TLDNR the whole thing. Did read most of the first page and skimmed through some of the others.
To the original point. I mostly agree with you. But I am somewhere between the 2 camps. I do want going on adventures to be a risky proposition. I do not want to flip a coin to see who lives or dies.
I don't like random death even if it is realistic. One time I was a player and the adventure was just barely starting. A single mook guard was almost killed in our surprise attack (2 hp remaining). AP had him with a 16 str and using power attack. Got a high initiative roll, a crit with his great axe, and rolled an 11, 12, and 9. Instant kill for any of our characters. It wasn't exciting, meaningful, gritty, or anything. It was just sheesh 15 minutes in and he has to make a new PC.
On the other hand, I don't like playing tea time either. I once had a GM that would never seriously hurt let alone threaten the PC's. Save DC's were in the low teens. Even if you failed, 'Your god smiled on you for your prayers last night and you manage to shake off the effects. Monster damage was usually close to minimum. Even intelligent bad guys would use stupid tactics. I was bored to tears.
Here is what I have started to do when I am GM for non-BBEG encounters.
- Don't actually use high crit multipliers. If the AP gives them a keen greataxe, I roll the dice as if it was a keen falchion. But I do NOT describe it differently. "The bugbear champion swings the heavy pick at you and ... Oh that's a crit, this is going to hurt." I use the x2 multiplier and say, "Wow! Lucky elf that is a low roll for a crit from a pick, you only take 17 damage." They still get the charge of fear of crit from a high multiplier. Actually more often since I am using the threat range of a low multiplier. The long term average damage done is about the same. But I don't have to worry much about a mook one-shoting the tank.
- Spell modification. If the AP calls for 'Save or Death' spell (finger of death), I usually substitute a 'Save or Suck' spell (dominate). If the AP calls for a SoS (charm person) spell, I usually sub in a damage or controlling spell (grease). The spell casters still give them a hard time, make them use up resources, and are still a threat to the mission. But a bad round of saves is unlikely to make the 3rd level caster TPK the party. I've seen that happen once (everyone rolled under 5 vs a sleep spell).
But all bets are off when they get to the BBEG. He's called the BBEG for a reason. I think a death at that point is (or at least could be) gritty, meaningful, exciting, and/or heroic.
First and foremost, i would like to paraphrase Extra Creditz by saying, games don't have to be fun, they have to be engaging.
Nonetheless fun is one way of player engagement.
I think, unless the players are gluttons for punishment and/or agree to a more "Dark Souls" approach to the game, PC death should only come at the players own fault, bad calls should be what takes them out, not purely random chance. I'm saying "not purely" because if we remove the possibility of bad consequences because of random chance, we might as well remove dice from the game. If a lucky crit would instantly kill a PC, fudge the result so it only sends him into negative HP, if his teammates refuse or are unable to help him, then- if necessary- fudge his Fort roll to stabilize.
If the PC takes an attack that, while not putting him to -HP yet would be powerful enough to kill him if it hit again, and the player decides to stay in range of that attack, even if he could move to safety in his next turn, yeah, I'd probably let him take the full force of the next hit and possibly kill him.
That's quite harsh. If a creature does 50% of total HP damage, in a open area - the PC is liable to be dead then?
So, they'd have to use a Withdraw action (or else they'd take an AoO) - then the creature can charge (provided there's no cover).
Which is why PC's cannot retreat unless faster (or with cover) than their enemies.
|
No. I stand by my words. Simulationist games were the root and egg of our hobby. We should acknowledge that. Still, it is a far rarer type of game today - and third edition was a very big step away from it. So, yes, OLD simulationist style. You enjoy that, more power to you.It is a holdout of the old Simulationist style, and works directly against both the narrativist and gamist styles of play.Putting it this way, you make it sound like a very very good thing.
And, you may have misused the word "old" (by using it at all) - unless you were truly making a distinction between "old simulationist" and "simulationist"...
It is strange then that when 4E drifted away from the "Simulationist" model for a more balanced tactical game, they stopped being the "Worlds Best Selling Role Playing Game"
But keep on believing your version is the majority version as the Paizo business model grows primarily based on adventure paths and setting books...
|
|
No. I stand by my words. Simulationist games were the root and egg of our hobby. We should acknowledge that. Still, it is a far rarer type of game today - and third edition was a very big step away from it. So, yes, OLD simulationist style. You enjoy that, more power to you.It is a holdout of the old Simulationist style, and works directly against both the narrativist and gamist styles of play.Putting it this way, you make it sound like a very very good thing.
