Could Wizards ACTUALLY make MOST people happy with a new edition?

[Imaro]

Sure - but those tales are (almost by definition) not Simulationist vehicles. Neither do the worlds they are set in adhere to D&D "physics". At no point is it made clear that Conan reaches 12th level, for example. Trying to model his adventures with the assumption that he does reach 12th level, in fact, is probably impossible.

Wait a minute... these tales are exactly what D&D is trying to simulate. Above you say

"Simulationist" play reaches out to simulate something. That something must be consistent within itself for Sim play to really "work". Some minor flaws are forgivable and, perhaps, inevitable but in general the "world" presented should "make sense" on its own terms. Toon, for example, does this admirably. D&D, on the other hand, gets into choppy water pretty quickly without some willing and rigid adherence, by the players, to a number of meta "rules".

So if it is simulating Sword and Sorcery fiction or High Fantasy fiction... then doesn't it also simulate the same flaws in those stories that don't make sense? How many powerful Wizards are kings in most of these stories? Why don't powerful figures like Elric, Corum, Fafhrd & The Gray Mouser, Gandalf, Legolas, etc. take jobs to go out and commit genocide on weaker monsters? Why don't most of them rule the world? Again you want D&D to "make sense" when it doesn't model a genre that holds up under close scrutiny of "making sense". I will again state that this seems more like a desire for realism vs. simulating majority of fantasy stories out there.

 

[Yesway Jose]

Why don't powerful figures like Elric, Corum, Fafhrd & The Gray Mouser, Gandalf, Legolas, etc. take jobs to go out and commit genocide on weaker monsters? Why don't most of them rule the world?

I don't know much about the first four characters, but considering the motivations that drive Gandalf and Legolas, I would never imagine them signing up for a job of killing monsters for cash or wanting to rule the world. You might transport Gandalf and Legolas into a MMO/WoW-like world and force them to adapt to the grind of kill-cash-improve but then they're no longer the Gandalf and Legolas I recognize.

 

[Imaro]

I don't know much about the first four characters, but considering the motivations that drive Gandalf and Legolas, I would never imagine them signing up for a job of killing monsters for cash or wanting to rule the world. You might transport Gandalf and Legolas into a MMO/WoW-like world and force them to adapt to the grind of kill-cash-improve but then they're no longer the Gandalf and Legolas I recognize.

This is exactly my point... Powerful heroes hired, whether they are Gandalf, Elric or many others, to commit genocide on weaker monsters (regardless of the reasons) is not a trope of the genre... so why is it that Baelsir feels that in simulating these types of stories/chartacters... D&D does a poor job because it does not address this issue in its own worlds?

 

[Yesway Jose]

This is exactly my point... Powerful heroes hired, whether they are Gandalf, Elric or many others, to commit genocide on weaker monsters (regardless of the reasons) is not a trope of the genre... so why is it that Balesir feels that in simulating these types of stories/chartacters... D&D does a poor job because it does not address this issue in its own worlds?

I cannot speak for Balesir, of course, but IMO simulationist D&D would attempt to be more like simulating LoTR (ie. characters that are motivated by love of home, defense of what is good, or other real human motivations) and not about simulating a MMO/WoW-like reality (kill-cash-improve). Surely many D&D games are more about kill-cash-improve but I think there's at least a semblance of deeper character motivation in simulationist games.

 

[Imaro]

I cannot speak for Balesir, of course, but IMO simulationist D&D would attempt to be more like simulating LoTR (ie. characters that are motivated by love of home, defense of what is good, or other real human motivations) and not about simulating a MMO/WoW-like reality (kill-cash-improve). Surely many D&D games are more about kill-cash-improve but I think there's at least a semblance of deeper character motivation in simulationist games.

They can be, but then you have the S&S heroes that D&D also draws inspiration from and many, though not all, of them are motivated by wealth, power and many other "selfish" goals. My point was moreso that you don't read about these heroes being paid to eradicate a race of monsters that pose absolutely no threat to them... and D&D through it's rules (insignificant rewards for this behavior among other things) simulates that this is not a trope of it's genre. IMO, of course.

 

[Yesway Jose]

They can be, but then you have the S&S heroes that D&D also draws inspiration from and many, though not all, of them are motivated by wealth, power and many other "selfish" goals.

Which I still think is simulationist to a point. Eradicating a race of monsters goes beyond simulationist "selfish" goals, I think, because the character is unrealistically exposing him/herself to more harm than really necessary, unless the character is suicidal, and even playing a suicidal character can be simulationist if you approach it from that angle.

