Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 4021516" data-attributes="member: 4937">Forget formal GNS for a while.Let's talk about something everyone is familiar with - fireball.Alot of people do use different definitions of 'simulationist'.  To me, the heart of simulationism is a thought experiment.  Simulationists treat RPGs as a mental toy, rather than as means of achieving some story end or as a challenge to be overcome.  Simulationism expresses itself in the game fundamentally with the notion that the actual game effect of the rules ought to be its intended effect.  Hense, if the actual game effect of fireball is to not set things on fire (as it is in 3E), the simulationist response is to either look for a deep in game reason why fireballs don't set things on fire, or else to respond that a rule about balls of scalding fire ought to either be changed mechanically to where it does what you'd expect things to do (set things on fire) or else be changed in flavor (rename it 'arcane blast') so that it does not create the expectation that it should set things on fire. To compare this to other responces to the rules of fireball, a gamist would probably be happy to say, "Sure fireballs actually do set things on fire, but because things being set on fire is mechanically messy, it should be ignored except when it has no mechanical effect."  A narrativist would be happy to say, "Sure, fireballs actually do set things on fire, but because things being set on fire is mechanically messy, it should be ignored except when it has an important dramatic effect." Looking back at the games history, the 1st edition fireball was strictly simulationist.  The rules offer the proposition, "If wizards can summon bursts of fire, then the followings effects should occur: the spell takes the form of an explosive bead which bursts on contact, things should catch on fire, creatures should be damaged, more powerful wizards should summon hotter fire, the expanding ball of fire should expand to fill the area that it is contained in...", and so forth.  The 3E rules to fireball are more explicitly gamist in construction.  Reading between the lines, they read, "Wizards in fantasy games can traditionally summon balls of fire.  For the purposes of simplicity, these balls of fire are limited to the following precise, balanced, and easily adjudicated effects."  The notion that we should be thinking about how an actual exploding ball of fire would effect a world somewhat similar to our own is removed from the rules.  The world becomes more 'what is happening in the game' and less 'what is happening in our head when we envision what is happening in the game'.</blockquote>

Verification