And, you may have misused the word "old" (by using it at all) - unless you were truly making a distinction between "old simulationist" and "simulationist"...
It is strange then that when 4E drifted away from the "Simulationist" model for a more balanced tactical game, they stopped being the "Worlds Best Selling Role Playing Game"
But keep on believing your version is the majority version as the Paizo business model grows primarily based on adventure paths and setting books...
Are you arguing that the setting books and especially APs are simulationist?
I am arguing that the intent of both is "World Building" rather than tactical play.
The APs and the Setting books attempt to create "realistic" games by creating a setting where the things that occur are "possible" and plugging them into a narrative.
But there could also be confusion of how all of us are using the word.
The paizo model is rather strongly narrativist with their focus on APs (even bigger stories when you connect modules together!!!). New classes are typically gamist. I would say that 3.0 and 3.5 were more clearly gamist. 4th failed because they thought that only gamist content would be enough. You want a simulationist game, the early versions of AD&D is about as far as D&D systems will take you.
And having to start from the beginning of a mission/checkpoint/whatever is also losing by that logic. It's just less losing, and it's a necessary mitigation since I know that pretty much every extant genre of game would either be non-existent or significantly changed (mostly for the worst) if you had to start the game over when you died.
S~%#, could you IMAGINE having to start over, say, Final Fantasy X every time you got a Game Over?
THINK ABOUT THAT. IT'S HORRIFYING.
But this approach to the question is quite selfish, which I think is quite a bit of the problem in these discussions.
It isn't just your game. There are 4 people involved in the game, and generally they didn't all die.
And, if you are a group that enjoys creating a narrative, or in a broader context, a canon for the world you are playing in, the Retcon that come with video gaming is rather jarring for the group, even if one person likes it.
One of my favorite games is Skyrim. It has a great story, and in the narrative of the story, the character never dies. Sure, when you are playing they die, but you just retcon to a save point and continue with the undying hero.
Which is fine, because you are only retconning yourself.
In a group game with a narrative, the show goes on if there are other players alive to continue.
If the entire group wants to run a "low death" or "high death" game, great, everyone is on board and everyone is happy. But if there is one player who refuses to get on board...well...that causes problems.
It isn't about which way is right or wrong to play. It is about what group you are in, and adapting to the that expectation. I personally prefer "the dice are what they are" groups where death happens if it makes logical sense, and becomes part of the story.
If you don't, you aren't wrong, but you may be in the the wrong group.
Hm? This bit was part of a whole 'nother discussion about video games specifically.
I personally also like the "dice fall where they fall" playstyle, and I never fudge dice (though if the players are having a hard time because I buffed something beyond the norm, I'll sometimes drop their AC or HP to be more in line with the pre-buffed monster).
I don't really like "high death" campaigns, though I like ones where death is possible, but also possible to overcome. Some of my players get pretty attached to their characters, oddly enough the ones that don't roleplay too well. They tend to have a solid head canon of what they want their character to be that they like a lot.
Not necessarily with Raise Dead mind you, in my Carrion Crown game I gave the PCs a couple of vials of that Chymickal Elixir that sustains the Chymickal Zombies and told them that was capable of creating said zombies so long as they had a skilled Alchemist on hand, which they do (though still with the dependency on the elixir, and with a 1 or 2 level adjustment most likely). Could be interesting indeed if they ever have to use that.
You enjoy that, more power to you.
Okay?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, I've seen enough on the 3x20 dice roll to last me a lifetime.
Mark me down as not being a fan of this or any other arbitrary auto-kill mechanic in the game. I'm also not a fan of called shots or other means of one-shotting the BBEG if you just happen to "get lucky."
Yeah, I can see that for some people the result is "all kinds of awesome!"
It's not for me. In fact it's kind of a letdown.
I want to BEAT DOWN my enemies and rub their faces in the futility of their attempts to defeat me. Or else I'm fine with either running away or getting killed myself.
I simply will never understand the "awesomeness!!!" of an otherwise hopelessly outclassed character killing a dragon because they rolled three 20s in a row on their attack.
And that same attitude goes for other similar arbitrary results.
I've been in games where similar things have happened (I've never personally seen three 20s in a row rolled by one of my characters, but I've seen five 1s in a row rolled...) My reaction wasn't "That was awesome!" My reaction was "that was dumb blind luck. Dang, and that fight was so much fun until the arrow ricocheted off the chandelier, clanged off of the windowsill and then miraculously shot right up the dragons nose and into his brain..."
