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
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Why use D&D for a Simulationist style Game?
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="pemerton" data-source="post: 6349356" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>With due respect to Dausuul, this is a non-sequitur, and an attempt to stipulate what RPG rules must/should be rather than an attempt to examine what, historically, they actually have been.</p><p></p><p>For instance, Basic D&D says that a 1st level fighter can only take X hit points worth of damage per day, but that is not a statement about the fictional world. It is a statement at the metagame level, that gives instructions to the game players about how to resolve combats involving that fighter. To work out why the first hit which did X/2 hp of damage didn't kill the fighter, but the second hit which did X/2 hp of damge did kill the fighter, the kids have to dream up "ad hoc rationalisations" eg that the first hit was only a graze, but the second hit was a stab to the chest. The rules don't, themselves, convey any of this information.</p><p></p><p>Nor do the AD&D rules tell us why a 1st level fighter only ever gets a chance to strike one telling blow per minute, whether fighting a peasant or a demon. This is left to "ad hoc rationalisations".</p><p></p><p>Contrast, say, RQ or RM, in which the rules do convey this sort of information.</p><p></p><p>A rule that says Batamn can only throw 3 batarangs per day <em>with any chane of success</em> is a rule about what it is fair for the kids to have Batman do in their game. It's a bit like a rule when playing armies or cops-and-robbers that says you get 3 lives. There is no ingame explanation for why you get 1, or 3, or 10 lives. The kids have chosen a number that they think is fair and fun. The batarang-attack-rationing rule is in exactly the same category.</p><p></p><p>(Also, the rule does answer <em>some</em> questions about the fiction - eg it tells us whether or not Batman uses attacks other than his batarangs - it just doesn't answer all of them - eg it doesn't tell us why Batman uses attacks other than his batarangs. That is left to "ad hoc rationalisation" - which, of course, is what some of us call "playing the game".)</p><p></p><p>Unless you think I was just making stuff up on the other recent thread that discussed these things, you have encountered such a person online - namely, me. (And if you think I'm anti-sim, then you haven't been following my posts very closely. I GMed Rolemaster for 19 years. The reason I think Ron Edwards' descriptoin of purist-for-system sim is terrific is because it captures exactly what motivated me during those 19 years. And the fact that Burning Wheel's Fight! system satisfies so many of these desiderata is part of what makes it appeal to me.)</p><p></p><p>If you go to the ICE boards you'll find many more posters like me, who want the things that you descibe as key elements of a sim game.</p><p></p><p>Rolemaster, HARP and RQ players absolutely want a wound system, a hit location system, and non-ad hoc rules. (Obviously they don't want excessively complicated tables - by definition, no one wants rules that they would judge to be excessively complicated; they want rules that are <em>appropriately </em>complicated.)</p><p></p><p>As far as combat manouevres are concerned, these are actually a bigger deal in 3E and PF than in RM, RQ or HARP, mostly because they have to exist parallel to the hit point rules. Whereas in RM, say, Grappling is just another crit table, inflicting debuffs in the same sort of fashion as does the Puncture or Slash crit table.</p><p></p><p>Frankly, if you are happy with abstract AC, abstract rounds, abstract action economy and abstract hit points, I don't know in what sense you are playing sim. All the classic sim games (RM, RQ, C&S, GURPS, HARP, etc) are characterised by departures from these features of D&D's combat mechanics: they introduce armour-as-damage-reduction, hit location, wounds, parrying, continuous (or at least somewhat continuous) initiative, etc.</p><p></p><p>The most sim-oriented "modern" game I know is Burning Wheel, and it's melee combat system (Fight!) is the same in nearly all these respects: hit location, wounds, parrying, continuous initiative, etc. (But like D&D (and classic Traveller), it does use armour as hit negation rather than damage reduction.)</p><p></p><p>The character grows in wizardly power - first s/he has none, then s/he has some - access to one 1st level spell. That's growth.