Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="apoptosis" data-source="post: 4020995" data-attributes="member: 3226">You make a good point. I should probably rephrase it to. In strong simulationism where skills are very individual and granular then skills that are not used should not be advanced with XP.In you idea..a broad skill &quot;Adventuring&quot; would make sense that is was raised during &quot;adventuring&quot;. That makes sense.My argument goes more to why is the decision made vs how well can you incorporate other elements to make the design decision result in an overall good rule design.The difference between starting with:&quot;we want all characters balanced&quot; and finding interesting simulationism elements so that it is interesting and has verisimilitude to the worldvs.I want wizards to have the ability to do things of a greater magnitude vs non-magic guys as that is my idea of how the fantasy genre should work; now finding some game rule design so that the wizard character is not overshadowing all the other characters during conflicts.My point was not that the exclusivity is in the end result but more that about the primary reason of the design decision.I dont think decisions are made in a vacuum and a gamist decision that is then explained adhoc for continuity might lead to a simulationism decision that then needs to be designed to fit allow for game balanace.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="apoptosis, post: 4020995, member: 3226"] You make a good point. I should probably rephrase it to. In strong simulationism where skills are very individual and granular then skills that are not used should not be advanced with XP. In you idea..a broad skill "Adventuring" would make sense that is was raised during "adventuring". That makes sense. My argument goes more to why is the decision made vs how well can you incorporate other elements to make the design decision result in an overall good rule design. The difference between starting with: "we want all characters balanced" and finding interesting simulationism elements so that it is interesting and has verisimilitude to the world vs. I want wizards to have the ability to do things of a greater magnitude vs non-magic guys as that is my idea of how the fantasy genre should work; now finding some game rule design so that the wizard character is not overshadowing all the other characters during conflicts. My point was not that the exclusivity is in the end result but more that about the primary reason of the design decision. I dont think decisions are made in a vacuum and a gamist decision that is then explained adhoc for continuity might lead to a simulationism decision that then needs to be designed to fit allow for game balanace. [/QUOTE]

Verification