Search results

IME, it's not a powerful enough tool, because XP is no more really a reward under 3.x (and I don't think 4e will really change it). IMHO, Actions Points is probably a better way of doing it with D&D. Now that's the real problem, if you want a game working for the majority, you need more than...

Try The Burning Wheel :) If you want to make in-character goals really relevant, you need to link them with as many as possible parts of the system, at least advancement. At this point, the players won't take decisions according to the best way to overcome a challenge, but the best way to...

In fact I quite agree with you that Ron Edwards seems to be reading too much in Gygax words. To clarify my thoughts, I think that D&D (any edition) is mainly gamist but sometimes faking to be simulationist. I want 4E to clarify the gamist nature of D&D* and get rid of that bad habbit. I...

Ron Edwards on AD&D 1E From the text above, it's already done : gamist movement rules coming from simulationist wargame movement rules.

The problem of combat under 3.x is specific, too many complex rules, grappling being the most famous example, but "buff, buff and re-buff" is probably the most important one. If 4E run smootly in combat, you'll be able to add narration/acting to it without slowing things too much. I remember...

The biggest sim elements in D&D 3.x are : "Everything that NPCs got, PCs can get too" and a general "everything that happens in the game world must be described with rules".

Killing NPCs with one spell is kewl, PCs dying with one spell is not... that's the problem D&D 4e has to solve.

Feything, maybe it's time to explore others RPGs instead of waiting for 4E ? Tactical combat is part of what D&D is, like it or not. The only good thing 4E could do, is make those combat more enjoyable.

Yeah, but it seems that you also get some "new possibilities" when you get a status, so it's not really a death spiral. Sounds good.

How they can explain that some wizards can cast 9th level spell and others not ? Spell levels are directly linked with character level (+- intelligence factor). I repeat myself, but trying to play in a "simulationist" way with a game using classes and levels is flawed. Try a skill-based game...

Here you face the fundamental problem of the simulationist approach, it works only when all the players and the DM have the same perception of the simulation result. In your example, the warning signs may be clear for the DM, but not for the players. The gamist and narrativist approach have...

I can't understand that such a simulationist hardcore accept the metagame concept of level but not of encounter.

If you don't want the 3rd level PCs to enter the dragon's cavern, don't ask the players : "You've found the entrance ... bla bla.. what you do ?" If you want them to know about that cavern, tell them something about the cavern, it's fine, you don't need to create the illusion that they have the...

Yeah, levels are ennemies of simulation, so D&D is gamist based at it's core. However it was always bloated with simulationist rules. Hopefully, 4E will end it.

Death of simulation in D&D would be the best thing 4E could do. Give me a pure gamist D&D !

Poisons & Disesases easily become show-stopper, if they find a way to make them add a bit of tension to the game without stopping it, they have succeeded.

Anything that remove the current rules (counting each lbs) is a good idea.

IMHO, an actual game play evaluation. In fact, I recently understood how much important is the "monsters =! PCs" when I read the rules of the game The Burning Wheel.

Because the 3E designers/producers didn't have the courage to kill the sacred cows. 4E may be the first D&D that has a clear design mindset. (We will see)

I'd love it that way.