Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
A New Culture?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7194198" data-attributes="member: 996"><p>Like Dwarven Women's beards, it also played out in the pages of The Dragon, and, in a way, in the rev-roll from 1e to 2e. </p><p></p><p>I feel like 'realism' lost. Y'don't see a lot of folks goin' there, these days, in so many words. Maybe it's just too easy to throw back that magic & elves & dragons &c aren't 'realistic' either?</p><p>:shrug:</p><p></p><p> I wouldn't peg it to WotC, now. There was never much realism in D&D. 3e moved the game in a different direction, but it wasn't based on that (more later...).</p><p></p><p> ... IDK. The GNS model that 'simulationist' is lifted from came out of the Forge (which was, to spin it negatively - because, full disclosure, I loathe the GNS model - a sour-grapes echo chamber for designers and would-be game designers frustrated at the relative lack of success of every RPG that wasn't D&D), and it grew out of the UseNet 'Threefold Model' which grew out of the edition-war-esque ROLE v ROLL 'debate' (which was in no way a 'debate,' it was straight-up the Storytelling set hating on D&D and shaming those who played it).</p><p></p><p>(Why yes, I do harbor some strong feeling on the subject.) </p><p></p><p>I'm sure there's plenty of irony, there, already, but ironically, the ringleader of the Forge, while trying to couch GNS all objectively and non-prejudicially, effing hated what he dubbed 'simulationism,' and that attitude leaked through. In spite of that, the former-realism set in D&D land proudly hung their hats on the simulationist ideal, and used it as a blunt instrument against any functional (gamist!) or flexible (narrativist!) rule, squeeling that they were 'dissociated' (itself lifted from an entirely unrelated, and more openly prejudiced, source).</p><p></p><p>So there was a whole mix of toxins involved in what push there's been for 'simulationism'/realism since WotC took over.</p><p></p><p>As for the "rule-for-everything" characterization of 3e design, well ironically (yeah, it's losing it's impact, isn't it?), prettymuch those exact words were used to describe 1e back in the day. </p><p></p><p> "Simulating" a reality that doesn't exist is kinda like dividing by 0, really. Yeah, you can do it 'easily' in the same sense that coming up with 'undefined' when you divide by 0 is easier than actually doing long division. Alternately -</p><p> and less easily - you can emulate a fictional setting or genre or the stories told in one. D&D's generally been really bad at it, but at least it's not an oxymoron to start with.</p><p></p><p>Selectively invoking realism - hps don't need to be realistic, but falling does (or, now, vice-versa), magic-users don't need to be realistic, but fighters do - isn't realistic, at all, obviously, it's just picking at or making excuses for the foibles of a system, or applying the afore-mentioned bludgeon to a mechanic you dislike for some other reason.</p><p></p><p>To put it another way, it's not realism nor simulation, it's "a realistic world, with un-realistic elements." Which is very convenient, because it gives you a built-in double-standard.</p><p></p><p> And many more where they failed to do so, resulting in compromised playability and radical imbalance. And, still, no realism. ;P </p><p></p><p> That's the idea. Taken literally, simulations and games have only superficial similarities - like a high level of abstraction, for instance - but very different opposed objectives. Games are meant to be fun. Simulations are meant to be accurate. The two can be wildly incompatible, especially when 'simulating' something, like brutal hand-to-hand medieval combat, that is not only no fun at all, but pretty damn horrifying in person.</p><p></p><p> Prettymuch complete nonsense. There is no possible bar for realism on things that don't exist. And fantasy worlds don't exist. Genre-emulation is a valid bar for an FRPG, but not realism. That D&D fails both pretty dramatically also makes it a llittle ironic that 'need for realism' is still used to excuse (and agitate for the return of) gamist failings of the system. </p><p></p><p> That's one way of looking at it, but, for the above reasons, not one I can get behind. 3e was more player-oriented "Player Entitled," with it's tremendous customizability and lavish rewards for system mastery, that was a trend - but not the start of it, that trend started in 2e, with the 'Complete' books. 5e is very strongly DM-oriented, with it's DM Empowerment/rulings-not-rules philosophy, in a real sense it snaps back, past 2e, all the way to 1e, that way, IMHO. (4e was not quite just further in the 3e direction, nor simply between 3e & 5e in the player-vs-DM tug of war - I suppose, to try to put it succinctly, it closed some of the distance between player & DM, which was contrary to both.)