Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Bluenose" data-source="post: 6219593" data-attributes="member: 49017">It's very easy to fake simulation. Make something that looks plausible, and most people either will not know enough to object or will prefer not to think too hard about it. This is admittedly more of a problem in games that attempt Process-Sim, because their larger number of "moving parts", many of which are only superficially correct, interact in some very odd ways. Designers apply their agenda to the rules as much as gamers. And when every time there's a decision point they choose to follow a Gamist agenda rather than a Simulationist or Narrativist one.... Of course if those decision points aren't consistent, then you end up with a game that elements that are Gamist, some that are Simulationist, and some that are Narrativist. And that sort of game gets house-ruled to remove some of those elements, but those house rules vary so much from place to place in such a way that people end up in long, drawn-out arguments about how their rule interpretation is obviously the right one - it's consistent with these mechanics over here - while other people argue that it is clearly wrong - because those mechanics there contradict it. To use an example unlikely to cause much current aggravation, I know people for whom the "Weapon against Armour" and "Weapon Speed" tables were an essential part of the game in AD&D 1st edtion, and others who disregarded them entirely.</blockquote>