Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon 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 Next
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
*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!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
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
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Rules Lawyers, Powergamers, and Munchkins: Thoughts on the Origins of Diverse Species
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="James Gasik" data-source="post: 9132644" data-attributes="member: 6877472"><p>I've re-written this post three times now, trying to keep it short.</p><p></p><p>I think it's just the classic clash that has plagued gaming since the very beginning. </p><p></p><p>Gamist players vs. simulationist players.</p><p></p><p>The Gamist makes optimization choices based on the mechanics. If a game like, say, D&D, says longbows fire 2x per turn and deal d8 damage, with a possibility to add Strength bonuses, and a heavy crossbow fires once every other turn, and does d6+1 damage, with no such possibility, they're going to use the bow, unless they have found some advantage to using the inferior weapon.</p><p></p><p>The simulationist might know quite a bit about crossbows in real life, and use them <em>because it makes sense for the imaginary character they have created in their mind to do</em>, irregardless of what the rules say about crossbows.</p><p></p><p>When the bow user consistently shows them up in ranged combat, making their choice seem foolish, it annoys them. Surely, they think, the mark of a good character and a good player is to make simulationist choices, not simply gravitate towards what the rules say is the "best" option.</p><p></p><p>But games don't reward you for making simulationist choices. They reward you for making mechanically sound choices. In a vacuum, our two ranged experts will never reach parity; one will always be better than the other.</p><p></p><p>It becomes the GM's job, then, to tweak the rules, and adjust play, so that everyone has an equally fun time. Not all GM's do this though. "The world is the world", they say. "I won't change the world based on what you decided to play."</p><p></p><p>In a perfect world, both gamist and simulationist choices would have equal merit. They don't. The best they can do is not make your character completely suck if you decided a 14 Intelligence is good enough for your Wizard, and instead give them a 18 Constitution, even if all that means is you can take one more goblin arrow before falling down each combat.</p><p></p><p>That's what bounded accuracy was intended to solve, but YMMV if it does.</p><p></p><p>Rules lawyers can be seen in much the same way; they can glean benefits from their knowledge of gamist elements like RULES, as opposed to making simulationist decisions. </p><p></p><p>For example, a simulationist might say they wish to feint in combat. This is something a real warrior would do. But if the feinting rules are terrible, because you give up an attack to maybe gain an advantage (because, say, the rules say zombies can't be feinted), and you still do it, while the gamist looks at the feinting rules and goes "ah, yeah, I think I can gain advantage in an easier way, like multiclassing into Sorcerer to get Grease".</p><p></p><p>This often feels like cheating (even though it isn't, obviously, since the game supports it) to some simulationist players, and bad blood is the result, because the simulationist finds themselves fighting against the system, when it should be supporting them.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="James Gasik, post: 9132644, member: 6877472"] I've re-written this post three times now, trying to keep it short. I think it's just the classic clash that has plagued gaming since the very beginning. Gamist players vs. simulationist players. The Gamist makes optimization choices based on the mechanics. If a game like, say, D&D, says longbows fire 2x per turn and deal d8 damage, with a possibility to add Strength bonuses, and a heavy crossbow fires once every other turn, and does d6+1 damage, with no such possibility, they're going to use the bow, unless they have found some advantage to using the inferior weapon. The simulationist might know quite a bit about crossbows in real life, and use them [I]because it makes sense for the imaginary character they have created in their mind to do[/I], irregardless of what the rules say about crossbows. When the bow user consistently shows them up in ranged combat, making their choice seem foolish, it annoys them. Surely, they think, the mark of a good character and a good player is to make simulationist choices, not simply gravitate towards what the rules say is the "best" option. But games don't reward you for making simulationist choices. They reward you for making mechanically sound choices. In a vacuum, our two ranged experts will never reach parity; one will always be better than the other. It becomes the GM's job, then, to tweak the rules, and adjust play, so that everyone has an equally fun time. Not all GM's do this though. "The world is the world", they say. "I won't change the world based on what you decided to play." In a perfect world, both gamist and simulationist choices would have equal merit. They don't. The best they can do is not make your character completely suck if you decided a 14 Intelligence is good enough for your Wizard, and instead give them a 18 Constitution, even if all that means is you can take one more goblin arrow before falling down each combat. That's what bounded accuracy was intended to solve, but YMMV if it does. Rules lawyers can be seen in much the same way; they can glean benefits from their knowledge of gamist elements like RULES, as opposed to making simulationist decisions. For example, a simulationist might say they wish to feint in combat. This is something a real warrior would do. But if the feinting rules are terrible, because you give up an attack to maybe gain an advantage (because, say, the rules say zombies can't be feinted), and you still do it, while the gamist looks at the feinting rules and goes "ah, yeah, I think I can gain advantage in an easier way, like multiclassing into Sorcerer to get Grease". This often feels like cheating (even though it isn't, obviously, since the game supports it) to some simulationist players, and bad blood is the result, because the simulationist finds themselves fighting against the system, when it should be supporting them. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Rules Lawyers, Powergamers, and Munchkins: Thoughts on the Origins of Diverse Species
Top