Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Haiku Elvis" data-source="post: 8622436" data-attributes="member: 7032874">Not necessarily following on from any previous posts but just my tuppence worth referring back to the OP. I find the term Gamist the weak link out of the three in it's definition as it feels to me its mostly trying to put an independent identity on what is basically "not the other two options".Simulationism - is the crunchy 'what would the world do?' game engine at it's core, which drives the events and players decisions through understanding of the risks and consequences as modeled on the designers view of reality. If the game designer has done a good job these decisions should mirror what would happen in 'real life' .For example a player whose character has a knife avoids fighting an orc with a spear as he knows the lack of reach is a disadvantage, applied through in game penalties on short weapons. The player has moved the game on (by choosing to retreat and presumably planning a different approach with higher success) in a way that was wise in game terms and a success in game design terms as it simulated what the designer percieved would be realistic in that scenario.Narrative - is the character based 'what would Steve* do?' game engine at it's core which drives events and players decisions through encouraging (incentivising even?) character traits and beliefs to be acted on. If the game designer has done a good job the player would feel free to follow their character's character even if it would be of practical detriment. For example the player charges the spear orc because his character 'never runs from a fight' even knowing his character could get badly hurt. But he knows he will get a metacurrency point he can use to get out of Dodge later or maybe an advancement point for leaning into character that will get him more skills for the next session. The player has as moved the game on by acting in character to create a new dramatic situation that needs resolving.  The game design is a success as the player prioritised character driven narrative over playing the numbers even potentially increasing their own risk.But even though a have a vague sense of it I find it difficult to find a description for gamist that could match the two above.It feels like gamist should involve more abstract rules that create tactical decision points through the game systems themselves without trying too hard to mirror a real effect.The best thing I can think of for gamist is AC. Armour prevents the wearer from being injured when hit, so a system like AC that makes a wearer harder to hit through combining armour with, dodge abity and combat experience in one stat mainly to create a simpler combat system feels gamist to me. A simulationist approach would have armour reduce damage after being hit.It's not wholly unrealistic it will reduce damage taken to the wearer, but is deliberately taking a step back from realism to allow it to be represented in an easily stated up and tactically deployed in game term that can aid achieving success if used correctly.The player will make descisions on what to do based (among other things) on how easily they can be hit and damaged due to their AC which is neither a  simulationist/push to be realy real or a narrativist push to be true to character.But again simulationist games expect tactical deployment of in game stats and narrativist games often vague up stats and systems to they don't overpower the narrative choices and leave descriptive freedom.You still end up with either describing gamist as being less realistic more abstract/meta rules than simulationist but that overlaps with narrativist or you lean on the 'tactical use the options available to win' side that overlaps with simulationist. So either way even though I recognise its a third way it's not really its own beast.</blockquote>

Verification