Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Bedrockgames" data-source="post: 9044132" data-attributes="member: 85555">Again I never said that. I don't play apocalypse world so I can't really comment on it intelligently, but taking Hillfolk which I have played quite a bit now, that is a game that is also clearly not simulationist but I pointed out how it can hit all of the same buttons we are talking abbot (verisimilitude, setting consistency, plausibility, etc). My point was is in a 'simulationist' style those things are pretty much non-negotiable. You can't escape from them without the players having a negative reaction. In HIllfolk while things can be like that and often are, you have more freedom to leave those behind if you want for the drama and the story. You still need those things for interesting drama, and Hillfolk can still produce a very consistent setting, but you also could introduce a setting detail, but change it through reframing for something dramatically interesting or revelatory and that is one of the great things about the game (you can't really do that in simulationist play). The other key difference is objectivity. by which I don't mean these games are more objective in the scientific sense than non-simulationist, but that in simulationist, maintaining the sense that the world is an objective thing that exists outside the players is extremely important. Again, none of this is to say other games can't do that. You could make a non-simulationist game that adheres to strong simulationist principles in order to ground the other elements in something that feels  a certain way. But these are the things simulationist players will expect and react against if they aren't there. Also like I have said before, I am not a strict simulationist. I play lots of different kinds of games and campaign styles. But I have a pretty good grounding in the style of play you are calling simulationist. My contention isn't that it is better than any other style, just that it is a style that exists, and what it sets out to do, it achieves for most of the people who play that style. I personally don't think there needs to be a barrier between these camps. People who enjoy this can also enjoy other types of RPGs. You can mix them too. I have worked out mechanics for my games where the players assume a degree of narrative control in key portions. I also introduce a lot more dramatic elements. I do it in a way that I know won't bother more simulationist minded players because that is an audience I understand. But there is no requirement it be done that way. I do think you are right that technique and procedure are important as well</blockquote>

Verification