Just me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd never even heard of such an option until this thread...
I'm particularly not fond of crit fisher builds for this reason...
I never said anyone avoided bloodshed. "Hmmm, these three satyrs were seen two days ago together with some unknown person, which we have no description of. They live outside the dungeon, and we may need to pass this way then. So, not knowing their capability, nor whether they are hostile, it is better if we kill them without making ourselves known to them first. Three maximized fireballs to start with then?" is what I am talking about, as is "The mayor seems like a good sort, but it would be safer for usto have my geased servant at his post. Anyone who sees a reason to let him live?"
Not what I would call heroic.
So you are taking a stimultionist rule idea(death is very possible) in a vacuum (stimultionist are usualy pretty big on actions having consequences) and applying gamist theory to it...um...yeah I guess.
A stimulitionist...would be the mayor is a good guy. Lets not kill him if you don't have too...and also evidence would be nice as there would probably be leagle reprecussions if we did.
Same is true for the satyrs.
House Rules of death being common during combat usualy stems from extreme cases of narrativist(The GM won't kill us so we can do whatever we want) or gamist( the mayor is worth x exp).
Or I can see even non stimultionist using such a rule...gamist uping the diffitculty option or a narrativist wanting the world/setting to be more leathal.
Also I kinda find it strange that people talke about stimultionists, gamists and narrativism as being mutual exclusive. I consider the 'perfect' game to be one that balances all three. And probably the average gamer are all three.
First and foremost, i would like to paraphrase Extra Creditz by saying, games don't have to be fun, they have to be engaging.
Nonetheless fun is one way of player engagement.
I think, unless the players are gluttons for punishment and/or agree to a more "Dark Souls" approach to the game, PC death should only come at the players own fault, bad calls should be what takes them out, not purely random chance. I'm saying "not purely" because if we remove the possibility of bad consequences because of random chance, we might as well remove dice from the game. If a lucky crit would instantly kill a PC, fudge the result so it only sends him into negative HP, if his teammates refuse or are unable to help him, then- if necessary- fudge his Fort roll to stabilize.
If the PC takes an attack that, while not putting him to -HP yet would be powerful enough to kill him if it hit again, and the player decides to stay in range of that attack, even if he could move to safety in his next turn, yeah, I'd probably let him take the full force of the next hit and possibly kill him.
That's quite harsh. If a creature does 50% of total HP damage, in a open area - the PC is liable to be dead then?
So, they'd have to use a Withdraw action (or else they'd take an AoO) - then the creature can charge (provided there's no cover).
Which is why PC's cannot retreat unless faster (or with cover) than their enemies.
I was perhaps exaggerating, what I mean is simply a player staying in a situation that would obviously kill them next turn, when there is an obvious way of preveting that. Of course a little more discretion is used than i made it sound like. I also don't want to make players stay out of a battle completely.
Achilles was a BBEG a psychopathic murder hobo.... Hector was the true tragic hero in that story.Read the Iliad. Achilles had quite an annoying death, I'd say.Because sometimes, even the mook manages to get in a lucky shot.Example?Paris was a mook?
(Someone else talked about Smaug, and the HBO series turned me off ASOIAF.)
By no means was Paris a mook. The mooks in the Iliad don't even have names.
And I agree about Achilles and Hector.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Achilles didn't have an annoying death in the Iliad. Achilles doesn't die in the Iliad. He also wasn't much of a "BBEG a psychopathic murder hobo" considering that the entire plot of the Iliad revolves around him sulking away from the battlefield not killing anyone.
Try reading a book that doesn't contain a list of feats sometime. You'll find it quite an interesting experience.
"Achilles in his tent" is a trope for a reason.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Try reading a book that doesn't contain a list of feats sometime. You'll find it quite an interesting experience.
You mean like Ultimate Equipment?
NOBODY DIES IN BLEACH.
The two leaders of the 1st Squad did recently.
Simulationist games were the root and egg of our hobby. We should acknowledge that. Still, it is a far rarer type of game today - and third edition was a very big step away from it.
Is this a common view? Maybe I'm misunderstanding but you seem to be suggesting that 3.5 is less simulationist than OD&D? I can't understand that. Or have I got hold of the wrong end of the stick?
You think things got MORE simulationist with third edition? Why?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
NOBODY DIES IN BLEACH.
