This thread isn't meant to be a discussion of what's better, the gamist or simulationist approach. Rather, I'd like to know what (new) rules in SR5 are pure gamist rules.

For instance, the wireless bonuses thing is a bit gamist, but there are also attempts to explain it in the fluff as well. Some of the explanations other posters have come up with for why the Free Action vs Simple Action thing makes sense are...plausible. At least, I can see how a reasonable person could agree with the fluff justifications for these new rules (even if I don't agree ).

But there are new rules that are pure gamist, with no attempts in the rulebook to actually give reasons WHY the rule is the way it is. The biggest example I can think of is the "no two attack actions in the same phase" thing. I don't think anyone has even tried to give any actual fluff reason why this is so, and it truly makes zero sense in any kind of simulationist approach to rules. Leadership comes close to this pure gamist categorization as well.

So, are there other pure gamist rules in SR5?

Regarding the 'two attack actions' thing, that doesn't necessarily seem to be true. You can get multiple attacks in (even with multicast spells), it's just that any attempt to do so splits your dice pool. There's no actual gamist block on firing twice, it's just much harder than it used to be.

That's mostly true, and a good point. But the new rule is still gamist, in that you can't cast an attack spell and fire a pistol in the same phase, whereas you can cast a non-attack spell and fire a pistol.

Not sure how I feel about that. It might be gamist, but then it might have been equally gamist to say you could use two different kinds of attack in one pass in the first place. It really only affects the magic+gun combination (since you can gun+gun or magic+magic, and melee/matrix attacks are generally Complex Actions anyway).

Since magic isn't really real, it's hard to say whether or not this is unrealistic (ie, purely gamist), since there's really only a mechanical precedent to call it into question anyway.

I think the whole reason I consider it gamist is that allowable actions are based on your intent. Spells can be cast as a simple action, which is some defined amount of time. So you can cast two spells a phase. BUT if your intent is to attack with both those spells, one of those spells isn't allowed to be cast. Literally, the way this rule is set up, you can cast the same spells in two phases, but if your intent for one phase is attack, you're limited to one spell.

And it's not just magic. Throwing a knife and shooting a gun at the same target - not allowed. Throwing a knife at a wall and shooting a person - totally allowed.

Of course, there's an argument to be made that it takes more effort to do something TO an enemy than to do something AROUND an enemy - especially since an enemy will generally be attempting to be as difficult a target as he can. And as for the Leadership bonuses... I really don't agree that those are purely gamist - rather, what they model is more psychological in nature than physical.

I take a slightly harder line on the "intent" angle, and reduce the "attack" concept to "anything that requires direct resistance." And then I don't have any problems. Object Resistance counts as direct resistance here.

The wall still resists the knife, the telephone still resists the gunshot, and the ground still resists the fireball. Those are attacks. Nothing resists the ice sheet spell, it resists the ice, so that's not an attack in my view. Nothing resists a Trid Entertainment directly (that is, even if everyone in an area passes their test, the illusion still exists), which is different from spells like Mob Mind and Agony where the spell is immediately over if everyone resists it (and thus attacks).

EDIT: But we're off topic, and we can run circles around that particular topic all day.

That's exactly my point though. Why does a wall resisting something affect the PC doing the throwing? Is there some kind of quantum entanglement going on? Even with your definitions, it doesn't explain why the exact same thing done with different intent is treated differently by the action rules. By explain, I mean try to give any kind of in-game justification for how the world works other than "just because".

Another example: toss a grenade at someone's feet and shoot at them - not allowed. Tossing a rock at their feet and shooting them is ok though, and there's no "resistance" going on with the rock.

I can come up with tons of counter-examples to this, but I'm at least willing to entertain the idea that your argument isn't totally wrong Easy example: Target is tied up and unable to move in any way. Again, knife + pistol is not allowed, even though the enemy is unable to make this task more difficult.

But anyway, part of the point of this thread was to ask for examples of gamist rules. From the sounds of it, you and Epicedion consider nothing in the game to be gamist? If I've come to the wrong conclusion, please give examples of what ya'll feel to be gamist

That's where my hardline interpretation would stop someone someone from throwing the rock in any way other than "drop it as a Free Action." That is, you could chuck the rock or the grenade even, but only insofar as you just kind of drop it with no control. Trying to hit something, even if it's just a spot, requires a resistance roll by the target. Even if the target gets 0 dice to resist.

Gamist rules? Availability limits at chargen is a perfect example. The book explains availability as 'how hard something is to get.' Availability in and of itself is a mixed rule; in-game, it's to A. Give something gamey to tell how long it takes and B. Have some simulation in there about 'digging up where to get it' and so on. The fact it's limited at Chargen? Is 100% Gamist; there are character concepts that should, IMO, be able to go around this, but the rule doesn't really care.

