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="BryonD" data-source="post: 6349925" data-attributes="member: 957"><p>You know, this is actually a very interesting way to phrase the question and makes me rethink some of my perspective and use of labels.</p><p></p><p>The first RPG I ever personally experienced was 1E. To me, at that time, it was obvious and completely intuitive, that 1E D&D was "simulating" being a character in a fantasy epic tale. Of course between both being a kid and lacking the years of evolution of the gaming community and perspectives, I never dwelt on this in anything approaching the way it is discussed today. It was simply true that D&D was about being Strider or Merlin and thus, it was defacto a simulation experience. In modern perspective I do not think of 1E as remotely a "sim" game. But this is different than a modern game that is not "sim". Late 1970s computers can not be described as "fast" in any reasonable modern standards. Btu the best computers then were "fast", and 1E was the best "sim" going in the same way. And, for starting from war games, I give all credit to Gygax and fellows for the massive first step in innovation they provided.</p><p></p><p>But to me it was always about "sim" and always meant to be sim. To the extent I discussed these matters with friends, I have zero recollection of anyone every challenging that idea. As time went by and I found games that innovated on the "sim" elements, I left D&D. And when 3E came along there were plenty of references to the fact that is was "HEROizing" D&D, etc.... It was turning D&D into a reflection of the collective progress that had been made. </p><p></p><p>But there were never moments of "this is a great sim thing". It was a constant goal to ever strive after at every step. I want consistent immersion in "I am *THAT* character" and if there is a better way to make the world feel like that, I want it. Start with absolute reality, but immediately start tossing huge chunks aside to adjust for being in the story. Obviously things like magic redefine the mechanics. But the stories are relatively simplistic and the warrior hero can go toe-to-toe with the hill giant. So HP and a list of other issues are embraced as a way to get there. Btu the spirit always remains, do the best you can at "being that character".</p><p></p><p>The goal is being that guy in an otherwise natural feeling world that behaves in a reasonably consistent manner based on the alternate truths that define it. Any moment that sticks out as contrary to that is a bad thing. And in almost any game system there are these moments. I won't remotely claim that 3E doesn't hiccup in a variety of circumstances. But it tries and, case by case, does between and adequate and an outstanding job. So ti has never been about that great sim moment. It has always been about avoiding those "anti-sim" moments.</p><p></p><p>Games that instead embrace that anti-sim spirit have never been remotely successful for me. </p><p>And to be absolutely clear, for the purpose of conversation I'll presume I am the one who is out of touch here. Loving these anti-sim elements is completely legitimate and wonderful. I respect the difference in taste and preference.</p><p></p><p>But, the explanation for why I love "3E/PF (hopefully 5E)" as "sim", is going to require presenting thing that will sound "edition war talking points" to someone who is defensive about 4E. Because 3E doesn't have high points of awesome sim. But it never has points of intentional anti-sim. </p><p>4E embraces and takes joy in anti-sim. </p><p>I (me, and me alone) hate it when a character gets beat up by ogres and then just bounces back with no recovery time or outside source of healing.</p><p>I hate it when DCs can consistently and reliable be taken from a single page that covers almost everything.</p><p>I hate it when one brilliant move does not solve a problem then and there because the skill challange says 3 more successes are needed.</p><p>Obviously I could go on and on.</p><p></p><p>If you want to say that 3E doesn't make a great sim, then fine, I won't argue with you.</p><p>To me, it aspires to be a great sim. And it never takes it upon itself to aggressively point out that it doesn't want to be a sim.</p><p>So, I can play a game that, at my table, is a sim game and uses 3E rules and works in a highly fun manner. And that stands without a single moment of "now that was sim glory!".</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="BryonD, post: 6349925, member: 957"] You know, this is actually a very interesting way to phrase the question and makes me rethink some of my perspective and use of labels. The first RPG I ever personally experienced was 1E. To me, at that time, it was obvious and completely intuitive, that 1E D&D was "simulating" being a character in a fantasy epic tale. Of course between both being a kid and lacking the years of evolution of the gaming community and perspectives, I never dwelt on this in anything approaching the way it is discussed today. It was simply true that D&D was about being Strider or Merlin and thus, it was defacto a simulation experience. In modern perspective I do not think of 1E as remotely a "sim" game. But this is different than a modern game that is not "sim". Late 1970s computers can not be described as "fast" in any reasonable modern standards. Btu the best computers then were "fast", and 1E was the best "sim" going in the same way. And, for starting from war games, I give all credit to Gygax and fellows for the massive first step in innovation they provided. But to me it was always about "sim" and always meant to be sim. To the extent I discussed these matters with friends, I have zero recollection of anyone every challenging that idea. As time went by and I found games that innovated on the "sim" elements, I left D&D. And when 3E came along there were plenty of references to the fact that is was "HEROizing" D&D, etc.... It was turning D&D into a reflection of the collective progress that had been made. But there were never moments of "this is a great sim thing". It was a constant goal to ever strive after at every step. I want consistent immersion in "I am *THAT* character" and if there is a better way to make the world feel like that, I want it. Start with absolute reality, but immediately start tossing huge chunks aside to adjust for being in the story. Obviously things like magic redefine the mechanics. But the stories are relatively simplistic and the warrior hero can go toe-to-toe with the hill giant. So HP and a list of other issues are embraced as a way to get there. Btu the spirit always remains, do the best you can at "being that character". The goal is being that guy in an otherwise natural feeling world that behaves in a reasonably consistent manner based on the alternate truths that define it. Any moment that sticks out as contrary to that is a bad thing. And in almost any game system there are these moments. I won't remotely claim that 3E doesn't hiccup in a variety of circumstances. But it tries and, case by case, does between and adequate and an outstanding job. So ti has never been about that great sim moment. It has always been about avoiding those "anti-sim" moments. Games that instead embrace that anti-sim spirit have never been remotely successful for me. And to be absolutely clear, for the purpose of conversation I'll presume I am the one who is out of touch here. Loving these anti-sim elements is completely legitimate and wonderful. I respect the difference in taste and preference. But, the explanation for why I love "3E/PF (hopefully 5E)" as "sim", is going to require presenting thing that will sound "edition war talking points" to someone who is defensive about 4E. Because 3E doesn't have high points of awesome sim. But it never has points of intentional anti-sim. 4E embraces and takes joy in anti-sim. I (me, and me alone) hate it when a character gets beat up by ogres and then just bounces back with no recovery time or outside source of healing. I hate it when DCs can consistently and reliable be taken from a single page that covers almost everything. I hate it when one brilliant move does not solve a problem then and there because the skill challange says 3 more successes are needed. Obviously I could go on and on. If you want to say that 3E doesn't make a great sim, then fine, I won't argue with you. To me, it aspires to be a great sim. And it never takes it upon itself to aggressively point out that it doesn't want to be a sim. So, I can play a game that, at my table, is a sim game and uses 3E rules and works in a highly fun manner. And that stands without a single moment of "now that was sim glory!". [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Why use D&D for a Simulationist style Game?
Top