Everybody dyes in bleach...
|
Achilles didn't have an annoying death in the Iliad. Achilles doesn't die in the Iliad. He also wasn't much of a "BBEG a psychopathic murder hobo" considering that the entire plot of the Iliad revolves around him sulking away from the battlefield not killing anyone.
Try reading a book that doesn't contain a list of feats sometime. You'll find it quite an interesting experience.
Gee, you are so smart and the rest of us are so dumb. You are right, the fact that we didn't read the Illiad,leading to a quite understandable mistake thinking Achilles dies there, means wev'e never read another book.
My knowledge of the Illiad didn't come from reading it, but from reading "Illium", by Dan Simmons, where he gave a very accurate list of details about the story (according to the Wikipedia article he got most of it right) but also mentioned that Achilles dies in the Illiad, or at least strongly implied it.
Seriously though, what you said moved me to read the wikipedia article so I know much more about the subject, so thanks for that, but you didn't HAVE to be a troll. You could have just pointed it out without trying to offend anyone.
Achilles didn't have an annoying death in the Iliad. Achilles doesn't die in the Iliad. He also wasn't much of a "BBEG a psychopathic murder hobo" considering that the entire plot of the Iliad revolves around him sulking away from the battlefield not killing anyone.
Try reading a book that doesn't contain a list of feats sometime. You'll find it quite an interesting experience.
Did I say in my post that he died in the Iliad.... Maybe you should try and read peoples posts properly.
Well what a superior human-being you are, you must love to lord it over people... I didn't have a go at Lord Snow for getting wrong because I don't need to insinuate people are stupid to make myself look good.
As for him being a Pyscho non hero.. the whole point behind the Iliad is Achilles' destructive anger without the carnage he causes the Greeks cant win - he is a death machine wound up by the gods to settle petty scores not a hero.
You could have just pointed it out without trying to offend anyone.
Well what's the fun in that?
|
|
For the record, No Achilles did not die in the Illiad, however in numerous other works he was killed by an arrow to the heel (not the knee).
And if you actually finish the Iliad, he comes out of the tent and is enough of a murder hobo that he pissed off a river god because the bodies are blocking the flow.
But, you know, if you stopped partway through maybe you would think the "entire" plot was him in the tent...
Gee, you are so smart and the rest of us are so dumb. You are right, the fact that we didn't read the Illiad,leading to a quite understandable mistake thinking Achilles dies there, means wev'e never read another book.
To be quite fair, you made a post suggesting that people go and read the Iliad as an example of an annoying death to a mook. It's therefore quite fair to point out that if they do as you suggested they will not find the death which you refer to.
(understandable given the Hollywood movie and all, but still, worth correcting).
The death of Achilles is (depending on what version of the story you follow) more a case of diabolus ex machina than Paris getting stupidly lucky, though, given that it is Apollo's malicious intervention that makes the shot deadly. In fact Apollo pretty much does everything short of taking the shot himself to ensure that Achilles takes a wound which fate has had in store for him since he was an infant. There's nothing random about it.
If you wanted a lucky mook shot out of classical literature, go to the book XII of the Aeneid where Aeneas gets taken out (temporarily) by a totally unforeseen shot to the knee from some literally nameless opponent. One of Virgil's many subtle subversions of that which is Homeric.
As for him being a Pyscho non hero.. the whole point behind the Iliad is Achilles' destructive anger without the carnage he causes the Greeks cant win - he is a death machine wound up by the gods to settle petty scores not a hero.
He's not a hero in the modern sense of a stand-up guy who does good in the face of overwhelming odds. No. He's a true hero in the Classic Greek Literary tradition - he's no more moral than anybody else, he's got outstanding qualities that put him head and shoulders above lesser men and his behavior is excessive. That's what a Greek hero is.
Saying that the Iliad doesn't really revolve around Achilles abandoning his allies because he does fight at the end is like saying that the Odyssey doesn't really revolve around Odysseys returning home and reclaiming his household because he leaves again in Book 24.
The Rage of Achilles (which is literally the subject of the Iliad, since "Rage" is the first word) primarily takes the form of Achilles calling on his mother to have the gods break his supposed allies due to his falling-out with Agamemnon (who, like Achilles, is also quite pig-headed). He doesn't direct any rage against the Trojan side until after the death of his lover Patroclus late in the story.
And Achilles still doesn't die in the Iliad.
|
|
Saying that the Iliad doesn't really revolve around Achilles abandoning his allies because he does fight at the end is like saying that the Odyssey doesn't really revolve around Odysseys returning home and reclaiming his household because he leaves again in Book 24.
