Cbas_10 said:Well, if I had to label myself, this would firmly entrench me with the Simulationist crowd. Unless, of course, there is something in the game that would give some reason - from more of a character's perspective - why this phenomenon exists.
Wait....I guess that is still simulationist. But, I don't need realism as much as I want a sensible reason why something works like it does. "Wizards can make +2 armor once they reach 6th level because they are then able to channel that much energy and harness that power when they have sufficient skill" seems a lot more sensible and interesting in a story sense than "your Ring of Doing-Something-Interesting won't work until you have garnered a certain amount of skill and experience that has nothing at all to do with wearing and using that Ring."
I think it is important to think why a rule is being made. All gamist rules can be explained retroactively and *seem* to be simulationist.
It is not necessarily always the result that is important but the intent.
"Why is the rule being developed that way"
For instance I believe spell memorization was really a way to balance magic-users with fighters. It could be explained and made sense (seemingly simulationist) but i think it really was a way to balance a wizard's power (though Gary would have to chime in on this if this is the case)
Use Magic device was similar. It could be explained away (like from the old Cugel stories) but it was to improve the effectiveness and desirability of rogues.
Gamism does not necessarily prevent good explanations, (of course you can explain anything away) but these ideas help figure out why a rule is being made.
All RPGs have some element of gamism and simulationism. These terms really just mean the underlying purpose of certain rules and game design choices.