My point was moreso that you don't read about these heroes being paid to eradicate a race of monsters that pose absolutely no threat to them... and D&D through it's rules (insignificant rewards for this behavior among other things) simulates that this is not a trope of it's genre. IMO, of course.

I don't know, I suspect I'm misunderstanding something here, but I guess it's like calling a gun a "dangerous weapon". Yes you could use a gun to eradicate a race of monsters that pose no absolutely no threat to you, or you could use the gun for self-defense and protect the innocent. D&D rules are sort of like that gun. You could use it to tell different kinds of stories, including "simulationist" ones. I guess my ideal concept of D&D is one that can tell tactical skirmish stories or immersive simulationist ones depending on what the gaming group desires.

 

[pemerton]

those tales are (almost by definition) not Simulationist vehicles.

these tales are exactly what D&D is trying to simulate.

But, as Balesir said, the tales themselves aren't simulationist vehicles. They're stories.

In fact, you can see the potential problems with simulationist treatments of fantasy when you start reading Tolkien glossographies or encylopedias, or you start reading an index to the Marvel universe, and questions come up like "Is Glorfindel II related to Glorfindel I or not?" or "Is The Thing ever able to beat The Hulk at some feat of strength?" These are the sorts of questions that simulationist play is likely to give rise to - indeed, for some versions of simulationism, the whole purpose is to address these sorts of questions - but which the stories don't answer, because answering them is not the point.

In my view you can tell fiction which is being written more for the purpose of filling in the details of the glossographies and indices, rather than for any actual literary purpose. It is poorly written, lacking in plot, and appealing only to dedicated, canon-obsessed fans. Science fiction television drama and fantasy novels are both prone to this sort of weakness, in my personal opinion.

(Again, I'm Balesir will correct me if I've misunderstood the point at issue.)

 

[pemerton]

The your turn around and post your umnpteenth long post referencing multiple game design blogs (and fairly obscure ones if I do say so) and talking about things in forge terms and generally being intensely academic on the whole matter.

I'm an academic.

But you don't need to be able to theorise it to do it. (And vice versa. I can talk at some length about aesthetics. I can't write very good stories.)

I just think a lot of people are going after a completely different experience anyway. I know I am.

Like I said earlier, I've got no reason to doubt that that is so.

 

[Darwinism]

Wow, it was actually more tolerable when entitled nerds were pronouncing 3.X the best ever and that Gygax loved 3.X and would have hated 4E and that only WotC is in it for the money than now when a bunch of pretentious pseudo-intellectuals want to use fancy terms to pigeonhole their pretend games into different terms that are actually descriptions of playstyle and not mechanics for the most part.

 

[Imaro]

But, as Balesir said, the tales themselves aren't simulationist vehicles. They're stories.

In fact, you can see the potential problems with simulationist treatments of fantasy when you start reading Tolkien glossographies or encylopedias, or you start reading an index to the Marvel universe, and questions come up like "Is Glorfindel II related to Glorfindel I or not?" or "Is The Thing ever able to beat The Hulk at some feat of strength?" These are the sorts of questions that simulationist play is likely to give rise to - indeed, for some versions of simulationism, the whole purpose is to address these sorts of questions - but which the stories don't answer, because answering them is not the point.

In my view you can tell fiction which is being written more for the purpose of filling in the details of the glossographies and indices, rather than for any actual literary purpose. It is poorly written, lacking in plot, and appealing only to dedicated, canon-obsessed fans. Science fiction television drama and fantasy novels are both prone to this sort of weakness, in my personal opinion.

(Again, I'm Balesir will correct me if I've misunderstood the point at issue.)

I disagree... by this definition realism does in fact constitute simulationism, but I have already quoted passages that make it clear it is not a requirement for simulationist play. I'm sorry but I believe you can in fact simulate S&S and high fantasy stories... and just stating "They aren't simulationist vehicles" when Toon is cited as a simulationist game just doesn't cut it. Give me some reasoning and logic and I'll consider it but pronouncing it so doesn't make it so.

Seriously, how is this any different than Toon being considered a simulationist game? Are the physiology, mating habits, etc. of cartoon characters explained in the game? Probably not, just as they aren't important to the genre being simulated. You and Balesir are speaking to realism... not simulationism. You two seem to be saying you can't simulate something unless it's realistic, while I'm claiming you very much can.