No. That's a "rules-light vs rules-heavy" or a "combat vs out-of-combat rules" example.
When most people say 'simulationism', they don't mean lots of rules, for everything. they mean rules that are intended to be consistent with the fluff.
most sim complaints involve existing mechanics, not the lack thereof.
And yet, D&D has -never- been good at making rules to fit the fluff... it's always been about making the fluff to fit the rules. The only difference is that 4th edition admits it, and goes 'Look, you make the fluff, cause it's arbitrary anyways.'
You want to talk simulationist rules, then there is absolutely no edition of D&D that qualifies.
Take, for example, armor class. This is an example of where 4th edition is actually MORE simulationist than previous editions. See, a lot of training in weapon play is in how to defense yourself. Fourth edition is the only edition of D&D that models it, outside of monk-like character classes.
e.g. 4e has rules for exceptionally cool martial tricks, but there is no good in-game explanation for why they can be pulled-off exactly once per day / per fight.
There's no explanation in second edition why they can be pulled off exactly zero times in a fight either. Or why in third edition an expert at arms can, with experience, get better at avoiding hits from spells and magic, but not get better at avoiding hits from swords.
Every edition has its arbitrary problems where 'simulation' breaks down. The difference is that 3rd and previous editions claim to be simulationist while utterly failing to do so, and 4th edition doesn't bother claiming to be something it's not.
So, when someone refers to the simulationism of 3rd edition, they're certainly not refering to how rules are made to match the fluff, but instead, to rules depth used to disguise the arbitrary nature of the rules. Or they're deluding themselves.
Either way, not my problem.
it has rules to grab or poison things, even things that don't look grabbable or poisonable so you have to come up with tortured explanations for how it works story-wise.
Welcome to epic fantasy roleplay. Stop asking if Melvin the burger flipper can grab or poison these things. Ask if Hercules, or Batman, or Ajax, or Paul Bunyun, or Aragorn, or Legolas, or anything -legendary- can do these things. D&D4th is about simulating -legend- not about simulating -reality-. And when legends include doing 7 impossible things before breakfast, why let something arbitrary like rules-restrictions get in the way?
Hell, if you don't want tortured explanations, just use this one.
'He's that awesome.'
Seriously. That's all you really need. This is a game with flying floating eyes that pew pew laser beams as one of its mascots for gossake.
I don't see people complaining about minions because they're not fleshed-out. they just dislike the same creature having different mechanics depending on whether it's a minion, regular monster or NPC.
I like the minion mechanics. It -accurately- simulates the idea of disposable mooks. It's not even like 4th edition invented the concept. The same thing has been used in other rpgs like 7th Sea, Feng Shui, etc.
and, to keep this on topic, they don't complain about the lack of a battle grid, they complain about grids and movement rules they don't find believable.
Every battle grid is an abstraction. One is easy to use, the other requires kludges to handle things like 'straight wall.' People will complain with either one. Wizards chose to use the one that can handle a straight wall.
same for healing surges etc…
But healing surges -are- simulationist. They simulate the ability to keep going and shrug off fatigue and injury over time. Contrast with every edition's way of handling it which is 'They have hitpoints... and... um... it's an abstraction.'
How are healing surges and hit points -less- simulationist than hit points? What -exactly- do hit points simulate?
tl;dr: People using simulationist as a word to describe any edition of dungeons and dragons are being ignorant of the arbitrary rules those editions have had that have absolutely zero simulation in them. No edition of D&D has ever truly been simulationist. Ever. Palladium is more simulationist than anything D&D has come out with... and Palladium's terrible at simulationism.
Play games that aren't based on d20 rolls, then come back to me with your simulationism claims.
