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="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8631990" data-attributes="member: 16814">How so?  Gamist play doesn't concern itself with fidelity to setting, so resolution doesn't use setting as input.  Setting is still important in the sense that it provides a theme or set dressing, but it's not part of resolution.  Think on on this process -- player has declared an action, how is this adjudicated?  In Gamist play, it's the system, and only the system, that should be responding here.  The only inputs are those the system calls for.  5e combat resolution of an attack is a good example here -- the play loop from "it's your initiative" through the attack and delivery of damage and riders doesn't check with the setting at all.  It's only if the GM decides to override the system and insert themselves so as to enforce setting (and I consider GM prep notes part of setting for this example) that it could be considered, and that moves that moment of play out of gamism into simulationism.  It toggles -- a term I use often to describe how games move between agendas.  This kind of thing isn't something long term D&D players even notice -- not because it's not jarring, but because it's entirely common and accustomed.  But, no, gamism doesn't use setting as an input to resolution or a constraint on outcome of that resolution.  This is, quite often, the source of complaints like "this isn't realistic."ETA to your ETA -- oh, yeah, wrong word there.  Missed it even on the second read!  SYSTEM is the correct word there.</blockquote>

Verification