3.5 better for world building?

[pawsplay]

At opposite ends of the 'Simulationist' scale, both GURPS and Heroquest would disagree with you.

On the contrary, GURPS is pretty much the epitome of the concept that setting design is game design. That is why GURPS has rules for tech levels, sliding modifier values based on the frequency of various phenomena in the game world, numerous optional genre rules, basic and advanced version of the combat system, a section on game world building, and so forth. You can't even play GURPS without first identifying a setting and then eliminating all the rules options that don't fit.

 

[Philosopher]

I think this is the core of the matter. Some people like to twiddle with the rules when they 'homebrew', some could really care less and concentrate on the political/religious/cultural synergies of their world.

I have never played 4e (nothing against it: I have never played GURPS either) so I can't really tell you my opinions on 3e vs 4e but I think if you fall into the second category where rules are less important you can build worlds no matter what the underlying game engine. After all, children build worlds every day with just their minds and a few improvised props. The only problem arises when the participants disagree on an outcome ('I shot you! Nuh uh!') or a given power ('I have a special bullet proof vest! Nuh uh!').

Great distinction! When I build my own settings (or try to make a published setting my own), I fiddle with the rules to make them fit just right. For example, when I want to emphasize the Law/Chaos conflict and largely ignore Good/Evil, I modify the paladin's abilities to make her Smite Chaos, etc. But now I see why some would say that the rules are irrelevant to the flavour of the world.

Now from everything I have heard, if you like getting into the guts of a system then 4e is for you. And that sort of playstyle appeals to many folks. There are whole fora devoted to discussing minutae like '+2 CHA for the kender, is it broken?' and the like. It also appears to be faster and sleeker for GMs, something that appeals to the time-stressed individual.

3e has (if the many posts I have read can be believed) a much clunkier cruftier game engine. But it does has 10 years of system support and a vast amount of options available for gameplay. The sheer amount of information available is astonishing. WotC's material, the myriad 3pp, and now Pathfinder ensure that there are enough variations in material that whatever you need can be Googled up with little effort. If rules difficulty doesn't bother you and you are looking for more 'plug and play' options in gameplay than it seems 3e/PF would be a good choice.

What's fascinating is that my experience is just the opposite of this. Having DMed both 3e/PF and 4e, I find that 4e is more "plug and play" while 3e/PF allows me to get into the guts of the system more.

I think AllisterH's comments might shed light on this:

Building a class in 4e is definitely the most involved of all the editions since I think 4e tried to make each power unique for a class....whereas the equivalent in earlied editions was simply a wizard or cleric with 4-5 different level benefits and different spell access...The most tricky would be the Bo9S r things like the Shadowmage and Truenamer.

Building a race in 4e I really don't see as being THAT noticeable a difference between any other editions frankly.

For example, the core 1e/2e races seem to be just as involved and even more arbitary in design frankly...take a look at say the Halfling entry and contrast it with the gnome entry. Doing the same for 3e and 4e and I'd argue that creating a race in 1e/2e was definitely more involved.

Monster and encounter design? Hands down I give this to 4e personally. Monsters are built using the 1e/2e ethos of Monsters != PCs which gives incredibly more leeway than the 3e method IMO. Throw in the ease with which to create new monsters that actually are balanced (the monster creation rules in 1e/2e were weird...worked relatively well for "brute" type monsters but anything else?) and 4e I think would serve the worldbuilder better.

Very true. When I create a setting, the primary thing I focus on is modifying/creating classes. Personally (this may not be true for others), I find that the class options are what set the primary tone. I have difficulty fiddling with 4e classes, but have no problem doing so with 3e/PF. While I have often tweaked monsters and NPCs without using the same rules for PCs (really, there's no reason not to, and I'm surprised when I hear of people who have never done this), I'll still grant that 4e has some advantages in this. But since I focus more on class design when I build a world, I prefer 3e/PF for the job.

 

[Bluenose]

On the contrary, GURPS is pretty much the epitome of the concept that setting design is game design. That is why GURPS has rules for tech levels, sliding modifier values based on the frequency of various phenomena in the game world, numerous optional genre rules, basic and advanced version of the combat system, a section on game world building, and so forth. You can't even play GURPS without first identifying a setting and then eliminating all the rules options that don't fit.

That approach though takes the core elements of GURPS, the basic rules, and adds extra setting material. A comparable procedure would take the basic D20 system and add the setting/genre on top of that. In which case 3e and 4e are basically two alternate high fantasy games, and there are various other genres covered by the same core system. And note, I think there are (or were; I don't follow GURPS much these days) genre books for GURPS specifically intended for games in multiple settings. The setting in this case would be the multiverse.

 

[Herschel]

They both suck 'cause neither one gives a decent bit of advise on designing coastlines with fjords.

 

[Mallus]

I'm definitely "fiction first" when it comes to world-building. I worry about how to model specific aspects of the fiction using game mechanics later. Usually much later. Occasionally after it's too late (like when I was creating a homebrew for 3e. I wound up handwaving a lot).

