Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JeffB" data-source="post: 5370067" data-attributes="member: 518">Merc did a good job of summing up in no small part what I was getting at (and Byron, certainly I was not trying to push buttons, or say one way is better than the other-just that there are different ways of approaching the rules, very much different).But another point I was trying to get at is that you can have alot of rules, and they can be simulationist or gamist. Or you can have few rules, and they can be simulationist, or gamist.For example- 3.X/Pathfinder are daunting rules volumes- with a  big focus on simulation. 4E is also pretty daunting but it also has rules that are very gamist (many powers that cause a story effect of , "your attack never happened despite the fact you hit".To delve further-Lets look at OD&D clerics- No sharp weapons- they are averse to the drawing of blood. The gamist in me says- may not make sense, but it's a way to balance the game so that Clerics are not able to procure and use a vast variety of magic swords that really should be the dominion of the Fighter and Fighter only.The simulation side of me says- well, we know that many real world priests, shamans, etc of ancient times, used all sorts of weapons- swords, spears, knives (sacrifces) etc. So why should the Cleric be limited to blunt weapons only? and while we are at it, lets give everyone more options in magic weapons- we will balance the classes in other ways.Mages in armor is another example- early on it was  balancing agent- in later editions the designers felt the need to create a plausible "simulation" that describes how magic works , just  so they can explain why mages cannot wear armor.In one mindset- "who cares, its just a game, like monopoly and thats the rule.  In the other mindset you have that "realism" factor- "this doesn't make sense, so lets re-work it so that it does make sense in a realistic way". You could cite hundreds of examples of this- Race as Class, Level Limits, Hit Points, spellcasting and armor, etc., etc., etc.At some point, D&D became less of a "game" and become more of a realistic simulation of a fantasy world, if that makes sense?Different folks have different needs/expectations. I'm one of those people who leans to the gaming side, though at times I prefer something a bit more "realistic". The damage by class house-rule I mentioned earlier is a great example. It provides a bit of common sense, while still retaining the balance, and does it in a simple gamist way- it emulates realism (trained Fighters are gonna have more damage output), without getting bogged down in minutiae. Its all just preference and mentality in which you approach the game- some people REALLY get into that detail and minutiae, and wanting to have "builds" and doing charop, and ultimate combat tactics, etc. They enjoy the game within the game.  I was never one of those people. To me a D&D character is not a whole lot different than the thimble or the steamship- a bit more complicated of course, but it's just a playing piece you use to get through the adventuring and/or story.Thats of course JMO, everyones MMV, nor do I begrudge them for what they like or want out of a game.</blockquote>

Verification