D&D 3E/3.5 4E Simulationism: Did 3.5E Really Do That Good of a Job?

[Arnwyn]

Did 3.5E really do that good of a job at this?

It did it just about right for me and my group.

And that's what really matters.

Oh, and this, too:

I also don't subscribe to the all too common net notion that if there is anything a game doesn't simulate, it fails as a simulationist game.

Finally, don't fall into the trap of thinking that simulationism = simulation of reality.

But let's put it this way: the simulationist aspects that 3.5 addresses that 4e omits are telling in my lack of acceptance of the game. I have a certain minimum standard for simulation that 4e falls afoul. When things like the diagonal rule are waved off as acceptable sacrifices I have to say: yeah, 3.5 really does pay more attention to issues I find meaningful when it comes to simulationism.

I think everyone draws their line in the sand in a different place. Hardly surprising.

 

[hong]

Hey, if you knew the guy in the funny hat could teleport out of jail, what would you do if you were a cop?

The question is of course moot, by dint of Hong's 2nd Law.

(Of course, the Greyhawk ACLU will be all over the town guard for their lead-lined windowless cells...)

See, this is what ignoring Hong's 2nd Law brings you to.

 

[Doug McCrae]

I agree. Not real fun in a game, but I don't consider DnD a game in the normal sense of the word. I consider it an exercise in joint storytelling.

That's part of it.

"The D&D game is... part acting, part storytelling, part social interaction, part war game and part dice rolling."
"The DUNGEONS & DRAGONS game is a game of imagination, but it is also a game of strategy and tactics."
- 3.5 PHB, page 4

WotC market research shows that an exciting story is just one of many factors players look for in a successful game. Others include challenge and strategic thinking.

the goal is... for every player to have an equal part in defeating the antagonist. That is the job of the DM.

Used to be. Now it's the job of the system. Means I have more time to come up with cool plots and challenges and NPCs.

 

[Moochava]

I'm not quite sure how "I wish I could keep my characters in jail for a long time" is an indictment of 4E. I mean, I know we all have high-level DMPCs custom-built to save them, and that they all have magical talking animal companions and twin magical katana called "Midnight" and "Radiance" and they're so totally cool, I mean, the players will think you're awesome for putting that guy in the game, but I'd rather just stick a bag over the eladrin's head if I absolutely have to stall the adventure until I can deprotagonize the characters.

 

[hong]

... you know, I've never played a character with twin magical katanae called "Midnight" and "Radiance".

This will have to be rectified post-haste!

 

[Doug McCrae]

I have a simple solution for you wizard fans:

Don't allow martial characters to attain high level. Limit them to 10th or 20th. Paragon/epic tier is for wizards only. Or charge martial PCs double xp. That way the guys in the pointy hats can stay uber.

You were already houseruling a bit anyway if you consider all wizards in fiction to be rousetastic as in D&D only the high level ones are.

 

[Moochava]

I have a simple solution for you wizard fans:

Don't allow martial characters to attain high level. Limit them to 10th or 20th. Paragon/epic tier is for wizards only. Or charge martial PCs double xp. That way the guys in the pointy hats can stay uber.

You were already houseruling a bit anyway if you consider all wizards in fiction to be rousetastic as in D&D only the high level ones are.

But if the rules are that transparent everyone will know how unfair they are!

 

[Lizard]

I'm not quite sure how "I wish I could keep my characters in jail for a long time" is an indictment of 4E. I mean, I know we all have high-level DMPCs custom-built to save them, and that they all have magical talking animal companions and twin magical katana called "Midnight" and "Radiance" and they're so totally cool, I mean, the players will think you're awesome for putting that guy in the game, but I'd rather just stick a bag over the eladrin's head if I absolutely have to stall the adventure until I can deprotagonize the characters.

I don't think I've ever had a DMPC. I have enough trouble running the monsters, I can't be bothered running some cool dude who only exists to show up the players.

Thinking about how Eladrin affect laws isn't about "deprotganizing" the PCs; it's about making a world which is fun and interesting for them, which clearly ISN'T just some vauge middle ages Europe. It's a world where magic is real and relatively common, and where everything from the law to the architecture reflects it. When I have the town guards pull out rune-inscribed manacles, or when the city walls are lined with *upward* firing ballistas, it tells the players "This is not Earth".

The more the players can believe in the world, the more fun they have playing the game. And isn't the DMs job to make the game fun for the players?

 

[ferratus]

Yeah, but I think the main problem of Eladrin's being able to teleport out of jail cells is that it breaks realism to have jail cells not contain a captured martial character. Having to put enchantments to contain them that wouldn't contain an everyman is thus a problem that should only be for wizards, clerics, sorcerers, bards and druids. Oh, and everyone else that is able to have a contingency spell or secret a magical item to escape on their person.

Me, I'd just have the town guards treat the Eladrin as if they have "eerie powers" just like the spellcasters that exist in every single D&D party, and act accordingly. If it doesn't mean that wizards or bards are shot on sight then neither should Eladrin be. If wizards are shot on sight, then Eladrin might be people on the "shoot to kill" list.

 

[hong]

I don't think I've ever had a DMPC. I have enough trouble running the monsters, I can't be bothered running some cool dude who only exists to show up the players.

Thinking about how Eladrin affect laws isn't about "deprotganizing" the PCs; it's about making a world which is fun and interesting for them, which clearly ISN'T just some vauge middle ages Europe.

This is easily dealt with by not having the people with blue circles around their feet be annoying.

The more the players can believe in the world, the more fun they have playing the game. And isn't the DMs job to make the game fun for the players?

It is quite easy to believe in the world, if you treat the people with blue circles around their feet as stage hands.