Community

The acid shark ahd me laughing like crazy.

Just the fact that this article is about the "nods to realism" pretty much ranks it up there in my short list of favorites.  I think the terms used here are more nuanced though, and could stand some clarification.

I view "simulationism" as developing significant amounts of detail and covering a large number of different possible courses of action.  The things developed need to be accurate within the "reality" provided by the context.  For instance, we could build a very detailed Fighter Jet simulator with non-Earth-realistic atmospherics and gravity.  We could also build a not-very detailed simulator within the same context.  That level of detail provides the level of simulationism (in that analogy -- it isn't necessarily detail alone).

I view "realism" as providing a set of base rules or assumptions about why things are different from a non-metagaming sense.  For instance, length is a concept, and because of it, a polearm might have a farther reach than a short sword.  The non-metagaming part is important, as it isn't "realistic" to say, these creatures all have a Level of 4, therefore they should all deal 2d6 damage.  Once you've determined how reality works within your context, you appropriately determine how much damage a creature would deal, then determine its level.  So, 1) determine reality, 2) determine mechanical effects of that reality, 3) determine metagaming cues from those mechanical effects.  The reality can be any context.

Then I have a term I would call "integrity" which would mean that the concepts and rules of the developed "reality" apply in all appropriate cases; they aren't sidestepped for convenience, balance, or any other reason.  (When a lot of people criticise a game/movie/book/etc by pulling the "realism card" I often think they more often than not mean this instead.  They're really saying that based on the concepts and rules determined or assumed to provide the in-context reality, the effect shown wasn't consistent with that -- most often true when the implied or assumed concept/rule is "Earth-realistic," like: 'no person would be able to jump that high; that's not realistic!' it really should be 'that's not consistent with the in-context reality that was previously implied!').


I've made it fairly clear I personally prefer the simulationist style in general.  My other major preference is integrity.  Generally speaking, I also typically prefer Earth-like "realism", which also has the tendency to manifest in low-magic or high-contrast (powerful, but exceptionally rare magic) games.


Anyway, I liked this article.

There Monte goes again, destroying D&D with his crazy ideas about... ::starts reading article::

Oh, nevermind. Carry on.

Personally, I wasn't a fan of realism in the game, but I was fan of simulationism. I liked that my character could use the same rules and forces that the villain was using. Now, I understand that such an approach can quickly break the game, so I'm not bitter about it having been tossed in 4e. That makes 4e a complete joy to DM for, although there are some things that I miss as a player.