The Rage of Achilles (which is literally the subject of the Iliad, since "Rage" is the first word) primarily takes the form of Achilles calling on his mother to have the gods break his supposed allies due to his falling-out with Agamemnon (who, like Achilles, is also quite pig-headed). He doesn't direct any rage against the Trojan side until after the death of his lover Patroclus late in the story.
And Achilles still doesn't die in the Iliad.
"He also wasn't much of a "BBEG a psychopathic murder hobo" considering that the entire plot of the Iliad revolves around him sulking away from the battlefield not killing anyone."
Glass houses.
My attitudes towards "mode" were largely shaped by my experience with Victory Games' James Bond 007 game, which we discovered some years after D&D and immediately became enthralled with, to the extent that we even tried to play D&D campaigns using the 007 rule system.
In that game, fire combat is absurdly deadly, to the point where the main thrust of your tactics is to stack the deck so thoroughly in your favor that when a firefight breaks out, random rolls don't get as much of a chance to kill you. If the bad guy goes down in the first barrage and can't shoot back, no one in the party catches a random bullet to the head. Just in case, you got like one or two hero points to allow you to fudge things, on a very limited basis.
I run my home game like that. Combat is quick and deadly. Most adventures don't consist of encounter after encounter with monsters; instead, they're set up so that eventually there will be a couple of hard fights, with the opportunity for the PCs to stack the deck in their favor in order to maximize their chances of survival.
I use APL-4 ewncounters for fun asides, and APL+4 encounters for hard fights. I make all rolls in the open, and let dice fall as they may. I use wound penalties (fatigued below half hp), resulting in something of a "death spiral" at lower levels, but I don't use the bizarre "three 20s" rule. I use hero points to take some of the sting out of things. But most of all, I don't generally use dungeon crawls in which there are simply room after room of monsters.
I wonder what Homer thought the Iliad was about?
Sing, Goddess, sing of the rage of Achilles, son of Peleus—
that murderous anger which condemned Achaeans
to countless agonies and threw many warrior souls
deep into Hades, leaving their dead bodies
carrion food for dogs and birds—
all in fulfilment of the will of Zeus.
Oh hey it's about Achilles' rage getting the Greeks killed (the Achaeans are the Greeks, not the Trojans), not him slicing through Trojans.
Also I kinda find it strange that people talke about stimultionists, gamists and narrativism as being mutual exclusive. I consider the 'perfect' game to be one that balances all three. And probably the average gamer are all three.
I am not sure you fully grasp GNS theory if you think all three exist side by side without conflicts. Narrativism is focused for example on the drama of a character's internal conflict of motivation and game conflict is centered on scenarios that pit the character against himself. The ever popular lose/lose scenario many paladin's end up facing under many GMs is a good example of narrativism. The playing out of a complete character in a realistically represented and internally consistent world is Simulationism. And by complete character I mean background, motivation, and personality, Simulationists take a much more static view of the character. Having a trait such as cowardice would lead to the character fleeing from many fights in a simulationist game where the same trait in a narrativists game would be continually challenged pitting that cowardice against the character's other goals directly and allowing the character to dramatically evolve over time. Gamism as many realize discards all elements of character in favor of a mechanical challenge system where all fights are as balanced as can be. As you can see they DON'T see eye to eye at all. And while you CAN use elements of more than one in a game they stand in stark contrast to each other.
I for example am a Simulationist. BUT I do use elements of gamism (I balance the fights placed in the main storyline) I just reject the overall theory of gamism that all fights MUST be fair. In my simulationist view it would be suicide to challenge a red dragon in it's lair at 3rd level. A gamist GM would adjust the dragon's stats to represent a third level challenge. OR far more likely there would be NO dragons anywhere till the characters reach a much higher level.
All three GNS positions stand against each other. And while someone might use an element from a different viewpoint the viewpoints are NOT ever held at the same time. It would be like saying you are a devoted Christian, an atheist, and a faithful Shinto believer all at the same time.
But couldn't someone take positive aspects of Christianity, atheism and Shintoism and use them to guide their life without identifying as belonging to any of them?
I think they could.
|
|
I wonder what Homer thought the Iliad was about?
Sing, Goddess, sing of the rage of Achilles, son of Peleus—
that murderous anger which condemned Achaeans
to countless agonies and threw many warrior souls
deep into Hades, leaving their dead bodies
carrion food for dogs and birds—
all in fulfilment of the will of Zeus.Oh hey it's about Achilles' rage getting the Greeks killed (the Achaeans are the Greeks, not the Trojans), not him slicing through Trojans.