It was made so people don't go out of the gate with the best of stuff. I think we ended up ditching it because of a cross between more crap to keep track of-it's something else to look at while in chargen-and also for simulationist reasons. It makes perfect sense to us that certain types of characters would be able to get certain things. It's why the first GM we were under ditched it-he just wanted us to have fun, but he also was the guy who encouraged the 'take stuff that makes sense' that we carried on.

Now, in the funny way, it's sorta...'opposite counterpart'-the Restricted Gear rule-is more a mix of the two. It's gamist since it lets you get around a rule for a piece of gear, becomes a simulationist Quality because it lets you indeed do the whole 'My character was a company man from the time he was 18 to the time he was 26, when the game is starting. His parents were loyal. He has these Betaware Wired Reflexes 2 from the time he single-handedly stopped one of their biggest projects from getting sabotaged.'

My disagreement is with the notion of "pure" gamist rules - I can't really think of a rule that doesn't, to some degree, model something or apply to a fictitious construct. I'd suggest that it's all more of a matter of degrees.

@RHat
To say something is not gamist, if you can come up with any explaination for it, is quite well broad. I mean as long as your explaination does not need to hold any ground or does not need to address the holes in it well... it is quite easy to come up with one...


With regard to the "only one attack action" thing... Well, thats just a half ass rule, I am sorry. Because it all depends on "what the hell is an attack action". It is not so much gamist at it is silly.

You may as well then ask "what the hell is a simple action" or "what the hell is a complex action." These things are all abstractions.

... See, this is part of the problem in this discussion. Somehow, having levels of simulation at all makes something "not gamist"? Because if you're going to define simulationism as "not containing gamist elements", you've also defined it as "bad rules".

It's like pulling teeth, getting more than one or two sentences out of you (short sentences, at that). Do you get paid by the word when you write on forums or something?

What do you feel is a "more gamist" rule then? What rules do you feel don't accurately model the SR world? What rules break your suspension-of-disbelief?

There's nothing wrong with abstraction - it's when the abstraction doesn't have any explanation for what it's abstracting that I feel it's gamist. Free/Simple/Complex actions are modelling actions and maneuvers that take almost no time / a little bit of time / more time. What does the "no 2 attack actions a phase" abstract? I feel that it is purely there as a game-balancing rule (gamism) with no attempt to actually model any real phenomenon in the SR world (simulation)

Well it models a world in which you can't throw a hand grenade and shoot a gun simultaneously, which is probably pretty close to reality.

As for shooting a gun and casting particular spells, I can't say, because magic isn't real. As long as that's modeled consistently, it's as simulationist as it can be.

Is your position that there are no rules which don't model the SR5 world consistently? If there are rules that are not consistent, which ones?

Well I see a really "gamist" rule as something that just completely abstracts a series of concepts to make something simple.

Hit Points and Armor Class in D&D are very "gamist" things. Hit Points combine factors of luck, physical damage resistance, and so forth, such that a sword that does 1d8 damage might be sufficient to kill an unarmored peasant, but might only cause a mild graze to an unarmored 20th level fighter. Armor Class is similar, since it folds in the concepts of parrying, dodging, and deflecting into a single number.

Shadowrun is a rather simulationist game, since it goes to great lengths to make all those systems granular. Instead of Armor Class, you have a dodge roll to help avoid attacks, then then a damage resistance roll with armor to soak the damage. Within a relatively tight range, everyone has the same amount of health.

Likewise Stun and Physical damage are split to keep track of damage severity. And you accrue wound penalties (unlike D&D's hit points, where you suffer no ill effect until you're dying).

These are all very simulationist ideas. But eventually if you keep digging you'll reach a "gamist" abstraction.

Heh. I can be a little terse sometimes, yeah - largely because if I don't reign it in, the walls of text can get nuts.

I actually find it to be more of a problem when a simulationist rule sets out to model the wrong thing - often times, simulationist players (and simulationist designers, for that matter) can set out to model something that's based on a false notion of reality. More simulationist melee rules run into this all the time, for example, where someone does it by how they think it works (like, say, giving someone a disadvantage for having a wall at their back) when in fact it works in a different way (in reality, having a wall at your back can be a big advantage in a fight and especially in a multiple-attacker situation, because you have half the area to monitor, know for certain that there's no one behind you, can brace against it for various advantages - the problem is if you stay there, but that's got more to do with the fact that you want to keep moving at all times for various reasons). If I needed to have a set of criteria for judging the level of simulationism and gamism, this would be a likely start to a first draft.

