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!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Enrahim" data-source="post: 9704605" data-attributes="member: 7025577">How can you evaluate a spesific game in a truely context free case? The game under evaluation seem to be context? This thread have touched upon a lot more games than D&D.I don't think even this level of context have been established for this thread. I am pretty sure runequest, rolemaster, apocalypse world and burning wheel has been some of the bigger ones making an entry.My post is based on even bigger generality than this thread though. And even within the scope of D&D crawling a dungeon, there are a quite big width in possible primary focus for simulation based on group interest, each providing different answers to what is helpful vs hindering rules (simulate calustrophobic dread, simulating combat, simulating faction interactions, simulating dungeon ecology, simulating archeology, simulating resource logistics)Yes, and no. I think you point to another dimension that make conversation difficult.Trouble is, if you dismiss this thinking you have also dismissed the thinking behind most of D&D sim. You have planted yourself solidly in the kriegspiel lair what simulation is concerned, and from that view D&D is of course an abomination that is completely useless for sim purposes. There is nothing surprisingnor new hei, just an expression of a more than 100 year still unresolved fundamental disagreement. So you here neatly demonstrate the problem I pointed out <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />The goal isn't to produce a experience through game design. Reformulating what you quoted from me here: The goal is to produce a simulation that supports many experiences trough game design. This is a completely different design philosophy. One is not better than the other. I happen to prefer the games from the later design for campaign games as they tend to provide more variation. I find games from the first design school excelent for one shots as they provide for a better experience in the field they are designed for.Of course. Hadn't there been any, this wouldn't have been a phenomenom to speak out against <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />No. I do not claim conversation is impossible. I just have observed that whenever this conversation arises it tend to get derailed. I actually cannot think of a single time I have seen this topic been discussed without devolving in at least of the manners described. I hope there has been such discussions, though. And my motivation for bringing this problem up is the hope that awareness of the challenges might help produce more fruitful discussions in the future.(Side note - of course you can prove irrationality of square root of 2 in any number of ways. Start making claims about one of them being more "fundamental" or "elegant", and watch how the mathematicians erupt into a flame war. Yes, I have witnessed the equivalent of this)</blockquote>

Verification