Maybe not, but it had enough realism so I could buy into it. Even if the explanation was "It's magic" it's still better than trying to covince me that a warlord can heal someone mortally wounded with a pep talk. I can't buy into that, but I can buy into someone bing healed of a serious wound with divine magic.
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
The Impasse
- Thread starter DimitriX
- Start date
Maybe not, but it had enough realism so I could buy into it. Even if the explanation was "It's magic" it's still better than trying to covince me that a warlord can heal someone mortally wounded with a pep talk. I can't buy into that, but I can buy into someone bing healed of a serious wound with divine magic.
Mustrum_Ridcully
Legend
Let's not take this as an opportunity to go into the discussions of hit points and what they used to represent, what they represent now, or into "Schrödingers Hit Points" and all that...
If you can't buy it, don't buy it. My Warlords don't heal someone mortally wounded with a pep talk. They convince people that they need to fight on, even if they suffer pain and exhaustion. And besides, "Today is a good day for someone else to die!"
But how do you buy hit points then? Any sword or axe strike could maim any man. So by the "realism" perspective hit points should not represent material toughness but rather the physical stamina, the stamina of focus and the training of somebody to avoid danger. Of course physical toughness may help in this by alleviating some of the danger hence the constitution bonus.
D&D has no morale but now it seems it has entered hit points too. If you are eager to play with the rules of combat based on hit points what is the problem to insert morale into the fray?
Imaro
Legend
Quick question, where is this from? I'm not trying to call you out, but you just stick a definition up without citing where it's from. On the other hand I went to wikipedia and got this under "GNS Theory"
[edit] Simulationist
Simulationist refers to decisions based on what would be most realistic or plausible within the game's setting, or to a game where the rules try to simulate the way that things work in that world, or at least the way that they could be thought of working.
Emphasis mine, this seems to support my interpretation and seems to show that there are two seperate aspects of simulationist rpg's. I'm not saying 3.5 is the best simulationist rpg evah... but it tries much, much harder than 4e to be so.
That's a pep talk.
I guess your "warlord" doesn't give orders either, and doesn't undermine the D&D adventuring party conceit of a band of heroes without hierarchy at all. I can't get over how illegitimate an excuse for a core class that thing is. Even a ninja core class would have been more appropriate. Man do I hate that thing, whether it's named Marshal, Hunter, White Raven, Warlord, or Motivational Speaker. It is The Core Class That Should Not Be.
Last edited:
It does. Its worth considering however, whether or not it did a good job at it.
Personally, I find that the Sim leanings of 3rd serve to highlight where it produces non-intuitive results; healing (both natural and magical) being an obvious one.
Its a little like the Uncanny valley - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - consider the CGI films Beowulf and Shrek - while Beowulf attempts a more photo realistic style it comes off as wooden and a bit *off*. Shrek on the other hand has no pretensions towards realism but the characters feel more natural.
To me, if a game is going to be sim then it needs to be a really good sim - just nods in that direction are jarring as the abstraction layer leaps around.
Mustrum_Ridcully
Legend
3E ties and fails, 4E doesn't try and succeeds its own goals. Doesn't help you if you don't agree with the goals.
GNS terms are tempting to use, but people don't agree on the definitions. The Forge definitions don't appeal to everyone and seem sometimes overly specific and artificial. I would very much be in favor of starting over with theorycraft.
Imaro
Legend
3E ties and fails, 4E doesn't try and succeeds its own goals. Doesn't help you if you don't agree with the goals.
GNS terms are tempting to use, but people don't agree on the definitions. The Forge definitions don't appeal to everyone and seem sometimes overly specific and artificial. I would very much be in favor of starting over with theorycraft.
3e fails at what exactly, because I haven't run across a roleplaying game yet that perfectly simulates anything to everyone's satisfaction. I think it succeeds for many (not all) in giving enough simulation that it is satisfying to many... and really that is all a roleplaying game can strive for.
As far as 4e "succeeding"... again at what exactly? I see this thrown about but really what are it's goals and how are the level of success in which they have been achieved not as subjective or even moreso than 3e? You're telling me there aren't roleplaying games that do tactical combat better than 4e? Or have players solve problems through the interaction of mechanics better then 4e? Not so sure it's any different than 3e in that respect.
Mustrum_Ridcully
Legend
Why do you assume that tactical combat was THE goal of 4e?
Of course you should ask right back, why do I assume that simulation was THE goal of 3e.
Imaro
Legend
I didn't assume that, I actually asked and then threw that and another example out (both broadly based on "gamist" conceits). I honestly don't know what this goal is that by most fans accounts 4e succeeded at so well... but I'm willing to hear what others believe it to be.