I am not the one who said he didn't kill anyone.
Again, glass houses.
I find that when I play games with stimulationists, things tend to go to hard mode.
But couldn't someone take positive aspects of Christianity, atheism and Shintoism and use them to guide their life without identifying as belonging to any of them?
I think they could.
Then you are wrong. Such a person would belong to NONE of them then NOT all of them.
I suspect each of us truly is one of those... even if we use an idea or two from the other ideologies.
Is your world a living breathing place filled with developed NPCs and a wide range of internally consistent ecosystems of varying challenge level? Then you are probably a simulationist GM.
Is your world a backdrop for a series of carefully crafted fights each staged at specific challenge levels to challenge the PCs as they increase in personal power on their goal of reaching 20th level? Then you are probably a gamist GM.
Is your world a place of high drama where every challenge is about your own motivations and how they might evolve over time and situation? Is the typical challenge all about the angst over whether to heal the goblin babies or to kill them? Then you are probably a narrativist GM.
I suspect each of us truly is one of those... even if we use an idea or two from the other ideologies.And that I'd disagree with. I think most GMs and players are more balanced. Some are more towards one of the extremes, but true purity is pretty rare.
I think I'm pretty balanced between simulation and narrative, with only enough concern for gamism to keep fights from being TPKs or total walkovers. That doesn't mean there isn't conflict between the two in my development process, but both do drive me.
But the concepts are alien to each other even if we can use tools from each others toolboxes to make our games better. At your heart you prefer your characters to be largely static in their motivations or ever evolving? You either crave the constant challenge to you character's very motivations OR you prefer to play your motivation as largely static and unchanging against a world that will respond to those motivations. You can't crave static interaction AND evolving internal moral dilemma at the same time... it gives me a headache just thinking about how you would reconcile the two.
But couldn't someone take positive aspects of Christianity, atheism and Shintoism and use them to guide their life without identifying as belonging to any of them?
I think they could.
Then you are wrong. Such a person would belong to NONE of them then NOT all of them.
That bolded bit? That's what I said. Here, I'll show you.
...use them to guide their life without identifying as belonging to any of them?
@ thejeff: Also, I certainly wasn't saying that was the one true path to the perfect game. I dig that everyone likes different legs of the same dog. But that's why, as a GM, I often find myself having to mix in elements of each, to satisfy the diverse interests of my players.
Sorry if I'm doing it wrong again guys!
As GM, I actually find that my preferred playstyle matters the least (usually), because if I don't give the players what they want, I don't have much fun.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I suspect each of us truly is one of those... even if we use an idea or two from the other ideologies.And that I'd disagree with. I think most GMs and players are more balanced. Some are more towards one of the extremes, but true purity is pretty rare.
I think I'm pretty balanced between simulation and narrative, with only enough concern for gamism to keep fights from being TPKs or total walkovers. That doesn't mean there isn't conflict between the two in my development process, but both do drive me.
But the concepts are alien to each other even if we can use tools from each others toolboxes to make our games better. At your heart you prefer your characters to be largely static in their motivations or ever evolving? You either crave the constant challenge to you character's very motivations OR you prefer to play your motivation as largely static and unchanging against a world that will respond to those motivations. You can't crave static interaction AND evolving internal moral dilemma at the same time... it gives me a headache just thinking about how you would reconcile the two.
Can you see how the realism aspect of simulationism can interact with the developing persona aspect of narrativism? Because both happen in my games often. As does tactical combat.
What I'm saying is, porting in parts of each playstyle can happen, you din't have to try and include every aspect of each playstyle.
I have been in all sorts of campaigns. I find that the focus on balanced challenges, the focus on exact application of rules, the paper-thin plots all serve to distance me from gamist campaigns/DMs. As regards narrativism, sure, it can get bothersome and introverted if drawn too far, but I REALLY can't be bothered to deal with how much carrying two swords slows my character down, which is a concrete example from a simulationist campaign I played in once. Now, certainly, sharply unbalanced fights are no fun, emo NPCs are no more fun, and random death traps are severely no fun of mine, so I can see why extremes are reviled, but at the same time, it's good to have combat now and then, interact with some NPCs, and a random encounter or two can certainly add spice, so we all crave parts of all three. It's as Aranna says: Everyone has a preference, and a pretty strong one.
