Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
[rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9704055" data-attributes="member: 6790260"><p>But if there is no such thing as "a simulation(istic) game", and no such thing as "supporting simulation(istic) play", then <em>what on Earth have people even been talking about?</em></p><p></p><p>Folks here have repeatedly asserted fundamental ideas, whether directly, or as a required element of some other argument, such as:</p><ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Some rules are better for "simulation" than others, whever we take "simulation" to mean. Hence, some rules achieve the goals of "simulation" more fully than others.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">There are some rules or processes which are fundamentally incompatible with "simulation".</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">"Simulation" sometimes requires an entire systemic-level design, otherwise a particular game may be incapable of such play.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Even given an appropriate system foundation and a lack of incompatible elements, one system may have more point 1 rules than another.</li> </ol><p>If these things are to be taken seriously, it <em>necessarily</em> implies that rules can support or fail to support some particular type of play-experience referred to as "sim"/"simmy"/"simulation"/"simulationism"/"simulationistic"/etc., that some systems are better for it and others worse, that some playstyles may accept systems which contain fewer such rules and others might require more, etc.</p><p></p><p>Do you disagree?</p><p></p><p>Like...this is arguments coming FROM heavily pro-sim folks. These things were points I had understood I was <em>granting to</em> fans of sim, not things I was asserting myself!</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 9704055, member: 6790260"] But if there is no such thing as "a simulation(istic) game", and no such thing as "supporting simulation(istic) play", then [I]what on Earth have people even been talking about?[/I] Folks here have repeatedly asserted fundamental ideas, whether directly, or as a required element of some other argument, such as: [LIST=1] [*]Some rules are better for "simulation" than others, whever we take "simulation" to mean. Hence, some rules achieve the goals of "simulation" more fully than others. [*]There are some rules or processes which are fundamentally incompatible with "simulation". [*]"Simulation" sometimes requires an entire systemic-level design, otherwise a particular game may be incapable of such play. [*]Even given an appropriate system foundation and a lack of incompatible elements, one system may have more point 1 rules than another. [/LIST] If these things are to be taken seriously, it [I]necessarily[/I] implies that rules can support or fail to support some particular type of play-experience referred to as "sim"/"simmy"/"simulation"/"simulationism"/"simulationistic"/etc., that some systems are better for it and others worse, that some playstyles may accept systems which contain fewer such rules and others might require more, etc. Do you disagree? Like...this is arguments coming FROM heavily pro-sim folks. These things were points I had understood I was [I]granting to[/I] fans of sim, not things I was asserting myself! [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
[rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.
Top