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

[Drammattex]

3rd Ed definitely had a bit of the player pleasing/DMs go screw themselves vibe, which makes me wonder, who are looking forward to 4th Ed the most, players or DMs?

That's a good question, and I can certainly see both sides.
As a player, the idea of limitless customization is exceptionally appealing. Even now, when I know it doesn't work as well as we'd like it to. But as a player, I could probably be happy with 3e for a long time.

As a DM, 3e is a massive pain in the @$$ if you attempt to do it "by the book." And if you DON'T do it by the book, you have a table full of players holding up their PHBs, saying "Excuse me, Mr. DM, but in this case, a +x modifier applies, not a +y, as you have stated." While that's going to happen somewhat in every edition, it was the worst in 3e because 3e was the most rigidly defined. Rules for everything.

My favorite example is the one where the PCs were up against the local town bullies (yeah, I'm a low-magic, so-called "gritty" DM). The bard wanted to Sound Burst the thugs she could see approaching beyond the window. I went into detail, describing how she uttered a piercing shriek which shattered the window and layed low the thugs on the outside in a shower of screeching shards of glass.

That was when one of the other players stood up and noted that she couldn't do that because the window was a solid object, and although she had line of sight, she did not have line of effect. So we debated this, and I went through the book until I found the hardness and item saving throw for glass. We checked the sound burst damage against the hardness of the window and in the end... fifteen minutes later... she was able to hit the LEVEL 7 COMMONERS with her Sound Burst. All that for level 7 commoners who really didn't make a damn bit of difference in the first place.

Anyway, take that example and apply it to dozens of other situations. I find most DMs (including myself) don't bother with the excess of crunch. We play things fast and loose and use the rules we need at the time. We don't waste time doing the math to advance minor monsters the PCs are going to kill in five rounds.

The mechanics have (at very least) a strong hand on how the game is played. With a rules-heavy game like 3e, you're going to see the gears moving. With 1e and 2e, the structure seemed very loose... it sometimes seemed there weren't enough rules, so we just made stuff up. Sure, this led to disagreements ("I was at the other side of the room!"), but the story seemed a lot more flexible.

I get the impression that 4e is putting storytelling power back into the DM's hands. The rules don't work to provide mechanics for simulation. If people want simulation, they should play A Game of Thrones. It's "realistic." On the other hand, you'll probably die if you try something cool.

As for me, I'm going into 4e excited about the streamlined way the system works. I'm going to provide all the grit and gore and guts on my own. I'll probably adapt a "wounds" system, and the majority of PCs will be human martial classes. But if those are the only adjustments I have to make to the game, I'll be in 7th heaven. If the base system underlying those classes can help the game flow without all the piddling little snags from 3e, I'll be very happy. Yes, I think 4e is a system for DMs (and therefore, for players who will be the beneficieries of the DM's rediscovered freedom).

 

[Keenath]

As a DM, I am not looking forward to 4e, because I think it deprives me of tools I use and places the focus on me constantly arbitrating/making up rules/handwaving/dealing with arguments instead of just running the game...

That's funny because every review I've read from finally-ungagged playtesters has said kind of the same thing: "The players' end changes a little, but MAN things are easier on the DM!"

A strong example would be Massaworm's review from over at AintItCool news.
http://www.aintitcool.com/node/35776
http://www.aintitcool.com/node/35799
http://www.aintitcool.com/node/35811
I believe part 2 is where he discusses the DM's side of things.

If you don't like deciding how to apply mechanics, then you probably won't like being a DM in ANY edition of D&D. The system requires you to come up with answers. 4e is more about giving you easier answers than trying to come up with a specific rule for each situation.

"I want to yank the rug out from under those two goblins!" "Um... okay, Strength check vesus their reflex defense. Hit, they drop prone, miss and they stay upright."

Is it really so complicated? I'd say it's far simpler to have a small toolbox with widely-applicable tools (like three defenses and various attack types) than to deal with a massive toolchest full of widgets that only operate in the exact situation they were designed for.

A judge who is not himself bound by the law is a tyrant.

