Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Bedrockgames" data-source="post: 9046038" data-attributes="member: 85555">I have said again and again, I don't think it is unique to 'simlulationist' style (and I use quotes because personally even though I think my style or elements of it might be labeled that by some in the thread, it isn't a label I personally embrace). I think my only point is believability, a kind of historical realism, etc are all just important to this style of gaming and to informing the kinds of decisions and choices a GM makes. Equally important is respecting the players ability to choose what it is they want to do and how (obviously in this style that usually means through their character, not through powers that exist outside the character that the player wields). I don't think the bold distinguishes simlulationist from other styles that well. I mean there are styles where the GM doesn't serve as the person who tells the players about the setting, but countless approaches that aren't simlulationist do this to. This is more about the relationship between player and GM. The italicized is just something we will have to agree to disagree on. The goal in this approach is a believable naturalistic world. There are lots of methods for achieving that but there isn't a set 'way to do it'. Most often yes the GM will rely on a combination random tables, extrapolation from things that have happened or been established, of notes about the setting (I think importantly though in this style you will rarely see notes about events happening or how the adventure is supposed to pan out as the idea is you are simply providing a setting for the players to explore and interact with), etc. Also keep in mind, I never said I objected to other ways of doing this. I keep bringing up Hillfolk which I think is both highly immersive and highly capable of a grounded historical realism (with a heavy dose of drama for sure). And that is a game where the players have a degree of narrative control over the setting. In fact in Hillfolk the GM isn't particularly important (it is still a role that matters but not in the way a GM matters in the kinds of sandboxes Rob and I are discussing). I love it and I think it is a great way to do certain games. The only area where I would say this relationship poses a limit is in two places: solving mysteries and exploring a setting that is outside your character. Other than that it is still an entirely grounded, realistic and immersive game. And in some ways it is more immersive at times than the sandboxes I run because everything is keyed to dialogue (so you really do get into this idea of always speaking in character and having what you say have weight). All that is fine. But none of that means sandboxes as we've been describing are not driven by a desire for realism and that GM decisions in those sandboxes are not meant to be post hoc explanations. If you find that style of gaming unsatisfactory, that is entirely fair. I am not here to convert anyone to it</blockquote>

Verification