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 LIVE! 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="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 6349447" data-attributes="member: 87792"><p>First, the problem is root-deep for two reasons. First, Ron Edwards labelled simulationist play incoherent which meant either he doesn't understand it or it doesn't fit the model properly. It's the obvious proud nail. Second, it's being waved around as a banner in the edition wars - and such banners tend to have whatever usefulness they had stripped away.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>D&D, especially before DL1, is the <em>textbook</em> example of a gamist RPG. You're going down a really weird obstacle course and trying to retrieve as much loot as possible as the core activity. The simulation, such as it is, serves to facilitate this.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I couldn't disagree more. 4e is IMO the <em>only</em> version of D&D with a simulationist form of multiclassing.</p><p></p><p>First <em>you do not leave your old class.</em> You don't suddenly forget or fail to use everything you've learned before and utterly change your approach. Instead you take the new things and integrate it into what you already did. And you don't suddenly stop getting better at your core competency. Secondly, you're misrepresenting the 4e multiclassing rules. If you want to slowly grow into additional power in their new class, there are three separate ways of doing it - feats, Paragon Path, and Paragon Multiclassing (which no one ever uses). All of which represent substantial continuing investment. </p><p></p><p>From a sim perspective AD&D dual classing is ridiculous - and AD&D multiclassing is duplicated by 4e's Hybrids. As for 3.X multiclassing, when you suddenly stop learning what you were doing for a whole level - and the way a powerful fighter learns and is meant to use first level wizard tricks is <em>exactly</em> the same as the way an apprentice wizard is, no that isn't sim either. At least not of the world as I know it.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>The interesting question is <em>why</em> it didn't work. And what I got from your list is "They changed it and now it sucks. I like D&D because I was happy with it."</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>... <em>seriously?</em></p><p></p><p>AD&D of the myriad subsystems was internally consistent? 3.X of the Standard Climbing Tree was not caught up on details?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>If you do it that way IMO you are into Order of the Stick territory. Nothing wrong with that - but it's very distinctive and doesn't work like most fantasy settings.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Neonchameleon, post: 6349447, member: 87792"] First, the problem is root-deep for two reasons. First, Ron Edwards labelled simulationist play incoherent which meant either he doesn't understand it or it doesn't fit the model properly. It's the obvious proud nail. Second, it's being waved around as a banner in the edition wars - and such banners tend to have whatever usefulness they had stripped away. D&D, especially before DL1, is the [I]textbook[/I] example of a gamist RPG. You're going down a really weird obstacle course and trying to retrieve as much loot as possible as the core activity. The simulation, such as it is, serves to facilitate this. I couldn't disagree more. 4e is IMO the [I]only[/I] version of D&D with a simulationist form of multiclassing. First [I]you do not leave your old class.[/I] You don't suddenly forget or fail to use everything you've learned before and utterly change your approach. Instead you take the new things and integrate it into what you already did. And you don't suddenly stop getting better at your core competency. Secondly, you're misrepresenting the 4e multiclassing rules. If you want to slowly grow into additional power in their new class, there are three separate ways of doing it - feats, Paragon Path, and Paragon Multiclassing (which no one ever uses). All of which represent substantial continuing investment. From a sim perspective AD&D dual classing is ridiculous - and AD&D multiclassing is duplicated by 4e's Hybrids. As for 3.X multiclassing, when you suddenly stop learning what you were doing for a whole level - and the way a powerful fighter learns and is meant to use first level wizard tricks is [I]exactly[/I] the same as the way an apprentice wizard is, no that isn't sim either. At least not of the world as I know it. The interesting question is [I]why[/I] it didn't work. And what I got from your list is "They changed it and now it sucks. I like D&D because I was happy with it." ... [I]seriously?[/I] AD&D of the myriad subsystems was internally consistent? 3.X of the Standard Climbing Tree was not caught up on details? If you do it that way IMO you are into Order of the Stick territory. Nothing wrong with that - but it's very distinctive and doesn't work like most fantasy settings. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Why use D&D for a Simulationist style Game?
Top