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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DreamChaser" data-source="post: 4113001" data-attributes="member: 1190">In my experience, and in reading on these boards, simulationist has nothing to do with role playing and neither does gamist.Sim = realist  / zero suspension of disbelief. Rules are designed to simulate the real world rather than approximate it. This is not to say that sim games cannot have magic but within the physics established by the rules, the rules seek to reflect how a person might experience it in real life.Gamist = represented in game terms, designed to abstract the system into basic tactical concepts. It is what Risk and Battleship are to war simulations."Narrativist" is, in my experience, tends to be a form of a gamist paradigm. After years of playing (and working my butt of to enjoy and ultimately failing) White Wolf games, which claim to be narrative, I came to realize they are simply gamist systems pretending to reward "story" when actually they have created an abstract system to compartmentalize role playing. From the nature / demeanor / clan system of Vampire 2e to the more recent overhauls, the only narrative aspects come from the only place they ever do: the players & DM.In my experience, simulationist games tend to inhibit rather than support roleplaying because all to often the simpilest actions prove very complex to resolve. The moment the dice come out, it is very easy for the momentum of the scene to be derailed.While gamist games necessarily require increased suspension of disbelief and "hand waving" they offer more freedom to imagine the scene and continue roleplaying while the dice are out.In terms of the above example, I think it is specious. The events of a single, combat-based encounter is far from sufficient to establish a lack of narrative motivation on the part of the character.DC</blockquote>

Verification