I don't require a rigorous mapping between the mechanics and the setting fiction. Close enough is more than adequate. The rules are a tool set for resolving actions wherever the PC's happen to be. They're not, and in the case of D&D, were never intended to be, the "physics of the world".

Frankly, no version of D&D is a flexible enough toolkit to model the kinds of fantasy settings I like to create. For example, my long-running 3.5e setting is far better represented using Mutants and Masterminds.

Really, if you're looking for a close relationship between the fiction and the mechanics, you basically need an effects-based, toolkit system. Or you need to go the opposite route and use a game that models the narrative itself like FATE.

 

[Ycore Rixle]

I think the system matters if you prefer a certain style of play. That is, if you like your play to represent actions in a self-consistent fictional world, if you want your play to simulate reasonable events in a self-consistent world that you've built, then the system matters. It matters because you want those rules to allow actions that are possible and disallow actions that are not possible.

On the other side of the d2, if you like your play to be all game and little story, or if you like your game to have a story but you don't care if that story takes place in a self-consistent world, then the rules don't matter vis-a-vis the world.

ODD-3.x, while only placing a thin veneer of simulation on a gaming system, nonetheless did place that veneer. It was never a great one, in my opinion. Why in Zagyg's name would Greyhawk resemble medieval Earth when there were ultra-powerful magical beings popping up all over the place? And yet these editions did try to simulate a world, to at least some extent, to at least some success. 4e explicitly sacrifices even the most rudimentary simulationism (the world in 4e looks bigger when you turn sideways!) for gaming. My conclusion, then, is that 3.x is indeed better for world-building, provided that you want your world to be self-consistent (including consistent with the rules). 4e is probably better otherwise because of the efficiency gained by dumping all the support for simulation.

 

[Mallus]

That is, if you like your play to represent actions in a self-consistent fictional world, if you want your play to simulate reasonable events in a self-consistent world that you've built, then the system matters.

Only for people who think those self-consistent fictional worlds are produced by the game mechanics.

There are other folks, like me and my group, which honestly enjoy consistent, detailed fictional settings, but don't see them as the product of the formal rule set. Settings are a kind of fiction, and they're brought to life the same way fiction is: through narrative, description ,etc.

My settings are supported not through rules, but through conversations w/the players and a series of shared assumptions (the 1st of which is, "even though the world is fantastical, most things work the same as here").

It matters because you want those rules to allow actions that are possible and disallow actions that are not possible.

In standard D&D, it is impossible to generate a specific injury -ie to poke out an eye. If you use the combat rules to extrapolate a general "physics of the world", then specific injuries are impossible. No one-eyed pirates or grizzled one-armed veterans. I find this, well, silly.

Therefore, I don't treat the rules as physics. Because it leads to a less believable fictional world.

It's not accurate to suggest gamers who don't see the rules-as-physics also don't care about story or about the exploration of detailed, consistent imaginary worlds. Which is to say, there's more than one way to simulate a world (ie, a way that doesn't involve algorithms which consistently yield nutty results).

 

[pawsplay]

That approach though takes the core elements of GURPS, the basic rules, and adds extra setting material. A comparable procedure would take the basic D20 system and add the setting/genre on top of that. In which case 3e and 4e are basically two alternate high fantasy games, and there are various other genres covered by the same core system. And note, I think there are (or were; I don't follow GURPS much these days) genre books for GURPS specifically intended for games in multiple settings. The setting in this case would be the multiverse.

Right, which means you can't play a game without a setting, which is what I said.

 

[LurkMonkey]

What's fascinating is that my experience is just the opposite of this. Having DMed both 3e/PF and 4e, I find that 4e is more "plug and play" while 3e/PF allows me to get into the guts of the system more.

You have a point there. I think my communication is a bit off . I should have possibly compared the two systems to one built on ease of use (4e) and one built with greater options (3e/PF). From what I am hearing from various debaters is 4e makes creating monsters/characters/combats easier; while 3e/PF, although clunkier rules-wise allows for more options in personalization/non-combat/specialization areas.

What it all boils down to again, is what type of game you want to play . Or in many people's case, what kind of game they want to play at any particular moment. Now that the Edition Wars are FINALLY starting to die down a bit, there is a growing segment of players willing to play either, as well as anything else. IMO, this is a good thing.

 

[Umbran]

Setting design is game system design.

I see them as linked, but not entirely equivalent. The game design includes a whole mess of stuff that must either be assumed in the setting, or house-ruled out. If your game design has wizards, your setting has wizards, or at least something with those powers.

However, there's also a lot of setting design that is not bound to mechanics, and so is not part of the game-system proper.

I have done setting design in 3.x, but not in 4e. I would imagine that in 4e, setting design would be a tad simpler, or at lest more open and less restricted, as there's an explicit notion that the PCs use different rules than NPCs and monsters. The designer is tied to the fact that the PC classes are available for PCs, but nobody else in the world actually has to use those mechanics.