Simulationism:

- Does the rule set out to model some aspect of reality, or perceived reality?
- Does the rule have the granularity to account for the variances seen in reality?
- Does it avoid strange and unrealistic results?

Gamism:

- Does the rule set out to increase player agency?
- Does the rule set out to preserve game balance?
- Does it solve preexisting game problems?

None of these, as you might note, are mutually exclusive. This is because these are two tangentially related but largely uncorrelated descriptors, and it gets pretty difficult for something to be purely one and not at all the other unless it directly contradicts reality or has a purely negative game impact.

Rhat, thanks for the perspective (and the verbosity!)

I haven't seen anyone show where in the rules it says you can't cast two spells in one combat action. The Reckless Spellcasting action specifically allows you to cast two spells in one combat action. The price for this is increased drain on both spells. I haven't seen anyone cite where this is not the case.

There are many who say otherwise. I don't believe they got this idea from the magic chapter of the book. They appear to be using the gun mechanics from the combat chapter. The designers created a combat system, but one easy way to exploit what they came up with is to simply make simple actions and double up on their dice pools. The one attack per combat action makes good sense from a simulation point of view; your body is committed while in a physical fight. You don't suddenly get twice as good just because you've decided to make multiple attacks. If you've got the skill to back it up, you can make effective multiple attacks. If not, then making two quick attacks instead of one big attack is not going to make you nearly twice as effective.

You can make a quick attack and some other quick action together and be about as effective at the quick attack. Of course you don't lose dice from shooting when you take cover or observe in detail. These are things you do that are independent of your ability to handle a firearm.

If the rules do in fact say that spells are part of the gun rules for balance sake, then yeah, that would be gamist.

The fact that they are not exclusive may be the most important statement made in this entire thread. The basic difference between Simulationism and Gamism is not always apparent in the end result. It comes into play at the beginning. Gamist approach rules design from the aspect of rules first, then create a concept/justification around them, Simulationist develop the concept/justification first then create rules to support it. This often, but not always, results in different approaches to the same thing.
More importantly it is imperative to remember that regardless of where you start you need both rules and concept/justification to be a complete set of rules.

Wired Reflexes requiring wireless to to interact with reaction enhancer....

There's no way that the two systems tied in to you central nervous system/spinal cord could talk along all those..well...Wires?

That may come from a gamist design philosophy, but it's as true in the game world as it is in the rules. Compare to a really gamist rule like aDnD4 rogue being able to throw a cloud of knives... once per encounter.

But if your second spell is not an attack, you don't have to split your dice pool (you can use reckless casting). That's a dissociated mechanic, hence gamist.

It's gamist either way, because you've zoomed in to the level of pure mechanic. It could be a simulation of resisted spells simply being harder to cast. It may be a gamist philosophy, but it's still a consistent simulation.

Nobody is claiming you cant cast 2 spells with 2 Reckless Spellcasting actions, what you can't do is attack with both of those spells.
SIMPLEACTIONS
A Simple Action is one step more complicated than a
Free Action and requires more concentration to attempt.
During his Action Phase, a character may take two
Simple Actions, though only one can be an attack action.

Can you explain this a little bit? "It's as true in the game world as it is in the rules" sounds...circular to me? Couldn't you say that the rogue ability is "as true in the game world as it is in the rules", meaning in the actual game world the rogue can only throw a cloud of knives once per encounter because of <reasons> (too tiring/etc)


I think I've focused on a rule like the two attacks thing because while you might be able to try to give an explanation for this rule, there's no actual attempt in the rulebook to explain what this rule is simulating. It could be simulating many things, but because the authors didn't feel the need to explain something like this, it's gamist in my book.

The SR5 movement rules seem gamist. I'm really happy to have them though, as chopping up the movement over IPs has never been fun.

Looking at the Ultimate Gamist Rules set, DnD4, that Rogue might have (I have no idea at this point how many they actually get, so this is just for example's sake) 5 Per-Encounter abilities to draw from, and he can use each of them precisely once. If it's modeling fatigue, it's very peculiarly allowing you to do 5 different fatiguing things in a row, but not the same fatiguing thing 5 times in a row. Those are abilities with a "cooldown," which can be explained for magic (as magic is magic) but not so well for individual physical abilities.

Another very gamist rule (again DnD4) is the ability to (nonmagically!) push/pull/slide opponents around the battlefield willy-nilly without regard to size, effort, or physics. If you allow the game world to operate under the Combat Rules, you could have your group walk into the mayor's house and slide him around the bottom floor, up the stairs, and into the bedroom by slapping him with a sequence of increasingly wet fish.