And DMs are bound by the rules in most cases. Monsters have HPs and attack bonuses and such like the players do; everything is resolved by d20 rolls... That doesn't mean the "law" covers everything, nor should it. Tyrant? Okay, I guess so -- but the DM has always been a tyrant. 2nd edition forwarded the "DM as God" concept where arguing with the DM was expected to cause "rocks fall, you die". We're moving AWAY from that here.

In fact, 4e is about freeing up the DM to make quick, sensical rulings without loading him down, and without making the players feel cheated if he uses THIS interpretation when THAT one would be more advantageous.

 

[Cadfan]

1) We're all used to the things in 3e that break simulationism. For example, the weird interactions between hit points and healing and environmental damage and shooting someone pointblank in the chest with a crossbow. We're not used to things in 4e that break simulationism.

2) We're all used to ignoring (or in some cases embracing) the simulationism breaks generated by 3e magic (scry, teleport, kill?).

3) We're all used to the things that 3e handwaves. Spell components? Nobody counts those, the rules tell you not to. But arrows, the rules tell you to count these in excruciating detail. Food? Chances are your game didn't count food costs each day, though you could have, and you might have if the DM wanted to do a plotline about hunger. But chances are you stopped once that plotline ended, or you went back to handwaving details ("I buy dinner and food for the road. How much is it?" "Lets call it 10 gp.")

4) Using a grid, by its nature, reduces simulationism in certain ways. Suddenly, circular effects are pixelated, for example. But we're used to the way in which 3e effects pixelate. So now we argue about things like "square fireballs are unrealistic!" when previously we had funny pixelated fireballs. We're essentially arguing about how much pixelation is ok, but we forget that the 3e version even has pixelation because we're accustomed to it. (If you want to eliminate this, play without a grid. Use a ruler and miniatures and have perfectly round fireballs. There's nothing wrong with that. Wargamers do it all the time. [Ick! Other types of geeks! I hates them and their influences! They are inferior to me in all ways!])

5) 3e approached certain problems in this manner: The game needs spells that last for one encounter. We expect that an encounter lasts X rounds. So we need spells that last about X rounds. Voila!

6) 4e skips that reasoning in favor of: We need spells that last for one encounter. We'll just make them last one encounter. For people who want to use them out of an encounter, we'll declare that they last 5 minutes. And then we'll say that an encounter is over once the party rests for five minutes. Voila! This is slightly different from (5), but not by much.

Overall, there are certainly some ways that 4e seems to reduce simulationism.

1) Diagonal movement is more realistic in 3e. Personally, I don't think the difference is significant, because what really matters to me is how far off long term calculations become, and most distances aren't far enough for the disparity to propagate too noticeably.

2) Duration of effects is more realistic in 3e because effects have a precise time for which they last. In 4e, there are guidelines instead of sharp rules. However, these guidelines get you to the same place the vast majority of the time, so I don't see this as a significant loss.

3) Healing in 3e happens differently because hit points are now much more abstract. For some players who like to envision lost hit points as physical wounds, this is a loss of simulation. From my perspective, hit points were already so abstract that this does not bother me. I can even stomach healing completely overnight. Sure, its not realistic that a character can be bleeding out and nearly dead, and then ok the next morning without magical intervention. But its also not realistic that a character can be bleeding out and nearly dead, and then doing acrobatics and flips and things the next morning at 2 hit points from his overnight healing. D&D has never modeled meaningful wounds without the use of houserules. Personally, I might look into getting some houserules to cover that sort of situation- maybe, if you drop below 0 hp, you've been maimed in some way, and even if you get back up, you have a penalty until its magically fixed. But I don't consider this a huge difference between editions, and in any case it will rarely come up due to the availability of healing magic.

So overall, yes, I see a decrease in simulationism. Just not a very big decrease, and not one that I think matters much. For me, what matters to a campaign isn't simulationism per se, its realism, and a vague sense that things are functioning as advertised.

