Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Imaro" data-source="post: 6352887" data-attributes="member: 48965">Eh... Here's a pretty good summary of what I think most people would say...I also think you're stuck in absolutes.  I think very few gamers want a pure simulationist experience... or a pure gamist experience or even a pure narrativist experience.  I think that the majority of people actually want some of each (to taste of course) in their roleplaying and thus D&D not only being the first, and the most popular but also having an "ïncoherent" design was able to scratch the itch of those who wanted a nice helping of simulationist play without being bogged down or beholden to it (Again especially when tweaked to taste) especially if it was only minor adjustments one had to make to reach the level of simulationist play you wanted in the game. [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]: I am curious do you feel the same way about those who were fans of 4e's nod to narrativist play?  I mean there's FATE, MHR, Heroquest along with a slew of other games more suited to narrativist play much better then 4e was... so why play 4e?  Honestly my theory is it's very similar to the reasons I stated above (People can derive fun in multiple ways and thus an "ïncoherent" game can often suit them better than a game that leans too heavily in one area... (even if they do favor one type of fun a little more than the others) but I'd be curious to hear your thoughts...</blockquote>