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

[Lonely Tylenol]

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

I keep seeing this, and repeating it for parody effect. You're not doing it right unless you're ruining someone's fun--your own or someone else's.

 

[nutluck]

Is 3.5E really that good of a simulationist game, or were people just trudging along with it because they couldn't find people to play Rolemaster, Gurps or HERO?

No it is not a great simulationsit game but 4e sounds like it is going further away from that. So people that like a little simulationist in their games are unhappy with that.

While i do enjoy occasionally playing DnD, yes a part of why I played DnD as much is because I could not find enough other people willing to play other games. I like DnD just fine but I like varity too and I played DnD more than I would have, if given a choice. Simply because most people wouldn't play anything but DnD or one of the other D20 based games.

Personally i hope 4e does well and brings in more players, but I also hope many of the current fans start playing other games as well. In addition to 4e for different feels, since it looks like there will be no new D20 games using 4e other than those WotC makes I am actually happy about that.

 

[Ktulu]

I have played and ran many games of 3e with many different types of players/groups. I can say that I never really thought the rules made it any easier to handle simulationism than any other system. I enjoyed it as a game (one of my favorites), but I don't think it handled simulation very well.

For example, a fifth level fighter takes a level of wizard, he gains a couple spells, the ability to write scrolls, the ability to summon a familiar, and crap for hitpoints.

Yet, a fifth level wizard levels as a fighter and gains access to all martial weapons & armor, a bonus feat, increase in base attack, probably gains more hitpoints in one roll than he received in 5 levels of wizard, and the same number of skillpoints.

That's highly unrealistic. For it to be simulationist, I would expect the fighter still keeps a decent hitpoint amount and gains some spellpower, while I would hope the wizard learns some swordplay and is somewhat proficient in armor/weaponry (not perfect.

Hopefully 4e's multiclassing will address this a little better.. Who knows, maybe it will.

That's not all that bugs me about 3e's simulation. Alignment & the associated spells were quite irritating. With everything having an alignment (and most things you fight are evil), the wizard just ensures protection from evil as a spell. With basic knowledge from the PH, a player can reasonably assume that X creatures are evil/chaotic/lawful and be right almost every time. Why, then, bother having 4 spells that did the same thing? Instead have a protection spell that boosts your AC. Also, the hokey ability to just detect alignment always got on my nerves. As any alignment thread would tell you, people vary on alignment from topic to topic. If you're trying to simulate something, providing a 6 point alignment option doesn't really help. Again, I think 4e will have the upper hand, here, as you won't have to answer to the DM about whether or not what you're doing is "chaotic Neutral" or not.

The skill system. In 3.x if you don't have ranks, you probably can't do it (since most DC's provide you with a 50% chance or less to be successful). If a 10th level fighter with a 20 strength can't be counted on to make the climb check necessary to get out of the pit because he put all his ranks in ride & jump, I think you're failing at something. I think such a granular system like skillpoints actually hurts simulation. In the real world most people are fairly decent at a lot of things, and usually skilled at a few for their profession/hobby. in 3.x you're likely highly skilled at your specific skills (usually 1 or 2 unless you're a rogue/ranger) and you are almost inept at everything else. Heck, if you didn't have "1" rank in a knowledge skill, you couln't make skill checks for knowledge with DC's higher than 10? Why not? A character with an intelligence of 20 should be able to make DC's up to 25 in anything. Most people house-ruled this and just let it slide, but it doesn't make sense from a simulationist point of view.

Those are my biggest gripes on why 3.x wasn't great for simulation. It wasn't impossible, and we still had some great games full of interesting and unique characters. Whether or not 4e is any better remains to be seen, but It'll probably provide just as much entertainment as 3.x did while I played it. If it doesn't, well, I still have all my 3.x books.

Ktulu

 

[Jon Wake]

I keep seeing this, and repeating it for parody effect. You're not doing it right unless you're ruining someone's fun--your own or someone else's.

On the same note, if something isn't covered in the rules, it can't happen!

God, you'd think those non-game breaking players would LEARN.

Also, Lizard, isn't the point of the extensive playtesting to push the system to the breaking point and patch it before...

Wait. Nevermind.

Let's just be honest here. You won't play it. You're not interested in 4E, no argument could make you interested in 4E. For months you've been touting the pure awesome rules-lawyering power of 3E (even if it didn't make a lick of sense, it sure did have a bunch of rules), even though there are far better systems for that sort of thing. I mean, GURPS and CHAMPIONS was pretty much invented for you. So what's the point, really?

 

[Wormwood]

I keep seeing this, and repeating it for parody effect. You're not doing it right unless you're ruining someone's fun--your own or someone else's.

Note to self: Hug my players the next time I see them.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Note to self: Hug my players the next time I see them.

I've got a thirty year old bottle of scotch I'm digging out to make a toast to EGG with my players this weekend. My players are great. They love to have arguments with each other in character, and usually hilarity ensues.

 

[VannATLC]

It's more important that topic of interest are simulated than playability be sacrificed in the name of simulating crap nobody cares about but net grousers (casts rueful looks at all the people who complain that D&D economics.)