Realism tends to stem from the DM's efforts, and from the lack of magical "exploits" that break the setting (Flying, Invisible, Buffed, Enlarged parties of PCs led by a War Weaver break a realistic war campaign. I can testify to this.). The DM thing is the same no matter the edition, and magical exploits seem to have been reigned in.

As for the "working as advertised" issue, its harder to define- but basically, it means that acrobatic rogues should be able to balance on tightropes while armor clad fighters fall, that the greatest warrior in the land should be frightening to the greatest wizard in the land and vice versa, that 20th level characters shouldn't drown because up until now the DM didn't force them to deal with water, so they never put points in a basic skill like Swim, and so on. 4e seems to be fixing a good bit of this.

So overall I'm optimistic. I expect that I'll be telling equally simulationist stories in 4e as those I loved in 3e. After all, the simulationism is mostly going to come from my efforts to create a game world that's believable and in which logical acts have logical consequences. There may be some handwaving about distances, but heck, I ran without a battlegrid for years- I sketched on a sheet of paper. With a pen. (I'm hardcore, baby! Booyah!) So I'm sure I'll be able to handle things just fine.

 

[Keenath]

And if you DON'T do it by the book, you have a table full of players holding up their PHBs, saying "Excuse me, Mr. DM, but in this case, a +x modifier applies, not a +y, as you have stated."

I can't help it. I heard this line in the voice of Comic Book Guy from the Simpsons. "Worst. DM. EVER."

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

...and that is why 3E is more simulationist: 4E kicks simulationism curb in favor of fun. Math is hard so wacha gonna do? 3E chose 1,2,1,2 diagnals, 4E chose fun. It's not a gamebreaker but there are lots of instances where the simulation or fun choice has to be made and from what I've heard, 4E chooses fun every time. Which is cool for all the fun lovers, not so cool for people who miss the simulationism.

It's not a great but at least it tries. I'm happy to play games without super simulationism but Im aprehensive about how 4E is shunting it for fun in every case. I've played in such games before and I don't personaly enjoy the tyrany of fun.

Man, fun sucks. It's not a real roleplaying game unless it makes you want to kill yourself. Also, grammar sucks too!

 

[Doug McCrae]

D&D's core rules have always emphasised playability over simulation - class, level, alignment, hit points, armor class. From the 70s onwards there have been efforts to develop more simulationist rules such as the Arduin Grimoire crit tables and Chivalry & Sorcery (the first strongly simulationist system I think). RuneQuest is fairly simulationist, certainly a lot more than D&D, though I always loved it for its coherence rather than its realism.

3e retained the playable, simple rules at the heart of D&D. It made the subsystems of AD&D much more coherent, probably its major innovation. It is also a lot more complete than previous editions. Almost everything related to adventuring is covered.

That completeness serves to make it less realistic. The more rules a game system has, there more potential there is for Murphy’s (ie non-simulationist) rules. In the areas that aren’t covered, a group will return to the ‘DM or expert player decides’ system. This can never break suspension of disbelief because the basis for decision making will be what the group finds plausible. Less rules = more realism. And 3e has a lot of rules.

 

[Lizard]

That's funny because every review I've read from finally-ungagged playtesters has said kind of the same thing: "The players' end changes a little, but MAN things are easier on the DM!"

Until he confronts real players doing real player things, not following scripted encounters. Real players stress the rules to the breaking point, and beyond. They will not follow the "spirit" of the rules or the "narrative" intent. If there's a power which can be used every 5 minutes, they will use it every five minutes, not "once per encounter". If they can move a friend beyond their normal movement rate by using an "attack" intended for an enemy, they will do so. Saying it's the DM's job to balance broken rules by issuing mandates about "story" and "just do it right" is saying the designers have failed to do their job. I am not willing to say this is the case until I see the rules. Again, if you want that kind of DM absolutism, play Amber.

If you don't like deciding how to apply mechanics, then you probably won't like being a DM in ANY edition of D&D. The system requires you to come up with answers. 4e is more about giving you easier answers than trying to come up with a specific rule for each situation.

"I want to yank the rug out from under those two goblins!" "Um... okay, Strength check vesus their reflex defense. Hit, they drop prone, miss and they stay upright."

