A reason why 4E is not as popular as it could have been

[Herremann the Wise]

Hello ProfessorCirno,

Firstly, good post, well-made points and a very interesting world to boot.
Secondly, just a few thoughts:

See, every time in 3e I wanted to make a cool homebrew setting, I came across the same problem.

Magic.

Magic destroys the simulation. Completely. It destroys the world. How do you handle a class that can literally talk to God in your world?

Magic and Talking to God are only as powerful as you let them be. I've always liked the "Mages deal with things that they shouldn't" trope. If magic becomes dangerous to perform (because some devil is about to steal your soul or the locals with the pitchforks are going to hunt you down etc.) then you can put a cap on the influence magic actually has upon your world while making it mysterious and something interesting to play around with.
Talking to God abilities might be a little over-rated as well. He "says" he talks to God but it's all in his head (maybe or maybe not). Links that faith angle in which I think can be cool to play around with. Except maybe the Dark Gods have their powers manifest more obviously than the good ones... perhaps.

How do you deal with a wizard who can create perpetual energy on whim?

You need to bash 3E around to make it cost something but it can be done.

A druid that ends the very concept of drought?

Does he? Perhaps there is drought there for a reason and something that a Druid would not think of tampering with. Druids to me can be "unhelpful" in fulfilling the requests of a "civilized" population who have no idea of the patterns of nature. They dance to their own tune so to speak.

And if I want to follow the rules directly, every "cool thing" I want needs to be do-able by PCs, needs to be statted out, and needs to be magical.

IF you want to follow the rules directly which perhaps is the first thing you don't do when crafting a homebrew.

So yeah, I very solidly denounce the idea that 4e is bad for world building. 4e is amazing at world building because now I don't have to constantly worry about "someone has a spell" ruining everything. And it "simulates" the feel and genres and styles I want perfectly.

And more power to you. It works for some and obviously not for others.

D&D has never simulated a world. Never. It never tried to. It never wanted to. This whole "simulationism" thing is bizarro and jumped out of nowhere in 3e - I never saw nor heard of anything like it once before.

The heart of D&D was never to explore and experience Medieval Europe as if it also had mages walking around I guess even though they for whatever reason don't radically alter the universe. It was to take a genre or a style you like and simulate that. In the oldest editions it was "Hey, you like Conan? In D&D you can throw a throne at an evil wizard and then steal all the gold and run away as fast as you can!" In 2e it was "Hey, you like Lord of the Rings? In D&D you can be a semi-useless thief that takes orders from an epic level wizard that doesn't just solve anything because I dunno, screw you!" And in 3e it was "Hey, do you have any cocked out, bizarre, mishmash fantasy idea? Multiclaaaaaaaaass!"

And 4e doesn't change that. You're still Conan and a hobbit and medieval fantasy Bruce Willis, roleplaying out being Conan and a hobbit and medieval fantasy Bruce Willis. The world and setting make just as much sense as they always have: None.

Perhaps a sidenote.

When I think of "simulation", I think of mechanics and how well the flavour meshes with the mechanics, in other words how well the mechanics tell a story about the flavour of the something they represent. The mechanics simulate the features and physics of the world so that if "someone" does "something", the result will be predictable (or not if the DM wants to come up with a twist - which will eventually make mechanical sense and enrich the world in the process). The mechanics help inform your knowledge and perspective upon the world they craft. To my mind 3E does this exceedingly well where as 4E tells it to get back in its black box and shut up.

As you point out though, when world-building 4E lets you craft what you want where as 3E makes you account for it (and as you point out most times unsuccessfully).

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Umbran]

I mean come on, simulationism?

Remember what you've said here, the next time you may be tempted to take exception to someone spreading scorn about something you like to do with your game. 'Cause you've pretty much lost any moral high ground you might have wanted in that situation.

 

[BryonD]

The "simulationist" crowd seems to think D&D has or did or should portray a vague "simulation" of a world or setting. The problem is that it basically never has nor was it meant to, because the implications of magic on an actual setting are such far reaching it's neigh impossible to see just how much the world would change.

Actually, I don't think any other editions were "simulationist". I think there was a steady, but slow growth in that general direction, but it never got anywhere close. A lot of other games shined a light on it and 3E learned from them and made an awesome quantum leap.

(It doesn't "feel" like D&D, and in this specific case that is why I love it.)

As to the whole "implications of magic", there is a concept called "boundary conditions". Suffice it to say that every issue you have raised is trivially removed by a quality gaming group who wants to create a cool shared reality. And every issue you raised can be exploited to hell and back by either a bad group, or a good group that just wants to go that direction with it.

