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

[Fallen Seraph]

They do live in Human lands, but it is stated in R&C they primarily in the Feywild, in communities close to the Feywild, in their own towers, or in cities that shift back in forth from the Feywild and the real-world.

So one can figure that given this wish to be in/near the Feywild. Eladrin be more cautious the farther away they were.

 

[Steely Dan]

I'll need to rethink basic adventure design/plotting

Why on earth would you need to rethink basic adventure design/plotting due to a specific game system? An adventure is an adventure, regardless of whether I am using 1st, 3rd, or 4th Ed rules (or any RPG).

Don't limit your imagination because of an edition of a game.

 

[SoulStorm]

Nor do I want to see players constrained in their creativity by narrowly focused spells/classes/powers. Nor do I want to turn a living, interactive world into a series of staged encounters..

Well Said! And this from a guy who was really excited about 4th edition until I absorbed the information from D&D experience.

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

I think the moment you go grid simulationist play is working in an increasingly hostile environment.

But the essence of the play style seems to be grudging compromise regardless, so I'm certain that accomodations will be made and by the time we hit 5E this happy argument will be occuring all over again.

 

[Li Shenron]

Well, I don't subscribe to the forge notion that you can't mix styles or there aren't middle grounds.

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. 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.)

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.

Couldn't have been said better!

I am not a simulationist.

But there are some important advantages of having realistic elements in the ruleset, for example:

a) Realism helps the beginners, because they can reason in terms of real-life when they don't remember or don't know yet the exact rules. And we're all beginners at some point, when trying a new system. Example: someone may not even imagine that they can move 50% faster if going diagonally.

b) Realism means that you can write an adventure quite freely, and expect the rules to support it (within limites). Too much gamist/abstract rules end up forcing you to go back and adjust the adventure to serve the rules instead of viceversa. Example: a gamist rule that said that spears are melee-only (for whatever balance reasons) and cannot be thrown, forces you to readjust a battle scene.

c) Realism helps design campaign settings better, since you can pretty much expect the character's life to work, well, "realistically". Example: a gamist rule that forbids characters below Y to even try to ride horses (WoW) has a major impact on the whole world.

edit: actually rather than "realism" we should say "believability"

 

[Simon Marks]

Dave Arneson said explicitly the reason he ran Fantasy games and not historical games was because it made designing and running the game easy and more fun because you didn't have to argue over if something was 'realistic'

If it worked for him, it can work for us.

http://uk.pc.gamespy.com/articles/540/540395p3.html

Realism is a genre choice and is as valid as any other. It is not a default. It is not the best starting point.

 

[Derren]

Actually its easier to run a historic or modern game than a fantasy one, because the players, more or less, already know how the world looks and behaves in historic games while in fantasy games you as DM have to explain it.
But some DMs simply skip this part, shove the players into a dungeon and generally don't care about explaining or even creating the world. Whatever the DM wants happens no matter how much sense it makes (most of the time none). Some players are satisfied with that sort of game and some ar not.
But it seems that 4E doesn't really want the players who care and therefore caters to the players who have no interest in believable worlds and just want to dungeon crawl.

 

[hong]

a) Realism helps the beginners, because they can reason in terms of real-life when they don't remember or don't know yet the exact rules. And we're all beginners at some point, when trying a new system. Example: someone may not even imagine that they can move 50% faster if going diagonally.

This rule has been used in plenty of games in the past, some of them classics going back 15 years (Civ). Nobody has ever indicated that coming to grips with movement was a problem in learning the game.

Have a dragonborn breast.

b) Realism means that you can write an adventure quite freely, and expect the rules to support it (within limites). Too much gamist/abstract rules end up forcing you to go back and adjust the adventure to serve the rules instead of viceversa. Example: a gamist rule that said that spears are melee-only (for whatever balance reasons) and cannot be thrown, forces you to readjust a battle scene.

15-ft long spears (D&D longspears) as used by hoplites and pikemen certainly are melee-only for all intents and purposes.

c) Realism helps design campaign settings better, since you can pretty much expect the character's life to work, well, "realistically". Example: a gamist rule that forbids characters below Y to even try to ride horses (WoW) has a major impact on the whole world.

Your point being...?

 

[hong]

Actually its easier to run a historic or modern game than a fantasy one, because the players, more or less, already know how the world looks and behaves in historic games while in fantasy games you as DM have to explain it.

Fantasy games are easier because the players don't expect everything to work as in real life, therefore you as DM don't have to explain it.

But some DMs simply skip this part, shove the players into a dungeon

The dungeon is where the people with red circles around their feet live, yes.

and generally don't care about explaining or even creating the world.

By a simple matter of subtraction, it is easy to deduce that the world is the place where the people with blue circles around their feet live.

Whatever the DM wants happens no matter how much sense it makes (most of the time none). Some players are satisfied with that sort of game and some ar not.

It's very easy for it to make sense. See above.

But it seems that 4E doesn't really want the players who care and therefore caters to the players who have no interest in believable worlds and just want to dungeon crawl.

Why are you interested in killing things with blue circles around their feet? That doesn't get you any XP.

 

[fnwc]

But it seems that 4E doesn't really want the players who care and therefore caters to the players who have no interest in believable worlds and just want to dungeon crawl.

I'm not even sure how to respond to this.