</p><p></p><p>If the player then wants his/her PC to have access to more wizard spells via substitution feats, those feats have to be acquired (by gaining levels) and spent on new powers. That's more growth.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 6349356, member: 42582"] With due respect to Dausuul, this is a non-sequitur, and an attempt to stipulate what RPG rules must/should be rather than an attempt to examine what, historically, they actually have been. For instance, Basic D&D says that a 1st level fighter can only take X hit points worth of damage per day, but that is not a statement about the fictional world. It is a statement at the metagame level, that gives instructions to the game players about how to resolve combats involving that fighter. To work out why the first hit which did X/2 hp of damage didn't kill the fighter, but the second hit which did X/2 hp of damge did kill the fighter, the kids have to dream up "ad hoc rationalisations" eg that the first hit was only a graze, but the second hit was a stab to the chest. The rules don't, themselves, convey any of this information. Nor do the AD&D rules tell us why a 1st level fighter only ever gets a chance to strike one telling blow per minute, whether fighting a peasant or a demon. This is left to "ad hoc rationalisations". Contrast, say, RQ or RM, in which the rules do convey this sort of information. A rule that says Batamn can only throw 3 batarangs per day [I]with any chane of success[/I] is a rule about what it is fair for the kids to have Batman do in their game. It's a bit like a rule when playing armies or cops-and-robbers that says you get 3 lives. There is no ingame explanation for why you get 1, or 3, or 10 lives. The kids have chosen a number that they think is fair and fun. The batarang-attack-rationing rule is in exactly the same category. (Also, the rule does answer [I]some[/I] questions about the fiction - eg it tells us whether or not Batman uses attacks other than his batarangs - it just doesn't answer all of them - eg it doesn't tell us why Batman uses attacks other than his batarangs. That is left to "ad hoc rationalisation" - which, of course, is what some of us call "playing the game".) Unless you think I was just making stuff up on the other recent thread that discussed these things, you have encountered such a person online - namely, me. (And if you think I'm anti-sim, then you haven't been following my posts very closely. I GMed Rolemaster for 19 years. The reason I think Ron Edwards' descriptoin of purist-for-system sim is terrific is because it captures exactly what motivated me during those 19 years. And the fact that Burning Wheel's Fight! system satisfies so many of these desiderata is part of what makes it appeal to me.) If you go to the ICE boards you'll find many more posters like me, who want the things that you descibe as key elements of a sim game. Rolemaster, HARP and RQ players absolutely want a wound system, a hit location system, and non-ad hoc rules. (Obviously they don't want excessively complicated tables - by definition, no one wants rules that they would judge to be excessively complicated; they want rules that are [I]appropriately [/I]complicated.) As far as combat manouevres are concerned, these are actually a bigger deal in 3E and PF than in RM, RQ or HARP, mostly because they have to exist parallel to the hit point rules. Whereas in RM, say, Grappling is just another crit table, inflicting debuffs in the same sort of fashion as does the Puncture or Slash crit table. Frankly, if you are happy with abstract AC, abstract rounds, abstract action economy and abstract hit points, I don't know in what sense you are playing sim. All the classic sim games (RM, RQ, C&S, GURPS, HARP, etc) are characterised by departures from these features of D&D's combat mechanics: they introduce armour-as-damage-reduction, hit location, wounds, parrying, continuous (or at least somewhat continuous) initiative, etc. The most sim-oriented "modern" game I know is Burning Wheel, and it's melee combat system (Fight!) is the same in nearly all these respects: hit location, wounds, parrying, continuous initiative, etc. (But like D&D (and classic Traveller), it does use armour as hit negation rather than damage reduction.) The character grows in wizardly power - first s/he has none, then s/he has some - access to one 1st level spell. That's growth. If the player then wants his/her PC to have access to more wizard spells via substitution feats, those feats have to be acquired (by gaining levels) and spent on new powers. That's more growth. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Why use D&D for a Simulationist style Game?
Top