</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 7194198, member: 996"] Like Dwarven Women's beards, it also played out in the pages of The Dragon, and, in a way, in the rev-roll from 1e to 2e. I feel like 'realism' lost. Y'don't see a lot of folks goin' there, these days, in so many words. Maybe it's just too easy to throw back that magic & elves & dragons &c aren't 'realistic' either? :shrug: I wouldn't peg it to WotC, now. There was never much realism in D&D. 3e moved the game in a different direction, but it wasn't based on that (more later...). ... IDK. The GNS model that 'simulationist' is lifted from came out of the Forge (which was, to spin it negatively - because, full disclosure, I loathe the GNS model - a sour-grapes echo chamber for designers and would-be game designers frustrated at the relative lack of success of every RPG that wasn't D&D), and it grew out of the UseNet 'Threefold Model' which grew out of the edition-war-esque ROLE v ROLL 'debate' (which was in no way a 'debate,' it was straight-up the Storytelling set hating on D&D and shaming those who played it). (Why yes, I do harbor some strong feeling on the subject.) I'm sure there's plenty of irony, there, already, but ironically, the ringleader of the Forge, while trying to couch GNS all objectively and non-prejudicially, effing hated what he dubbed 'simulationism,' and that attitude leaked through. In spite of that, the former-realism set in D&D land proudly hung their hats on the simulationist ideal, and used it as a blunt instrument against any functional (gamist!) or flexible (narrativist!) rule, squeeling that they were 'dissociated' (itself lifted from an entirely unrelated, and more openly prejudiced, source). So there was a whole mix of toxins involved in what push there's been for 'simulationism'/realism since WotC took over. As for the "rule-for-everything" characterization of 3e design, well ironically (yeah, it's losing it's impact, isn't it?), prettymuch those exact words were used to describe 1e back in the day. "Simulating" a reality that doesn't exist is kinda like dividing by 0, really. Yeah, you can do it 'easily' in the same sense that coming up with 'undefined' when you divide by 0 is easier than actually doing long division. Alternately - and less easily - you can emulate a fictional setting or genre or the stories told in one. D&D's generally been really bad at it, but at least it's not an oxymoron to start with. Selectively invoking realism - hps don't need to be realistic, but falling does (or, now, vice-versa), magic-users don't need to be realistic, but fighters do - isn't realistic, at all, obviously, it's just picking at or making excuses for the foibles of a system, or applying the afore-mentioned bludgeon to a mechanic you dislike for some other reason. To put it another way, it's not realism nor simulation, it's "a realistic world, with un-realistic elements." Which is very convenient, because it gives you a built-in double-standard. And many more where they failed to do so, resulting in compromised playability and radical imbalance. And, still, no realism. ;P That's the idea. Taken literally, simulations and games have only superficial similarities - like a high level of abstraction, for instance - but very different opposed objectives. Games are meant to be fun. Simulations are meant to be accurate. The two can be wildly incompatible, especially when 'simulating' something, like brutal hand-to-hand medieval combat, that is not only no fun at all, but pretty damn horrifying in person. Prettymuch complete nonsense. There is no possible bar for realism on things that don't exist. And fantasy worlds don't exist. Genre-emulation is a valid bar for an FRPG, but not realism. That D&D fails both pretty dramatically also makes it a llittle ironic that 'need for realism' is still used to excuse (and agitate for the return of) gamist failings of the system. That's one way of looking at it, but, for the above reasons, not one I can get behind. 3e was more player-oriented "Player Entitled," with it's tremendous customizability and lavish rewards for system mastery, that was a trend - but not the start of it, that trend started in 2e, with the 'Complete' books. 5e is very strongly DM-oriented, with it's DM Empowerment/rulings-not-rules philosophy, in a real sense it snaps back, past 2e, all the way to 1e, that way, IMHO. (4e was not quite just further in the 3e direction, nor simply between 3e & 5e in the player-vs-DM tug of war - I suppose, to try to put it succinctly, it closed some of the distance between player & DM, which was contrary to both.) [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
A New Culture?
Top