Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 7769932" data-attributes="member: 22779">Heh.&nbsp; By that metric, 4e D&amp;D would be the most simulationist of them all.&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin&nbsp; &nbsp; :D"&nbsp; data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />&nbsp;&nbsp; Somehow I don't think that would fly.But, to answer you [MENTION=6931283]Alexander Kalinowski[/MENTION], Sim games are all about providing systems that tell the players what happened.&nbsp; The more detailed the sim, the better the answer.&nbsp; But, at it's heart, that's what defines simulationist games.&nbsp; The systems of the game break down events and adjudicate them in such a way that someone observing the game could easily (well, hopefully easily) follow the chain of events.D&amp;D has never actually provided that.&nbsp; D&amp;D has always been pretty heavily gamist.&nbsp; Even 3e is despite a pretty thin veneer of sim nods.&nbsp; Like I said earlier, in D&amp;D, no one has ever been able to answer what 10 points of damage looks like.&nbsp; You can't even categorically state how something took that damage.&nbsp; For examples of Sim play, sure, GURPS qualifies.&nbsp; Star Fleet Battles.&nbsp; Battletech (both the wargame and the RPG).&nbsp; HARN.&nbsp; The Riddle of Steel.&nbsp; A number of the Palladium games are steps in that direction.&nbsp; So on and so forth.I think there is another issue with these discussions in that people tend to associate certain ideas with their own preferences, so, &quot;Old School&quot; becomes &quot;games I like&quot; and &quot;New School&quot; becomes &quot;games I don't like&quot;.&nbsp; There's certainly a tendency in these discussions to see that people's personal preferences strongly influence their definitions.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 7769932, member: 22779"] Heh. By that metric, 4e D&D would be the most simulationist of them all. :D Somehow I don't think that would fly. But, to answer you [MENTION=6931283]Alexander Kalinowski[/MENTION], Sim games are all about providing systems that tell the players what happened. The more detailed the sim, the better the answer. But, at it's heart, that's what defines simulationist games. The systems of the game break down events and adjudicate them in such a way that someone observing the game could easily (well, hopefully easily) follow the chain of events. D&D has never actually provided that. D&D has always been pretty heavily gamist. Even 3e is despite a pretty thin veneer of sim nods. Like I said earlier, in D&D, no one has ever been able to answer what 10 points of damage looks like. You can't even categorically state how something took that damage. For examples of Sim play, sure, GURPS qualifies. Star Fleet Battles. Battletech (both the wargame and the RPG). HARN. The Riddle of Steel. A number of the Palladium games are steps in that direction. So on and so forth. I think there is another issue with these discussions in that people tend to associate certain ideas with their own preferences, so, "Old School" becomes "games I like" and "New School" becomes "games I don't like". There's certainly a tendency in these discussions to see that people's personal preferences strongly influence their definitions. [/QUOTE]

Verification