. Note that this situation arises despite the fact that to some extent I do look to gamist and narrativist aspects of the game too and the fact that I like some things about 4E (for example, that characters get something at every level). *I am not sure I am using the right terminology. I don't care for names such as "Golden Wyvern Adept" and the like that might be considered simulationist. I am concerned, however, about the referencing of durations and frequency of action use to gamist councepts such as 'encounters', about the removal of non-combat powers from monsters, about the inability to be bad in a skill and the like. Given these facts, am I a simulationist or something else?</blockquote>

Verification