Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 5571065" data-attributes="member: 22779">This, of course, all presumes that simulationism is the be all and end all of role play.&nbsp; That stripping out simulation (which I totally agree 4e does) somehow makes role play more difficult.There are a whole boatload of games out there that would like to have a word with you. Simulation of the game world is one way to approach role play.&nbsp; And it is certainly valid.&nbsp; But, presuming that it is the only way to approach role play, and that it is even required for immersion, is false.&nbsp; And it's pretty easily disprovable as well.&nbsp; All you have to do is look at RPG's that aren't heavily leaning on sim play - Spirit of the Century leaps to mind here.Is anyone going to claim that SotC inhibits role play?Why?&nbsp; Note, he included combat and conflict.&nbsp; When 90% of the rules in the book revolve around either combat or conflict, making a character that shies away from both is probably not the best approach to the game.Heck, even the &quot;pacifist&quot; examples in 2e are from very late 2e books that pretty much only hard core collectors have even read.&nbsp; Or, put it another way, what part of &quot;game of heroic fantasy&quot; includes a character which doesn't embrace combat and/or conflict?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 5571065, member: 22779"] This, of course, all presumes that simulationism is the be all and end all of role play. That stripping out simulation (which I totally agree 4e does) somehow makes role play more difficult. There are a whole boatload of games out there that would like to have a word with you. Simulation of the game world is one way to approach role play. And it is certainly valid. But, presuming that it is the only way to approach role play, and that it is even required for immersion, is false. And it's pretty easily disprovable as well. All you have to do is look at RPG's that aren't heavily leaning on sim play - Spirit of the Century leaps to mind here. Is anyone going to claim that SotC inhibits role play? Why? Note, he included combat [b]and[/b] conflict. When 90% of the rules in the book revolve around either combat or conflict, making a character that shies away from both is probably not the best approach to the game. Heck, even the "pacifist" examples in 2e are from very late 2e books that pretty much only hard core collectors have even read. Or, put it another way, what part of "game of heroic fantasy" includes a character which doesn't embrace combat and/or conflict? [/QUOTE]

Verification