Shadowrun doesn't work like that at all. Even the "one attack" rule has basically just segmented some actions into Simple and Simple+ -- you get one Simple+ action and one Simple action, or one Complex action.

If they'd described all attack actions as Complex actions, and then developed a series of exceptions (which would read much more complicated) such as "if you use your complex action to fire a gun once at one target you may also take a Simple Action that phase," would that be as bad?



Does it really need an explanation? Does it really deviate from real life expectations that much?

Spells are not mentioned in your rule quote, and I haven't seen them used in any example. I haven't seen any rule that says that this is the case regarding any spell.

So your trying with a straight face to claim that combat spell cast at opponent isn't an attack
That is a general rule for simple actions, it doesn't mention any of them specifically.

Attack actions are not defined in any specific rules form. They figured it would be clear enough as is, and all dev/freelancer commentary that has clarified the subject has made it absolutely, irrevocably, unquestionably clear that spells used to directly effect an enemy qualify.

Is there any definition in the rulebook that defines a character as an opponent or enemy and hence what would constitute an attack?

Here is the crux: I can cast 2 combat spells at my friend because he is not an opponent nor an enemy, but I can't cast 2 combat spells at my enemy. Or is someone I choose to cast a combat spell at an enemy without exception? Is there a difference if I use a different spell type? Is someone I choose to cast any type of spell on an enemy without exception?

I haven't seen it in the book yet. It may be in there, but I haven't seen anybody demonstrate it.

The one attack action per combat action makes sense. Extending that mechanic to prevent spellcasting doesn't. Then some will say, but it doesn't, it just prevents certain kinds of spellcasting, because of how guns work.

We have been told, to use Bull's exact words, that the rule is meant to cover "anything that directly effects an enemy". You can complain about it not making sense if you want, but that is the rule as it is intended. Trying to get around that is pure munchkinism, and worthy of getting smacked upside the head with Grimmy.

And, to once again be absolutely clear: there is no given definition of attack actions in the first place, nor is there a rules argument to be made that would exclude spells.

The rule has absolutely nothing do with how guns work, its a 100% metagame rule ment to equalize how many times all characters can attack per pass.

Toturi:I'm not even gonna dignify that with an answer.

This is OT (but I started the thread, so :shrug:), but I wish this "joke" of threatening to hit someone in the head with the rulebook for trying to do something the GM doesn't like would go away. It's a trope that I think is really childish (and I mean childish in the negative connotation sense).

... Hey, Bull gave us DV's for the rulebook, so really I think the joke's become official by now.

Also, it's not just something that the GM doesn't like. Mirikon, the initiator of the "phonebooking" meme, has in the past made it explicit that the phonebook can be applied to GM's as well. It's basically just a humourous variant upon the Wheaton Law.

It has nothing to do with what the GM likes or doesn't, it's for people who are being anal about the rules including the GM.

But what if we cast on a Total Pacifist? Are they really my enemy? And if not, would they be exempt from being counting toward the directly effects an enemy bit so I can go double casting on them?

And Mimes, even if we do enforce the normal one attack action per phase rule, whether a gun shot or spell, I think we should have a specific exception for casting on mimes.

Teasing BTW

An enemy could be defined as a person to whom you direct hostile action or intent, which is implicitly te case if you're taking anything that could qualify as an attack action.

And you can tell how pleased I am that the current devs are continuing this puerile "joke"

It's a far cry from "Don’t be a dick." That's about self-policing and personal responsibility. The phonebook/rulebook idea, on the other hand, has a real leader/follower kind of vibe to it (leader/follower chosen purely as a shout-out to Bad Religion).

But what if I cast with Love In My Heart in the earnest belief that I have to save them from their corrupt corporate lifestyle by Powerbolting them into the next life?

*ducks the inbound handbook swat*

The universe doesn't care about your delusions

Heh. I could argue it does since every Tradition is basically their follower's delusion of how their own magic works, which the magic reinforces to do that very thing they believe.

That casting 2 barriers is fine, 1 barrier and shooting a gun is fine, 1 barrier and a healing spell is fine, but any two spells that affect enemies is a complete no-no? Without a good ingame justification, it fits this description: http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/1545/r...ciated-mechanic .

The way you capitalise Tradition and the paradigm reference makes me think you've played Mage.

Just to clarify so I can be constructive instead of derailing the thread entirely: How's everyone defining "gamist" vs "simulationist"? Am I correct in saying that for this discussion, "gamist" means "any rule that seems to be in place 'because rules' instead of having an in-universe justification"? (It's an interesting discussion, but I don't have the book yet so I can't really contribute any examples.)