Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Wik" data-source="post: 4739351" data-attributes="member: 40177">Yeah, it's a broad term that's going to start arguments.  I probably should have been a bit more refined in my OP, but I posted just before going to bed.  Bad idea.Anyways - I see "simulationist" as putting internal world logic before a rules set, and I see "gamist" as the other side of the coin.  It's a broad definition, but it works for me.  So, to use plate mail as an example, a simulationist game will make plate mail beyond the reach of 1st level paladins, because that's how the world *should* work;  a gamist approach will make sure the paladin can get his necessary gear, game logic be damned.  Also, I am assuming a world based around DARK SUN (As I sort of mentioned in my OP).  Many of my ideas were written specifically with DARK SUN in mind.  Yeah.  those points were made in reference to running a DARK SUN campaign - and I think they work perfectly well in that regard.  For what it's worth, I want a low-magic item (but fairly magic-rich) DARK SUN game.  I'll agree with you, to a point.  I think 4e has added some items that make the game too easy in some ways, and drop the simulation aspect entirely in favour of convienience.  Now, I think this was a good design perspective for the game's default, but I don't like it, and I'm getting rid of those elements I dislike.An example here would be sunrods - a sunrod provides bright illumination in a 100 foot circle around the PCs.  I can't think of a 1 lb. object in the real world that is that effective.  Now, the thing about the sunrod is it makes ranged combat work - and that's great for the game default.  But I've found that it breaks believability for PCs to be able to light a miniature sun and then have at it.  The way I see it, if you want to use ranged weapons underground, you have to take a penalty.  So, sunrods have to go.Journeybread is a similar problem (and in a survival game like DARK SUN, is wayyyyyy too powerful) - it allows PCs to simply write down an item and then never have to worry about tracking rations again.  Now, in the core game, this is probably fine - but it doesn't fit mine.I don't think either of those items can ever be seen as "Simulationist" by my definition - they are obviously there for ease of play, and their in-game explanations just don't work for me. I disagree with this one - and another poster says it better than I can later on.  The problem with 3e and 4e is that PCs increase in power differently than they did in earlier editions, so that it is possible for a PC to shrug off damage that can destroy his mount.  This leads to ``escalating mount syndrome`` where the PC has to keep upgrading his mount.  That can be simulationist, but I find that since PCs are doing this to keep up with game rules, that it seems more gamist in function.  I guess I`m just trying to find a happy ground between both regarding mounts - I think PCs should upgrade their mounts every now and then, but I don`t want them doing it every few levels.  And I thought that approach would be a good start.***Now, since my computer keeps doing this `` instead of quotation marks thing (and I can never figure out how to turn it off), I`ll have to post the rest of my responses later.  Hopefully, I`ve given people an idea of where I stand.</blockquote>

Verification