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

[hong]

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.

The trick is not to say No. The trick is to get your players to ask questions to which you will say Yes.

 

[Lizard]

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.

Define "reasonable".

I consider it "Reasonable" that if you can do X every five minutes, you can do it 12 times an hour, 16 hours a day...and if that means, for example, that you can punch down an iron door, bare-handed, in half an hour, you should be able to do so. I'd call it "unreasonable" to accept that such an ability is "intended" for use in combat only, and using it out of combat is "wrong".

Having not seen every per encounter power/talent/spell/exploit/etc, I do not know how many -- if any -- world-breaking abilities are lurking in the rules. Maybe none. Maybe I'm worrying over nothing. I do know, though, that asking players to ignore what their characters can do in the name of plot or story is a very unreasonable demand to make of them.

 

[Lizard]

The trick is not to say No. The trick is to get your players to ask questions to which you will say Yes.

And I prefer to, which is how warforged and vow-of-poverty druids entered my current campaign; I rewrote my world background to fit them in.

But when I read "putting the DM back in the equation", it sounds to me like "The DM has be a hardass or the players will run roughshod all over his world". Things like confusion over Eladrin teleportation in DDE reinforce this perception, and I certainly hope it's an incorrect one.

 

[Celebrim]

That question is really subjective.

Let's put it this way. Prior to coming back to D&D I was using this system.

So far as I know, that's as hard core as it gets in the simulationist spectrum.

D20 played as written could not have as pleasing of game physics as GULLIVER, but it is a whole lot easier to run. With a few tweaks it seemed to me that it did the job if not well, then well enough.

The question isn't did 3.X do a good job, but whether 4e does a better one. And it doesn't. That might be its strong point, and if you want a low-sim game, then 'Happy Birthday', enjoy. WotC just delivered you a present.

But knock off the 'Why don't you come to my party' shtick.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Define "reasonable".

I consider it "Reasonable" that if you can do X every five minutes, you can do it 12 times an hour, 16 hours a day...and if that means, for example, that you can punch down an iron door, bare-handed, in half an hour, you should be able to do so.

One of the characters in my game can do that. He hasn't figured out that he can do it yet.

 

[hong]

And I prefer to, which is how warforged and vow-of-poverty druids entered my current campaign; I rewrote my world background to fit them in.

But when I read "putting the DM back in the equation", it sounds to me like "The DM has be a hardass or the players will run roughshod all over his world". Things like confusion over Eladrin teleportation in DDE reinforce this perception, and I certainly hope it's an incorrect one.

The trick is to define your world in terms of things that the players can run roughshod over.

So yeah, fey can get out of jail for free. That's only a problem if you throw them in jail in the first place and expect them to stay there. Once you get rid of that, you can see it's an awesome tool for the promotion of chewing bubblegum.

 

[Doug McCrae]

What would you think of a DM who said, "No, you can't use telepathy, because I want to run a mystery story.

I'd be very happy with that for two reasons:

1) It's honest. Instead of disguising his intentions within the game world, the DM is being up front with his players, treating them like adults. Excellent.
2) It simulates protagonists in fiction, who often forget they have powers. Happens all the time in superhero comics, for example. Presumably the DM is attempting to emulate fiction.

Admittedly it would have been better if the DM had told us powers would function like this at the start of the campaign, not the session.

 

[Lizard]

The trick is to define your world in terms of things that the players can run roughshod over.

So yeah, fey can get out of jail for free. That's only a problem if you throw them in jail in the first place and expect them to stay there. Once you get rid of that, you can see it's an awesome tool for the promotion of chewing bubblegum.

But the question is, what does this do to the world?

How would a town react to Eladrin? Would the guard shoot to kill in even the most minor of crimes, knowing they can't be held? Would there be lead cells (if lead blocks teleportation in 4e), or oubliettes too deep to teleport out of (assuming LOS is required)?

I want PCs to be heroes -- not gods. To have to interact with the world, not command it -- especially not at first level.

 

[Lizard]

I'd be very happy with that for two reasons:

1) It's honest. Instead of disguising his intentions within the game world, the DM is being up front with his players, treating them like adults. Excellent.
2) It simulates protagonists in fiction, who often forget they have powers. Happens all the time in superhero comics, for example. Presumably the DM is attempting to emulate fiction.

Admittedly it would have been better if the DM had told us powers would function like this at the start of the campaign, not the session.

Then to ask what others have asked me -- why play D&D? It's really not suited for that style of narrativist play. (And have you ever seen a Champions character "forget" he has a useful power? Genre emulation only goes so far...It's what's been termed the 'Voltron Problem'.)

I would have a lot of issues with a game where the GM said, "Your abilities will be subject to my whims, not in an in-game-logic fashion such as anti-magic zones or different realities, but according to what kind of story I'm running that week." It might work for you, and that's cool, but it wouldn't work for me.

(I like running alternate reality games, and my players hatehatehate anything which denies them access to all of their abilities even for a session or two. FWIW, this seems to be the design philosophy in 4e -- removing things which make a character 'useless' or which denies a key power (like fewer restrictions on sneak attack) -- is clearly the design intent.)

 

[Gavinfoxx]

I don't think 3.5e handled realistic melee weapons based combat well at all. If you want my opinion on what a realistic melee combat system would be like, I would do one designed by a guy that actually fights with period weapons...

Which is what this article is about, and it uses a combat system that takes these things into account. Look at the quick start rules. THAT is realistic combat to me... Not 3E or 4E, really. Though I am sure you could come up with something that created a realistic combat system in 4E, using a lot of interruption actions, but I am not exactly sure how it would look...
http://www.theriddleofsteel.net/whatis/jccombat.htm