General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
Okay, now it has been shown that simulationism doesn't have to equal realism at all, so what's next on the accusations toward 4th edition? That it was made from the skin of little human children?
It's not about accusations, it's about stating why one does not like 4E. For me, it's lots of little things that turn me off. Others may have no trouble with them, and as I posted, I could probably solve any single of them with a number of house rules, but it's simply not worth the effort.
That doesn't mean it's not a good game - but it's not to my taste. And for my take on simulationism, 4E's martial encounter and daily powers (as one example) is a much bigger hurdle to overcome than 3E's economy (which I basically house-ruled away by turning to an abstract wealth system).
It might be different if I had to judge between 3.0 and 4.0 and not between my own version of 3.0 and the out-of-the-box 4.0.
I am not sure if you missed my post regarding that, but: 4E stunts are not weaker than powers.
If stunts were not weaker than daily powers, people wouldn't use encounter powers much less at-wills. I am sorry, but even without playing 4E myself, that's not the case or these forums would be drowned in "powers are useless!" threads.
If stunts were not weaker than encounter powers, no one would use at-wills, and people would complain about at-wills being useless and a waste of space.
If stunts are equal to at-wills, they are pretty much useless from an efficiency point of view - which is, as human nature and the MMOGs taught us, all that counts for the majority of gamers.
And for my take on simulationism, 4E's martial encounter and daily powers (as one example) is a much bigger hurdle to overcome
3e combat rules (or D&D in general) are not simulationist either though. The I go you go timing economy system, the way movement works is not something that reflects how the world works does it?
Of course 4e dives into even deeper waters but they are the same waters. My problem is not the depth it achieved -this is a quality IMO in respect to 3e. My problem is that it did not change waters. Perhaps I want something more than D&D but if you consider 3e as D&D then IMO 4e is a better D&D.
But perhaps if you do not like 4e this means that you do not like 3e either -this could be true because 3e is not so optimized for its merits and the actual strength and weaknesses of the system are less apparent -
I would say that 3e is the presentation or introduction of the D20 system and 4e its optimization. So if you do not like 4e, perhaps you do not like the D20 system.
No. I like d20. Likes and dislikes you can't fully rationalize. That people try to anyway is part of why we have edition wars.
I understand that preference or favor of something can have many causes or reasons. But we are trying to see it here from a purely mechanics functional standpoint :the merits of D20 as a system. We are judging the mechanics as mechanics and not as the fun you have had with them.
I understand that preference or favor of something can have many causes or reasons. But we are trying to see it here from a purely mechanics functional standpoint :the merits of D20 as a system. We are judging the mechanics as mechanics and not as the fun you have had with them.
As soon as you mention "likes" you've left the mechanical aspect. You can debate whether or not something is simulationist, but you can't debate whether or not someone likes it.
As soon as you mention "likes" you've left the mechanical aspect. You can debate whether or not something is simulationist, but you can't debate whether or not someone likes it.
Well the mechanical aspect may make part of it. It may not be the reason, but this does not mean it may not be a part of the reason or that it wont be the reason if you are able to have a different look and consider it in a different way.
If stunts were not weaker than daily powers, people wouldn't use encounter powers much less at-wills. I am sorry, but even without playing 4E myself, that's not the case or these forums would be drowned in "powers are useless!" threads.
If stunts were not weaker than encounter powers, no one would use at-wills, and people would complain about at-wills being useless and a waste of space.
If stunts are equal to at-wills, they are pretty much useless from an efficiency point of view - which is, as human nature and the MMOGs taught us, all that counts for the majority of gamers.
Well, you are still wrong. Going by the math for power damage and by stunt damage, the damage is en par with at-wills, encounter and daily powers (depending on which column you take - Low, Moderate or High damage, and if you use "Limited Damage Expressions" or regular damage - the former indicates a stunt that can't be repeated easily).
I think the reason why people don't use stunts is because they have their powers and it's easier to look those up than to think of a stunt in any given scenario.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenes
As soon as you mention "likes" you've left the mechanical aspect. You can debate whether or not something is simulationist, but you can't debate whether or not someone likes it.
Thoughts of the Arch Chancellor - My weblog on EN World - containing game related material, like: house rules, design theories, reviews, play reports, adventure ideas
Secret Member of <Think we would just hide our secret with a spoiler tag, eh?>
If your problem is about acknowledging who influenced who first I agree with whatever you want to believe.
