Am I the only one who doesn't like the arbitrary "boss monster" tag?

[slobster]

It's also worth noting that despite the fact that he wrote about monsters and magic, Lovecraft himself was very "simulationist", was a huge science nerd and history nerd, and did the best he could to incorporate realistic elements into his stories, despite the existence of unrealistic ones.

Maybe we don't have the same definitions of simulationism. H.P. included nods to realism and science as a way of getting the unrealistic stuff past his readers' "bulls&*t" filter, as anything couched in the language of science is more likely given the benefit of the doubt (especially when the actual science in question is beyond a person's understanding).

But he never let science or realism get in the way of a good yarn!

 

[Obryn]

(Seems like I have some things in common with [MENTION=11821]Obryn[/MENTION] with regards to CoC).

How crazy is that?

I play different games for different experiences, and when I'm working with WFRP2e or CoCd20 I have different expectations of both the game and the genre. It's the same reason I still love, play (and certainly respect!) 1e.

My own position is that any single edition of D&D isn't - and probably can't be - the best game for every sort of campaign. I think the reason it gets divisive is because every single edition is a fundamentally different game, with the possible exception of 2e. It's just that everyone seems in a rush to prove that theirs is the true inheritor of the mantle.

I don't care about that. I care about getting a game that excels at the sort of things I want to run D&D for. We simply disagree about what D&D should do.

-O

 

[Tony Vargas]

Not to get into a GNS derail, but how are people defining "simulationism"? It seems some of us are talking pass each other coz we defined terms differently. Simluationism used to mean genre emulation and just the running of an internally consistent world. Some uses it to mean simulating reality. Others use it more in the sense of running a computer simulation where you plug in the rules and data and the production of whatever results (sensible or otherwise) is its own goal.

Yeah, that's an ongoing issue. There's "GNS Theory" in which 'Simulationism' is play style, descriptive of how players approach games more than of games, themselves. Simulation can also, obviously, mean matching mechanics to some yardstick, be it realism or genre emulation. Simulationist D&D can also be a sort of navel-diving exercise in which the game simulates /itself/ as strictly as possible.

I'm not at all convinced that classic D&D was simulationist in any of those senses.

2e was actively sticking to the classic D&D feel, making minimal sort of 'house keeping' changes to the system, so it could be considered a simulation in the last, self-referent sense.

3e is enthusiastically embraced by self-identified adherents to the GNS simulationist style of play.

4e delivers some pretty nice genre-simulation, leaning towards the action-movie/pulp-fiction end of the heroic fantasy spectrum.

5e is being designed as a sort of toolkit which will let you re-invent each of the prior editions, emulating their 'style,' so I guess it's very much the self-referent simulation of D&D sort or of simulation.


So, yeah, it's easy to point to just about any edition of D&D and argue that it is or isn't a simulation or is or isn't 'simulationist.'

 

[Umbran]

Whoever brought up the 'make these NPCs' challenge should be shot....

No.

This little piece of hyperbole should be taken out and shot. We don't suggest that our fellow EN Worlders and fellow gamers should suffer physical harm, even in jest. This, we consider uncivil.

If you cannot understand why, please e-mail or PM the moderator of your choice, and discuss it. Meanwhile, we expect to see no more suggestions that physical violence should be carried out upon entirely real sentient creatures. Thanks, all!

 

[slobster]

Simulationist D&D can also be a sort of navel-diving exercise in which the game simulates /itself/ as strictly as possible.

. . . and now I've gone cross-eyed.

 

[Doug McCrae]

(1) is the (or a) class/level system necessary or sufficient for every NPC in the world; (2) must NPCs and monsters follow identical rules to PCs; and (3) what are the merits and flaws to each approach?

Merits (for same rules for both):

1) It's easier to learn and understand the rules.
2) Appeals to a nerdy love of neatness/consistency.
3) Allows easy mixing and matching - monstrous PCs or NPCs with class levels.
4) More informative, so the GM knows how much a gryphon can carry, for example.


Flaws:

1) It's more time consuming for the GM to create monsters and NPCs.
2) Monster and NPC stat blocks take up too much space and contain information which is unnecessary. The GM doesn't care how much a gryphon can carry, for example.

 

[Stalker0]

Maybe this is a bunch of players complaining about why they don't get the same privilege.

I had this argument with a person once.

I look to a quote from the Matrix movie: "They live in a system which is based on rules. That means they will never be as strong or as fast as you can be."

In Dnd terms, this quote actually applies to npcs. As the DM, my npcs can have whatever abilities I want them to have. Simply put, if I wanted to kill the pcs at any time, I could.

But part of the Player/DM covenant, is that in return for PCs having to follow the rules they get the power of plot. They are always a part of the story, they get the benefits of coincidence, and at some level generally they are supposed to win.

 

[Obryn]

Not to get into a GNS derail, but how are people defining "simulationism"? It seems some of us are talking pass each other coz we defined terms differently. Simluationism used to mean genre emulation and just the running of an internally consistent world. Some uses it to mean simulating reality. Others use it more in the sense of running a computer simulation where you plug in the rules and data and the production of whatever results (sensible or otherwise) is its own goal.

I think the most-accepted definition if we're not diving into the deep weeds of GNS wackiness has two main characteristics

(1) A view of the rules as representing the "physics" of the game world as opposed to merely a resolution mechanic.

(2) And, likewise, a view that the rules, insofar as possible while still keeping a playable system, should have a relation with real-world physics.

So, encompassed with the above are a host of other considerations - including that NPCs (including monsters) and PCs should follow similar rules, as we're discussing here.

-O

 

[D'karr]

"They live in a system which is based on rules. That means they will never be as strong or as fast as you can be."

Whoa! Excellent! Party on dudes!!!

 

[ForeverSlayer]

In Dnd terms, this quote actually applies to npcs. As the DM, my npcs can have whatever abilities I want them to have. Simply put, if I wanted to kill the pcs at any time, I could.

To be perfectly honest, I don't like free form mechanics. I like to build with in the confines of the rules when it comes to NPCs and monsters. I don't like to "just make it happen" unless it is with regards to fluff. Can I say Gunslingers exist in 4th edition? Sure I can but I don't like that. I want the mechanics for a Gunslinger to be present so I build off of that.