Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Li Shenron" data-source="post: 6297608" data-attributes="member: 1465">I think it is much more complex than just a matter of simulationism vs gamism.Personally, I am not interested in simulationism details. Simulationist discussions seem to me neverending, since every layer of details added to increase realism soon reveals its limits, and for every corner case solved with an additional rule there is a new corner case springing up because of that rule.At the same time, disassociated mechanics bother me a lot. I do not care for "fun" in rules, I do not want abstract disassociated rules in a RPG just because they are "fun to use", I have hundreds of board games or card games for those.So in a nutshell, I want associated rules to functionally represent what's going on in the story, but I don't want those rules to take over and for minutiae to dominate the table time. I am neither a fan of simulationism nor gamism, and yet I am a huge fan of RPG, how do you explain that?Overall I think 5e is generally not aiming, and that actually feels good enough to me. There are some elements which are irking gamist (weakly associated mechanics) here and there for my tastes, but they don't dominate the feel of the game because they are quite few. There is a reasonable level of simulationism/realism in almost everything, with the promise of optional modules for those who want more, but nothing beyond basic realism is really required.Furthermore, there is a "third side" which they are increasing focus about, and it's neither simulationism nor gamism. I don't know how to call it, maybe narrativism but I'm not sure... It includes the bundling of skills into backgrounds that represent your role in society, the random tables for magic items minor properties, the flaws/bonds/ideals system and tables, the traditional alignments but without hard mechanical implications... All this stuff is (1) strictly optional, and (2) not really based on rules. Simulationism generates rules. Gamism generates rules. Narrativism (or whatever it might be called) may generate rules, but in 5e it actually doesn't. All those stuff above are not really based on rules (note: backgrounds have rules, but they don't have more rules compared to just picking proficiencies freely), and I really hope the designers resist the temptation (at least in core) to listen to those gamers who want rules and mechanical implications for all the above. This aspect of D&D has been neglected in the past 2 editions IMHO. We got stuck in the idea that for everything there must be a rule, but a RPG is so much more, and IMHO it is refreshing to have so many interesting rules-free stuff to care about (but only if you want to). Incidentally, I think this makes D&D less nerdy and potentially increase the customer base.</blockquote>

Verification