D&D 5E New Spellcasting Blocks for Monsters --- Why?!

[Minigiant]

The part I don't get is
A large or even majority of the community disagree with 5e having a 6-8 encounter base for the resources for PC.

So why are so many dead-set with applying a system they don't want on PCs onto NPCs?

It's like a person who hates Hawaiian pizza demanding the pizza at the session being ham and pineapple.

*Ham and pineapple is like my 6th favorite.

 

[Ondath]

D&D isn't really a simulationist game at all, and only made an effort at trying for a brief time that ended 15 years ago. It wasn't true before 3E, and isn't true afterwards.

Maybe we understand the term in different ways, but to me, the kind of "Gygaxian naturalism" that ran through the entirety of OD&D-Basic-AD&D line (and which, I argue, can be replicated in the 2014 5E rules) shows that the game had a strong simulationist core. To me, what makes 3E simulationist isn't necessarily PCs and monsters being generated in the same way, it's MM entries keeping the # appearing column and DMG having guidelines on how to populate towns and calculate your world's demographics. It shows that the game cared about reflecting the logic of the fictional world.

 

[Parmandur]

The part I don't get is
A large or even majority of the community disagree with 5e having a 6-8 encounter base for the resources for PC.

So why are so many dead-set with applying a system they don't want on PCs onto NPCs?

It's like a person who hates Hawaiian pizza demanding the pizza at the session being ham and pineapple.

*Ham and pineapple is like my 6th favorite.

Oh, what is your source for the initial claim...?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Nothing in the game world exist until it is communicated to the players, so long as inconsistencies happen before that point, versimilitude is maintained because the PCs are not aware of any contradiction. No PC will call you out if you decide, when they ask you to describe the room, that it has a fireplace and a chest of drawers when your map originally had neither of those, because it's their first time there.

Versimilitude is a tool of the DM, nothing more.

You and I game for entirely different reasons.

 

[Parmandur]

Maybe we understand the term in different ways, but to me, the kind of "Gygaxian naturalism" that ran through the entirety of OD&D-Basic-AD&D line (and which, I argue, can be replicated in the 2014 5E rules) shows that the game had a strong simulationist core. To me, what makes 3E simulationist isn't necessarily PCs and monsters being generated in the same way, it's MM entries keeping the # appearing column and DMG having guidelines on how to populate towns and calculate your world's demographics. It shows that the game cared about reflecting the logic of the fictional world.

And those reflections, like the 3E demographics, were pretty suspect, to be honest. Much better left to the DM, since that's how it really us anyways.

 

[Charlaquin]

D&D isn't really a simulationist game at all, and only made an effort at trying for a brief time that ended 15 years ago. It wasn't true before 3E, and isn't true afterwards.

From that one crazy jargon thread that got closed a few days ago, I learned that there apparently two kinds of simulationism: process sim and high concept sim. I think what you say is accurate of process sim, but D&D on the whole is pretty strongly high concept sim, with gamist elements as well.

 

[Parmandur]

From that one crazy jargon thread that got closed a few days ago, I learned that there apparently two kinds of simulationism: process sim and high concept sim. I think what you say is accurate of process sim, but D&D on the whole is pretty strongly high concept sim, with gamist elements as well.

I didn't read that thread, but that makes sense. I think that @Ondath et al are talking processSim, and would say that the point of focused combat oriented blocks is to facilitate the high concept simulation of high octane adventure stories.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

From that one crazy jargon thread that got closed a few days ago, I learned that there apparently two kinds of simulationism: process sim and high concept sim. I think what you say is accurate of process sim, but D&D on the whole is pretty strongly high concept sim, with gamist elements as well.

I'm not sure that's really the distinction here, it is still about "process sim," albeit low granularity version. D&D has never been particularly detailed or accurate "simulation" but in certain editions at least the rules still can be seen to be "simulating" an underlying reality. Its about whether the rules are representative (even abstractly) of the objective fictional reality or whether they're just for mechanically resolving the situation in the game/story.
I definitely want them to be the former, (as do many who have issues with the new format) even though I'm willing to accept some concessions for the ease of use.

I think this is same underlying difference in perspective that can be seen in arguments about the PC species rules, as well as the dreaded "disassociated mechanics" debates of 4e.

 

[Ondath]

And those reflections, like the 3E demographics, were pretty suspect, to be honest. Much better left to the DM, since that's how it really us anyways.

I agree that 3E's attempt was messy!

 

[Reynard]

D&D isn't really a simulationist game at all, and only made an effort at trying for a brief time that ended 15 years ago. It wasn't true before 3E, and isn't true afterwards.

That's domonstrably false.

Exhibit A: Weapon versus Armor type modifiers.
Exhibit B: Articulated material components for spells.
Exhibit C: Ability score limits based on gender.
Etc

Now, you may not like some of the sim elements in pre-3E D&D, but they absolutely existed.