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="Sword of Spirit" data-source="post: 6360024" data-attributes="member: 6677017"><p>Just now saw this thread, and am reticent to jump into a giganta-thread without reading it, but since the topic is something I've thought a lot about I thought I'd give a (relatively) brief response to the general topic.</p><p></p><p>D&D has varied widely b edition in which playstyles it is best suited to support. I'm going to go further and say that D&D is <em>unique</em> in how much it has varied. I'm personally unaware of any other system that has had a complete switch from best supporting narrativist play to best supporting simulationist play (for example) due to an edition change. That's a huge part of the problem. D&D's supported playstyles has been a moving target by edition, and so you have people who see D&D so much differently than others do.</p><p></p><p>You don't, for instance, get people arguing that GURPS should be played in a narrativist manner, or Marvel Heroic Roleplaying should be viewed as a simulationist game, or Battletech is really best played if the GM takes the rules as loose guidelines and focuses on improvising. It's pretty simple to figure out what most systems are best able to support (which may actually be contrary to the intent of the designers! The field is still in its infancy and a high degree of design insight is a rare and elusive thing.)</p><p></p><p>So D&D suffers because it has run across the spectrum and has gamers seeing their version as the way D&D is supposed to be. It also has the issue of being egregiously incoherent in its design. Some systems are pretty far in one direction, and other systems pretty far into a different direction in a way that is incompatible. This leads to vast disagreement about the more "neutral" systems, based on your overall emphasized personal perspective on the game, colored by your own initial or defining experiences with anything that had the Dungeons & Dragons label on it.</p><p></p><p>Taking for granted that <em>all</em> editions of D&D are incoherent (some parts of the system support one playstyle, while others support another, and they all have some systems that best support each style) my estimation of the overall support for the various playstyles by edition follows.</p><p></p><p>OD&D: I can't comment much on OD&D--I have no direct experience.</p><p>BECMI: Primarily gamist.</p><p>AD&D 1e: Simulationism with a minor in gamism.</p><p>AD&D 2e: The focus was on simulationism, with a minor in both narrativism and gamism.</p><p>3e: A hybrid of simulationism and gamism.</p><p>4e: A hybrid of narrativism and gamism.</p><p>5e: Appears to major in incoherence, with minors in all three of the styles.</p><p></p><p>Now, you have to also realize that D&D has always been only <em>moderate</em> in any style. There has never been hard simulationism, strong narrativism, or finely-tuned gamism in <em>any</em> edition of D&D (with the possible exception of allowing 4e to claim finely-tuned gamism).</p><p></p><p>So no one has grounds to claim that D&D has been hard/strong on any of the spectrums. At the same time, claiming that D&D of a particular edition <em>wasn't</em> a particular style because it wasn't hard or strong in that style is a textbook strawman. Claims that D&D was simulationist or narrativist in edition X are only feasible when intepreted in meaning as saying this sort of thing: "3e D&D best supports a hybrid style of moderate simulationism and moderate gamism, while 4e best supports a hybrid style of moderate narrativism and moderate (though stronger) gamism." </p><p></p><p>Trying to play a game outside of its intended style is a recipe for frustration. Unfortunately, due to the nature of D&D's incoherence, it is almost guaranteed that you will face that frustration if you attempt to play it with any sort of coherence. If you play it in a more casual manner and don't think too much about it, you may be able to avoid that. In other words, D&D is a game that is hard to play seriously, but which many of us are seriously passionate about.</p><p></p><p>5e is particularly difficult, because it attempts to more or less consciously support all three styles, and ends up supporting none of them all that well (er...even less well than other editions, I mean). The good news about 5e though, is that you can often make a few house rules (or hopefully apply some modules when the DMG comes out) to add or remove components that will diminish the elements of the game that are most discordant to your personal playstyle, and leave you with (what I personally consider) the best cross-edition expression of the D&D experience.</p><p></p><p>So, a few thoughts. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Sword of Spirit, post: 6360024, member: 6677017"] Just now saw this thread, and am reticent to jump into a giganta-thread without reading it, but since the topic is something I've thought a lot about I thought I'd give a (relatively) brief response to the general topic. D&D has varied widely b edition in which playstyles it is best suited to support. I'm going to go further and say that D&D is [I]unique[/I] in how much it has varied. I'm personally unaware of any other system that has had a complete switch from best supporting narrativist play to best supporting simulationist play (for example) due to an edition change. That's a huge part of the problem. D&D's supported playstyles has been a moving target by edition, and so you have people who see D&D so much differently than others do. You don't, for instance, get people arguing that GURPS should be played in a narrativist manner, or Marvel Heroic Roleplaying should be viewed as a simulationist game, or Battletech is really best played if the GM takes the rules as loose guidelines and focuses on improvising. It's pretty simple to figure out what most systems are best able to support (which may actually be contrary to the intent of the designers! The field is still in its infancy and a high degree of design insight is a rare and elusive thing.) So D&D suffers because it has run across the spectrum and has gamers seeing their version as the way D&D is supposed to be. It also has the issue of being egregiously incoherent in its design. Some systems are pretty far in one direction, and other systems pretty far into a different direction in a way that is incompatible. This leads to vast disagreement about the more "neutral" systems, based on your overall emphasized personal perspective on the game, colored by your own initial or defining experiences with anything that had the Dungeons & Dragons label on it. Taking for granted that [I]all[/I] editions of D&D are incoherent (some parts of the system support one playstyle, while others support another, and they all have some systems that best support each style) my estimation of the overall support for the various playstyles by edition follows. OD&D: I can't comment much on OD&D--I have no direct experience. BECMI: Primarily gamist. AD&D 1e: Simulationism with a minor in gamism. AD&D 2e: The focus was on simulationism, with a minor in both narrativism and gamism. 3e: A hybrid of simulationism and gamism. 4e: A hybrid of narrativism and gamism. 5e: Appears to major in incoherence, with minors in all three of the styles. Now, you have to also realize that D&D has always been only [I]moderate[/I] in any style. There has never been hard simulationism, strong narrativism, or finely-tuned gamism in [I]any[/I] edition of D&D (with the possible exception of allowing 4e to claim finely-tuned gamism). So no one has grounds to claim that D&D has been hard/strong on any of the spectrums. At the same time, claiming that D&D of a particular edition [I]wasn't[/I] a particular style because it wasn't hard or strong in that style is a textbook strawman. Claims that D&D was simulationist or narrativist in edition X are only feasible when intepreted in meaning as saying this sort of thing: "3e D&D best supports a hybrid style of moderate simulationism and moderate gamism, while 4e best supports a hybrid style of moderate narrativism and moderate (though stronger) gamism." Trying to play a game outside of its intended style is a recipe for frustration. Unfortunately, due to the nature of D&D's incoherence, it is almost guaranteed that you will face that frustration if you attempt to play it with any sort of coherence. If you play it in a more casual manner and don't think too much about it, you may be able to avoid that. In other words, D&D is a game that is hard to play seriously, but which many of us are seriously passionate about. 5e is particularly difficult, because it attempts to more or less consciously support all three styles, and ends up supporting none of them all that well (er...even less well than other editions, I mean). The good news about 5e though, is that you can often make a few house rules (or hopefully apply some modules when the DMG comes out) to add or remove components that will diminish the elements of the game that are most discordant to your personal playstyle, and leave you with (what I personally consider) the best cross-edition expression of the D&D experience. So, a few thoughts. :) [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Why use D&D for a Simulationist style Game?
Top