I had no trouble doing this in 3x. But 3x also gave me rules for how strong the table was, how much characters could lift, and so on. What happens when it's not goblins, but ogres? Wouldn't being able to apply a modifier based on size category -- such as existed in 3e grapple rules -- be more appropriate? So I'd rule "Strength check using the grapple size mods to pull the rug, then they make a balance check to stay upright. You also provoke an AOO from anyone threatening you, since you can't defend yourself while pulling a rug.". Just as easy, but with more resources to cover more interactions of conditions -- such as them having balance skill, or being quadrupeds. (Indeed, even in your simple example, shouldn't a Goblin Rogue -- trained in Acrobatics -- be better off than a Goblin Thug, who is not?)

Allowing any action to be a simple roll with no mods tends to make some actions FAR too effective in combat. Given the level-based modifiers to all checks, using the simple rules you described, it would be very easy to trip a pit fiend, when it shouldn't be. So the DM either just says, "No, you can't do that!", or on-the-fly creates modifiers and conditionals for each particular circumstance, which are likely to be inconsistently applied in future games.

I never had trouble just checking off kobolds when they had 4HP. But giving them "They explode when you prick 'em" as a "feature" means that for any situation where they NEED hit points (perhaps a kobold cleric uses a spell to give them temporary hit points? Or an attack drains hit points, vampirically?) much harder. It's a false simplification. It assumes that if you don't care 95% of the time, you won't care 100% of the time. This seems to be a common theme in the 4e design process -- ignore edge cases. Make the game work more smoothly for *most* cases -- and fail completely for the minority.

But as Terry Pratchett noted, "One in a million chances happen nine times out of ten."

(Many have commented that the 3e grappling rules fail for multi-limbed attackers and other such situations, even if they work for "normal" or "as intended" cases. 4e takes that philosophy to the extreme, and balances it by, it seems, telling the DM to 'make something up' or 'just don't let it happen'. We'll know for sure when we see the DMG.)

In fact, 4e is about freeing up the DM to make quick, sensical rulings without loading him down, and without making the players feel cheated if he uses THIS interpretation when THAT one would be more advantageous.

I disagree. I think it will lead to endless argument and nitpicking because there is too much unspecified, and because arbitrary rules calls tend to vary with the situation and the DMs mood.

 

[Mallus]

Real players stress the rules to the breaking point, and beyond.

Real players also compromise, and understand that they bear as much responsibility for keeping the game running smoothly as the DM (or the the rule set itself).

They will not follow the "spirit" of the rules or the "narrative" intent.

Mine do. They're a swell bunch of guys.

If there's a power which can be used every 5 minutes, they will use it every five minutes, not "once per encounter".

So 'real players' are defined by the fact they make unreasonable demands?

Saying it's the DM's job to balance broken rules by issuing mandates about "story" and "just do it right" is saying the designers have failed to do their job.

On the other hand, every RPG I've seen requires a certain level of DM/player cooperation to keep from collapsing under the weight of its own wahoo. That's an unavoidable consequence of allowing wahoo into a game in the first place. Put another way, all RPG's can be viewed as 'broken' and a big part of their appeal (cf. Rifts).

 

[Doug McCrae]

Until he confronts real players doing real player things, not following scripted encounters. Real players stress the rules to the breaking point, and beyond. They will not follow the "spirit" of the rules or the "narrative" intent.

Then real players will break every rpg ever published. They all have massive loopholes and can all be gamed.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Until he confronts real players doing real player things, not following scripted encounters. Real players stress the rules to the breaking point, and beyond. They will not follow the "spirit" of the rules or the "narrative" intent. If there's a power which can be used every 5 minutes, they will use it every five minutes, not "once per encounter". If they can move a friend beyond their normal movement rate by using an "attack" intended for an enemy, they will do so.

Wow. I didn't realize that I and my group weren't real players doing real player things. I didn't realize that Massawyrm's game was secretly pre-scripted. And I certainly didn't realize that we were playing wrong by not doing everything we could to break the game and his campaign.

Thanks for clearing that up.