Please highlight where I used the word 'influenced'. You can't, because I didn't. I was responding to your responding to your assertion that they had implemeted MMO combat in 4e.
Implementing MMO combat requires code, and hardware to run it on. IOW, it requires an MMO. Thus 'implementing MMO combat' in D&D is impossible by definition.
Please highlight where I used the word 'influenced'. You can't, because I didn't. I was responding to your responding to your assertion that they had implemeted MMO combat in 4e.
Implementing MMO combat requires code, and hardware to run it on. IOW, it requires an MMO. Thus 'implementing MMO combat' in D&D is impossible by definition.
glass.
Ahh, ok. Did not realize what your argument was back then. I was not trying to use the word to intend that technical kind of meaning. Thanks for clearing out and correcting me
I don't think any version of D&D has ever really embraced "realism" as a design/play goal.
That said, I think your definition of "simulationist" is incorrect. (From what I know of it.) Simmulationist doesn't = realism. (It might be another goal of a game that is built with the simulationist mindset, but one does not have to include the other.)
Maybe not, but it had enough realism so I could buy into it. Even if the explanation was "It's magic" it's still better than trying to covince me that a warlord can heal someone mortally wounded with a pep talk. I can't buy into that, but I can buy into someone bing healed of a serious wound with divine magic.
Maybe not, but it had enough realism so I could buy into it. Even if the explanation was "It's magic" it's still better than trying to covince me that a warlord can heal someone mortally wounded with a pep talk. I can't buy into that, but I can buy into someone bing healed of a serious wound with divine magic.
Let's not take this as an opportunity to go into the discussions of hit points and what they used to represent, what they represent now, or into "Schrödingers Hit Points" and all that...
If you can't buy it, don't buy it. My Warlords don't heal someone mortally wounded with a pep talk. They convince people that they need to fight on, even if they suffer pain and exhaustion. And besides, "Today is a good day for someone else to die!"
Thoughts of the Arch Chancellor - My weblog on EN World - containing game related material, like: house rules, design theories, reviews, play reports, adventure ideas
Secret Member of <Think we would just hide our secret with a spoiler tag, eh?>
Maybe not, but it had enough realism so I could buy into it. Even if the explanation was "It's magic" it's still better than trying to covince me that a warlord can heal someone mortally wounded with a pep talk. I can't buy into that, but I can buy into someone bing healed of a serious wound with divine magic.
But how do you buy hit points then? Any sword or axe strike could maim any man. So by the "realism" perspective hit points should not represent material toughness but rather the physical stamina, the stamina of focus and the training of somebody to avoid danger. Of course physical toughness may help in this by alleviating some of the danger hence the constitution bonus.
D&D has no morale but now it seems it has entered hit points too. If you are eager to play with the rules of combat based on hit points what is the problem to insert morale into the fray?
Yep, you're wrong. (But don't worry; it's a common mistake.)
"simulationist" is a style which values resolving in-game events based solely on game-world considerations, without allowing any meta-game concerns to affect the decision. Thus, a fully simulationist GM will not fudge results to save PCs or to save her plot, or even change facts unknown to the players. Such a GM may use meta-game considerations to decide meta-game issues like who is playing which character, whether to play out a conversation word for word, and so forth, but she will resolve actual in-game events based on what would "really" happen.
Quick question, where is this from? I'm not trying to call you out, but you just stick a definition up without citing where it's from. On the other hand I went to wikipedia and got this under "GNS Theory"
Simulationist refers to decisions based on what would be most realistic or plausible within the game's setting, or to a game where the rules try to simulate the way that things work in that world, or at least the way that they could be thought of working.
Emphasis mine, this seems to support my interpretation and seems to show that there are two seperate aspects of simulationist rpg's. I'm not saying 3.5 is the best simulationist rpg evah... but it tries much, much harder than 4e to be so.
__________________ Nobody built like me, I designed myself ...as an
If you can't buy it, don't buy it. My Warlords don't heal someone mortally wounded with a pep talk. They convince people that they need to fight on, even if they suffer pain and exhaustion. And besides, "Today is a good day for someone else to die!"
That's a pep talk.
I guess your "warlord" doesn't give orders either, and doesn't undermine the D&D adventuring party conceit of a band of heroes without hierarchy at all. I can't get over how illegitimate an excuse for a core class that thing is. Even a ninja core class would have been more appropriate. Man do I hate that thing, whether it's named Marshal, Hunter, White Raven, Warlord, or Motivational Speaker. It is The Core Class That Should Not Be.