Odd that you should mention economics.

Its actually my biggest complaint about 3.5, and something that 4 has supposedly fixed.

Most of the rest of the cases of simulation I'm happy to handwave.
There are some valid points, regarding edge cases in the rule..

But a DM's *job*, while at the table, is to facilitate the gameplay and advance a story line.
Part of the job should involve being consistent... but your players should respect the authority you wield, if they don't, then there is no point being at that table.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

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.

Yup, better call up all my group and tell them to buzz off since they must be imposters cause they aren't "real players".

 

[Lizard]

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.

Glad to be of service.

Seriously, if the game isn't pounded into the dirt in playtesting, then the playtesting isn't doing it's job. Maybe I'm wrong, and the game is as perfect as any first release can be. But it seems to me, from what I've read here and from reports in the DDE, that a lot of burden for balance is being tossed back on the DMs shoulders, and I don't consider this "making his job easier". I have seen comments -- not from you, but from others -- to the effect of "If the PCs figure they can use their class powers to get filthy rich without ever going near some monster infested ruin, they're not playing properly, and you should just tell them to hop back on the plot train".

And yes -- if you were playtesting, and you *weren't* trying to break the game, then you weren't playtesting. You were *playing*, which is not the same thing. I'm speaking from the perspective of software development, including game development. If the testing department isn't trying everything wrong, putting in invalid file names, clicking the buttons in the wrong order, trying to do 'b' before doing 'a' -- then you have a bad testing department and you'll have a bad product. Software that works perfectly if you do everything exactly right, but only then, is useless. I don't expect 4e to be 'bug free', but I do expect it to be only about as buggy as 3e. I absolutely don't expect the response to bugs to be "Well, the DM shouldn't let that happen". Nor do I think that's what I'm going to get, just to be clear.

Should the game be played "as intended", to make sure it is fun when everyone is doing the "right thing"? Of course, especially since it has to be fun over 30 levels. But it also needs to be kicked in the nuts, metaphorically speaking, and if the only response to exploits or loopholes is "The DM shouldn't allow them", that bespeaks problems in the rules. "Putting the DM back in the equation" shouldn't mean "The DM should second-guess the 'intent' of the designers and judge accordingly." 4e makes some serious strides away from this by making design goals and methodologies much more explicit; it's a lot easier to see what the designers want to occur and how they expect play to be. This is a 'win' for 4e over 3e, where 'guess what the designers wanted' was part of 'system mastery'. This is also problematic when campaign style drifts away from the "proper" course, and I expect the game to be handle "non standard" campaigns within reason without breaking. If the stories I tell don't lead to 4-5 encounters in a day, daily powers shouldn't make every encounter a cakewalk. (I'm not saying they do. I wouldn't know. But if the game 'assumes' multiple daily encounters and breaks if they don't exist, that's a problem.)

I expect my players to be excellent roleplayers with well developed characters, backstories, and plot hooks. I also expect them, from long experience, not to be idiots when it comes to the tactical side of the game, and not to ignore possibilities for victory because they aren't appropriately dramatic. I expect them to play characters who lived in the world and know how it works, that the game rules reflect the 'laws of physics' the characters know and accept, and that they will use these 'laws of physics' in fights or daily life to their best advantage.

Putting it in 3x terms: What would you think of a DM who said, "No, you can't use telepathy, because I want to run a mystery story. I know you used it last week, but then, it was part of the plot to read the guy's mind. This week, I want to you to find the clues. No, I won't tell you why you can't, just don't!" You'd think, I suspect, he was a pretty lame DM. You'd accept him saying "Telepathy doesn't work in my world", and that's a ground rule for the campaign. You'd accept "Sure, the grand vizier is guilty. He's thinking how much fun it was to kill the prince. Too bad telepathic evidence isn't accepted in any court and unauthorized mind reading is a crime in itself. You'll have to prove your case the hard way, guys." But you won't accept fiat handwaving in the name of plot preservation -- at least, I wouldn't.

 

[Lizard]

Let's just be honest here. You won't play it. You're not interested in 4E, no argument could make you interested in 4E. For months you've been touting the pure awesome rules-lawyering power of 3E (even if it didn't make a lick of sense, it sure did have a bunch of rules), even though there are far better systems for that sort of thing. I mean, GURPS and CHAMPIONS was pretty much invented for you. So what's the point, really?

Because people here are scared of Hero and GURPS. I mean, I figured "The rulebook STOPS BULLETS!" would be a selling point, but oddly, it didn't work.

And, you're wrong. I'm a lot less anti-4e than I was; a lot of the things I was worried about clearly aren't the case, at least in terms of specifics. I've gone from "Never!" to "We'll see how long my current campaign lasts..."

So at this point, my debate is not so much over 4e or not 4e, but about how much I'm going to need to change DMing style to run 4e properly. I'll need to change how I create NPCs, I'll need to rethink basic adventure design/plotting (to the extent my plots are anything more than some scrawled notes about what I think might be cool to have happen...), etc. I might also need to be prepared to put on my long-disused 1e DMs cap and just say "No!" a lot more than I'm used to currently.