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: 9705792" data-attributes="member: 7025577">I might have misread the grounds for why they would be considered irrelevant? How is the notion that absence of rules can provide a better simulation irrelevant in game design of sims? The only way I could see was if you totally reject that notion, which is the hard line kriegspiel line of the best simulation is those supported by explicit simulation mechanics. I agree it is not completely spelled out, so I might have missed something?Yes, D&D has had some elements of more simulating rules. I think it is relatively uncontroversial to claim that these has still been tied to very specific (tough crucial) situations, and that the heavy lifting of running the sim has been based on DM know-how. And as such if you strip away accepting DM know-how as a valid basis for simulation what you are left with is quite pitifull compared to games trying to provide a more comprehensive simulative ruleset.I have played experimental roleplaying games where players are fed a fixed line of questions they should answer in character. And that is the game. It do not feeling railroady as the questions are very open ended. They manage to produce a very narrow, spesific experience though.The idea of designing a game to be optimalised for a certain kind of experience has been quite dominating in certain circles. The above example is real output from people trying to see how far they can push it. Most adhering to this design idea doesn't push it as hard, but it is still quite recognisable that design with focus has been at play.Then you have games like GURPS or FUDGE that clearly are designed without this kind of consideration at all. Rather my claim is that the design of these are the opposite: Design something with as broad applicability as possible. This is what I was getting at with my post. Designing toward a spesific single experience is a choice. I think the original D&D was designed with a particular experience in mind. I think AD&D was designed to try to broaden that original scope, making it able to support a wider range of experiences. I think 3ed tried to rein it in a bit, while maintaining width. I think D&D 4ed went hard on designing for a particular experience. I think D&D 5ed back reacted by actively trying to make the D&D formula as broadly applicable as they dared.</blockquote>

Verification