__________________ "They've taken all the fun out of slaying things and stealing treasure!" - Bolt
Copy, paste and redesign your way to your own ideal custom game with the Swords & Wizardry.doc file. Renovate the elf, build a rogue or thief, and make all your favourite rules and splat core.
Last edited by rounser; 25th February 2009 at 03:06 PM..
Emphasis mine, this seems to support my interpretation and seems to show that there are two seperate aspects of simulationist rpg's. I'm not saying 3.5 is the best simulationist rpg evah... but it tries much, much harder than 4e to be so.
It does. Its worth considering however, whether or not it did a good job at it.
Personally, I find that the Sim leanings of 3rd serve to highlight where it produces non-intuitive results; healing (both natural and magical) being an obvious one.
Its a little like the Uncanny valley - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - consider the CGI films Beowulf and Shrek - while Beowulf attempts a more photo realistic style it comes off as wooden and a bit *off*. Shrek on the other hand has no pretensions towards realism but the characters feel more natural.
To me, if a game is going to be sim then it needs to be a really good sim - just nods in that direction are jarring as the abstraction layer leaps around.
Quick question, where is this from? I'm not trying to call you out, but you just stick a definition up without citing where it's from. On the other hand I went to wikipedia and got this under "GNS Theory"
Simulationist refers to decisions based on what would be most realistic or plausible within the game's setting, or to a game where the rules try to simulate the way that things work in that world, or at least the way that they could be thought of working.
Emphasis mine, this seems to support my interpretation and seems to show that there are two seperate aspects of simulationist rpg's. I'm not saying 3.5 is the best simulationist rpg evah... but it tries much, much harder than 4e to be so.
3E ties and fails, 4E doesn't try and succeeds its own goals. Doesn't help you if you don't agree with the goals.
GNS terms are tempting to use, but people don't agree on the definitions. The Forge definitions don't appeal to everyone and seem sometimes overly specific and artificial. I would very much be in favor of starting over with theorycraft.
Thoughts of the Arch Chancellor - My weblog on EN World - containing game related material, like: house rules, design theories, reviews, play reports, adventure ideas
Secret Member of <Think we would just hide our secret with a spoiler tag, eh?>
3E ties and fails, 4E doesn't try and succeeds its own goals. Doesn't help you if you don't agree with the goals.
GNS terms are tempting to use, but people don't agree on the definitions. The Forge definitions don't appeal to everyone and seem sometimes overly specific and artificial. I would very much be in favor of starting over with theorycraft.
3e fails at what exactly, because I haven't run across a roleplaying game yet that perfectly simulates anything to everyone's satisfaction. I think it succeeds for many (not all) in giving enough simulation that it is satisfying to many... and really that is all a roleplaying game can strive for.
As far as 4e "succeeding"... again at what exactly? I see this thrown about but really what are it's goals and how are the level of success in which they have been achieved not as subjective or even moreso than 3e? You're telling me there aren't roleplaying games that do tactical combat better than 4e? Or have players solve problems through the interaction of mechanics better then 4e? Not so sure it's any different than 3e in that respect.
__________________ Nobody built like me, I designed myself ...as an
3e fails at what exactly, because I haven't run across a roleplaying game yet that perfectly simulates anything to everyone's satisfaction. I think it succeeds for many (not all) in giving enough simulation that it is satisfying to many... and really that is all a roleplaying game can strive for.
As far as 4e "succeeding"... again at what exactly? I see this thrown about but really what are it's goals and how are the level of success in which they have been achieved not as subjective or even moreso than 3e? You're telling me there aren't roleplaying games that do tactical combat better than 4e? Or have players solve problems through the interaction of mechanics better then 4e? Not so sure it's any different than 3e in that respect.
Why do you assume that tactical combat was THE goal of 4e?
Of course you should ask right back, why do I assume that simulation was THE goal of 3e.
Thoughts of the Arch Chancellor - My weblog on EN World - containing game related material, like: house rules, design theories, reviews, play reports, adventure ideas
Secret Member of <Think we would just hide our secret with a spoiler tag, eh?>
Why do you assume that tactical combat was THE goal of 4e?
Of course you should ask right back, why do I assume that simulation was THE goal of 3e.
I didn't assume that, I actually asked and then threw that and another example out (both broadly based on "gamist" conceits). I honestly don't know what this goal is that by most fans accounts 4e succeeded at so well... but I'm willing to hear what others believe it to be.
__________________ Nobody built like me, I designed myself ...as an
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
