Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Emerikol" data-source="post: 5993758" data-attributes="member: 6698278">Well I meant that I derive the most pleasure from games with a strong simulationist element.&nbsp; I did not intend to imply that there are not narrativist and/or gamist elements to my gaming.&nbsp; Just that things to go against simulationist preferences tend to bother me.&nbsp; Thus I call myself a simulationist which I intended to mean as nothing more than tends that way.I haven't looked at those games so forgive me if I'm off on this.&nbsp; But a game being abstract or not abstract has nothing to do with a game being simulationist or not.&nbsp; So 1e,2e, and 3e D&amp;D were all able to be played in a simulationist style.&nbsp; Of course you could play them in other styles too.&nbsp; To me that is a good quality in a mainstream roleplaying game.&nbsp; The ability to be versatile playstyle wise.&nbsp; Because I theorize that there are approx the same number of people who favor one of the GNS styles.So a game like Palladium for example.&nbsp; It strives (and fails in my book but heh) to represent more realistic combat.&nbsp; Does that make it more or less simulationist?&nbsp; We don't know.&nbsp; Realism is not the crux of this debate we are having.I liked D&amp;D all the way until 4e.&nbsp; 4e is the only edition that I actively disliked.&nbsp; I found that game eliminated the playstyle I liked from the game.&nbsp; It made assumptions about what is and isn't fun that I think were false for some people and true for others.&nbsp; But by forcing a single style, they drove off a lot of people with other styles.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Emerikol, post: 5993758, member: 6698278"] Well I meant that I derive the most pleasure from games with a strong simulationist element. I did not intend to imply that there are not narrativist and/or gamist elements to my gaming. Just that things to go against simulationist preferences tend to bother me. Thus I call myself a simulationist which I intended to mean as nothing more than tends that way. I haven't looked at those games so forgive me if I'm off on this. But a game being abstract or not abstract has nothing to do with a game being simulationist or not. So 1e,2e, and 3e D&D were all able to be played in a simulationist style. Of course you could play them in other styles too. To me that is a good quality in a mainstream roleplaying game. The ability to be versatile playstyle wise. Because I theorize that there are approx the same number of people who favor one of the GNS styles. So a game like Palladium for example. It strives (and fails in my book but heh) to represent more realistic combat. Does that make it more or less simulationist? We don't know. Realism is not the crux of this debate we are having. I liked D&D all the way until 4e. 4e is the only edition that I actively disliked. I found that game eliminated the playstyle I liked from the game. It made assumptions about what is and isn't fun that I think were false for some people and true for others. But by forcing a single style, they drove off a lot of people with other styles. [/QUOTE]

Verification