Re: Simulationist versus Dramatist

David Meadows posts, in part:

  Umm... yes, that would be me. I think I'm a dramatist. But I 
  can't see any way to be a good dramatist without being a 
  simulationist (unless I've completely misunderstood the model, 
  a very likely possibility).

No offense, but you have.

Then again, it took me a while to understand what the difference was.  I spent
my first month or so on r.g.f.a. arguing that you could get fine stories out of
simulationist campaigns.  After a lot of arguing, it finally dawned on me that
the story oriented people here at the time were *actually making game
decisions* to improve the story.  I was stunned - simply could not believe that
anyone would be willing to warp their game world in such a way just to improve
a mere story.

Plus, they were willing to warp the game world merely to prevent such an
inconsequential thing as a pointless death of a single player character, out of
the thousands or millions of characters in the game world, merely because a
pointless death would be an unsatisfying end to the character's story.  And
they'd view this as an *improvement to the game*!

It was at that point that I realized just how great a gulf there was between me
and them, and just how strange some of the people who play roleplaying games
are.  In the decade since then, I've come to realize that by most peoples'
standards, the weird ones are us simulationists.

By the way, one of the things you posted a week or two ago indicated that not
only don't you run in a strictly simulationist manner, but that superhero games
cannot actually be run in a strictly simulationist manner.  I can find the
quote if you are interested.


Warren J. Dew
Powderhouse Software