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: 9710788" data-attributes="member: 7025577">I don't question the design idea behind the jenga tower.What was the design intention, and how suitable something is for other uses than the original design intent is two quite different questions. We could claim our game is designed to be able to run everything well, and maybe even belive it, without that making it actually do everything well.I think very few if any here has claimed D&D is clearly designed for simulation. But many seem to claim that it provide a framework and ruleset they find helpful for simulation. I try to point out that in order to unpack to what extent they are right about this helpfulness, it is very useful to look at what they actually want to simulate. First then you can start assessing if some alternate ruleset might indeed be more helpful in their simulation.To for instance state that RuneQuest would clearly help them get a better simulation without even knowing what they try to simulate seem like a quite extraordinary claim. So I do not think this is what you try to say when you make claims that RuneQuest is more sim than D&D. Rather you appear to define sim as having a certain design feature. This makes RuneQuest more sim than D&D by definition. So the definition appear to be anchored in a design feature rather than a practical concern. Which causes me to struggle to see the practical value of this particular sim concept.Alternatively I could see that you might be anchoring the definition on the first order approximation of simulating reality as a baseline as mentioned in my reply #18482. In that case I do see the practical application to games that indeed try to deviate little from this baseline. And I think quite a few of the games discussed in this thread has had that property. But not all. And I think quite a bit of the conflict we have seen is in not making this scope of validity of statements explicit enough.</blockquote>

Verification