I agree that the bad things can and do happen. If you want to insist that the great things that do happen, in fact can not happen, then that would simply be you defining yourself into a position based solely on ignorance. I'll leave it to you to accept or reject the reality of my game, because my game is going to ignore your opinion either way.

 

[pawsplay]

You are missing my point entirely.

The "simulationist" crowd seems to think D&D has or did or should portray a vague "simulation" of a world or setting. The problem is that it basically never has nor was it meant to, because the implications of magic on an actual setting are such far reaching it's neigh impossible to see just how much the world would change.

You seem to be conflating simulation with modern realism. Obviously, in a simulation of Golden Age Action Comics, a hat and glasses is an effective disguise for Clark Kent. If you can't account for that level of simulation, then your "point" seems to be setting up flimsy strawmen. Feel free to clarify if I have again missed your point. My point is that you don't seem to understand the purpose of simulation outside non-romantic, historical genres.

 

[lutecius]

You are missing my point entirely.

The "simulationist" crowd seems to think D&D has or did or should portray a vague "simulation" of a world or setting. The problem is that it basically never has nor was it meant to, because the implications of magic on an actual setting are such far reaching it's neigh impossible to see just how much the world would change.

I think you are missing what "the simulationist crowd" means by "simulation".

 

[ProfessorCirno]

You seem to be conflating simulation with modern realism. Obviously, in a simulation of Golden Age Action Comics, a hat and glasses is an effective disguise for Clark Kent. If you can't account for that level of simulation, then your "point" seems to be setting up flimsy strawmen. Feel free to clarify if I have again missed your point. My point is that you don't seem to understand the purpose of simulation outside non-romantic, historical genres.

Clarify?

Whenever I see "simulationist" ascribed to 3e it's done so in the idea that 3e is meant to "simulate" a setting or world. My issue is that the thoughts behind the mechanics tend to ruin this greatly, and that this style of "simulationism" was never the intention.

Like I said, it never even came up when I played 2e. It was accepted that the world made serious amounts of zero sense, and we loved it for it. Really, a lot of the more "iconic" D&D monsters were made after children's toys. Most of the major wizards connected to various spells are hilariously unimaginative (Melf = Male Elf). It's really, really goofy. It's also really awesome.

Herremann and BryonD snipped

At what point do I stop banning spells and realize that it may be the underlying system that is a problem, though? I'm picking a bit on 3e because in many cases 2e wasn't as bad, but the underlying problems are not with individual spells but rather with the underlying idea of "There should be a spell for that." To which I respond, "No, sometimes, there shouldn't be."

It's all well and good to want magic to be wonderous and mystical and strange, but it loses a lot - if not all - of that when it's in the PC's hands. Because once they get it, it's a tool.

Remember what you've said here, the next time you may be tempted to take exception to someone spreading scorn about something you like to do with your game. 'Cause you've pretty much lost any moral high ground you might have wanted in that situation.

Could you actually say what the problem is? Because you cherry picked a single sentence and you've told me basically nothing on how it makes me lose any sort of moral high ground.

I stand by my statement. D&D is about medieval knights (paladins) in ren-era armor (full plate mail), worshipping a greek pantheon (pantheons) and following a pastiche of modern morality (alignment) while fighting evil brain-sucking space aliens from the future (Illithids)

I could also bring up the evil magical cockroaches (rust monsters) and sentient acidic jello (gelatinous cubes). But this isn't a bad thing.

These are things we love about D&D. I'm not making fun of it. I'm basking in it. I wouldn't still be playing D&D if these were things I disliked.

I can only speak for myself, but my best and most fond memories of D&D, regardless of edition, are not ones in which I am captivated by the "realism" of the setting, they aren't ones in which I am haggling with a shopkeep or chatting with an NPC, and they aren't ones in which I am out in the wilderness and not much happens. My fondest memories are ones in which something utterly insane happens, the group is horribly screwed, and yet we manage to pull out butts out of the fire somehow.

When the wild mage has a wild surge as combat is going bad and manages to roll "Heal spell to all allies."

When the warblade is the last one standing and has just been paralyzed, but Iron Heart Surges his way out of it, screams his battlecry, and finishes the enemy off in one fantastic crit.

When the group is empty on healing surges and the abominations are closing in, and the psion has one use of Living Missile left and manages to throw both abominations off a cliff with it.

These are the moments I remember from my games. When everything looked terrible and we were doomed with certain death, and somehow we dragged ourselves kicking and screaming away from the reaper. It wasn't a simulation of anything. In most cases, it was really, really goofy. But it sure as hell was fun!

 

[Hussar]

Like your town here HAD a ruler to begin with, you just gave him stats. Otherwise you are saying the town had no governing body until the players wanted to speak to a member of it?

Wait, you said JIT is in response to players something is created, but your examples all just sound like prior planned descriptions, not something created with JIT just because the players want to interact and engage with it. Like your town ruler, it existed, you just didn't fill in all the blanks. The fact a ruler existed was part of the setting. Your JIT created the person, not the position

Not Pemerton, but, if I may?

You are absolutely right. There was no governing body in this town until such time as the players wanted to interact with it. Why was there no governing body? Because there's no town.

Outside of what the PC's experience, there is nothing that has any fixed existence in any game world. A GM is free to change, modify or completely ignore anything that's not relevant to the game at the moment. Now, after something has been experienced, sure, you shouldn't retcon it but, then again, since it's been experienced, it's relavent.

So, no, you most certainly don't have to detail or even have a leader in a town until the players ask to see him.

In the same way that you don't need maps. How far is X from Y? Well, when you ask, I'll tell you and that number shall be the same forevermore for the sake of consistency. But, if you never ask? I have no idea.

That's the point of JIT DMing. Only worry about the stuff that is actually relavent to the campaign. It's either relavent because I, the DM, want to throw it at the party in some fashion, or it becomes relevant because the players make it so.

Everything else? Exists in some quantum Heisenberg state while all my NPC's are sitting around the set drinking coffee and chomping donuts.

 

[shadzar]

Clarify?

Whenever I see "simulationist" ascribed to 3e it's done so in the idea that 3e is meant to "simulate" a setting or world. My issue is that the thoughts behind the mechanics tend to ruin this greatly, and that this style of "simulationism" was never the intention.

Like I said, it never even came up when I played 2e.

Depends on what you are trying to simulate. 2nd did a pretty darn good job of equipment simulation as there wasn't a thing left out almost in all the splatbooks.

 

[pawsplay]

Clarify?

Whenever I see "simulationist" ascribed to 3e it's done so in the idea that 3e is meant to "simulate" a setting or world. My issue is that the thoughts behind the mechanics tend to ruin this greatly, and that this style of "simulationism" was never the intention.

Your Bold Assertion Stance is no match for my Multiple Quotations Technique!

p. 129 The appearance of realism, also called verisimilitude, is important because it allows the players to stop feeling like they're playing a game and start feeling more like they're playing roles.
p.135 Once you have decided to make your own world, you face a number of choices. Do you make it like the real world, drawing from history and real-world knowledge, or do you create something completely different? Do you draw from your favorite fictional setting or do you create your own? Do the laws of physics work as we know them, or is the world flat with a dome of stars overhead?
p.136 Considering the ecology issues of the marh helps you explain the creatures' existences. What do the hags eat? What about the harpies? They must compete for resources, do they avoid each other, or do they fight?
p.142 It will cause your players serious strain in their belief in the reality of your world for them to see that they wield spells and magic items, and the lands and dungeons surrounding the city are filled with magic and monsters, but yet in the middle of the city everything looks and acts like Europe during the Middle Ages.
The presence of magic in your game world forces you do deviate from a truly historical setting. When you create anything for your world, the idea that magic could possibly alter it should be in the back of your mind. Would the king simply surround his castle with a wall when levitate and fly spells are common?
p.136 This section on world-building assumes that your campaign is set in a fairly realistic world.

 

[Lanefan]

The only decent survey I saw for D&D was the pre-3e questionaire. I don't know if it was TSR or WOTC that conducted it.

WotC.

They then wrecked the whole process by self-censoring the results, in that they threw out all responses from anyone over an arbitrary age limit - I think it was 35. There's an article from that time by Ryan Dancey still floating around out there that gives the specifics, I don't have a link right now.

I don't know about that. When running a game you sort of need to know where things are so you don't end up placing Neverwinter on top of Waterdeep. A DM needs to know where things are to maintain the continuity, otherwise the players will end up seeing it.

Neverwinter is 30 miles due North of where you are.
ENville is 50 miles due North
Waterdeep is 20 miles due South of ENville.

I have to agree with this, having myself in the past flown by the seat of my pants into just such a situation only on a much smaller scale - I wasn't paying attention while dreaming up a dungeon completely on the fly and ended up having to pull some pretty fancy explanations out of my butt once it became obvious that the room they were standing in was, by the quite accurate players' map, in mid-air 20' outside the castle wall and 30' above the moat. D'oh!

When you get down to it D&D is about medieval knights in ren-era armor worshipping a greek pantheon and a pastiche of modern morality, fighting against evil brain eating space aliens from the future.

Sounds good! Where do I sign up?

Lan-"can I play the evil brain eating space alien?"-efan