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

[Li Shenron]

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.

They were just examples.

I have enough breasts, thank you.

 

[hong]

They were just examples.

But they were bad ones.

I have enough breasts, thank you.

... OTOH, you can never have bad breasts.

 

[Simon Marks]

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.

Really?

I don't think this is true, and I'll show you why.

Take two people, on same physical build and abilities and train them both for 10 years using similar training schemes in two different martial arts. Lets say Kick Boxing and JuJitsu. Who wins?

What's the chances of someone accurately hitting someone in a live fire zone at 20 yards using a pistol. What effects this accuracy?

Or, even a simple one, who wins out of someone using a English Shortstaff (which, oddly, is about 8' long) and someone with a Sword?

I can tell you that the more you know about the above topics, the less likely you are to agree on the results.

Dave Arneson, listed above, stated that he used Fantasy precisely because it was easier to run. Easier because it's arbitrary.

Here's what I think, it's easier to run a game when no-one really knows too much about the world it's set in because no-one has contradictory beliefs about what "would really happen".

In historical games, this is difficult because people know varying amounts about things.
In fantasy games, this is easy because everyone knows the same amount. Not much.

 

[Mallus]

It's also a good plot hook for further adventures: maybe the eladrin gets a chance to redeem himself, or he goes on to become a notorious thorn in the side of the corrupt guards, or whatever.

Hong, you're doing this wrong. Smart gamers spend their time and energy looking for ways to make the game not work.

If you're not part of the problem, you're part of the solution.

 

[Lizard]

Hong, you're doing this wrong. Smart gamers spend their time and energy looking for ways to make the game not work.

And smart DMs anticipate this and build their worlds to account for the perversity of players...

It's been commented that many changes in the way 4e abilities work was to keep the DM from having to play the monsters stupid -- because otherwise the wizard is toast first round and there's nothing the players can reasonably do to stop it. Both the powering up of PCs and the changes in monster design were intended to increase balance in combat. By the same token, it's not good to expect players to play their characters as stupid -- if they've got powers useful out of combat, they will use them out of combat, as often as they can. The DM -- and the world -- need to account for this. The PCs won't be the first with such powers in all of demi-human history, and towns, cities, and nations have all learned to account for them and act accordingly. Just as suspect 3e casters are bound, gagged, and roughly woken every four hours, all 4e characters will find there are precautions taken against them, whether it's dark pit cells with no LOS to anything, magical chains of force which can't be broken by martial exploits, or what not. Because you heal fully in 6 hours, traditional battle tactics of wounding enemies to drain a foes resources caring for them are out; all combat is lethal and you don't leave any enemy soldiers alive if you can CDG them. Because 'minions' die from any damage, low-damage traps (cheap to make) surround outlying farms (and alarms sound so you can intercept the non-minion kobolds which survive). Etc. Things like this make the world feel believable -- and if you don't believe in the world, how can you have fun pretending to save it from evil?

 

[hong]

And smart DMs anticipate this and build their worlds to account for the perversity of players...

Or they throw dice at them. This works too.

It's been commented that many changes in the way 4e abilities work was to keep the DM from having to play the monsters stupid -- because otherwise the wizard is toast first round and there's nothing the players can reasonably do to stop it. Both the powering up of PCs and the changes in monster design were intended to increase balance in combat. By the same token, it's not good to expect players to play their characters as stupid

I fully expect my players to play their characters as stupid. If I don't tell them this up-front, it's only because I've shown them the courtesy of doing the same.

-- if they've got powers useful out of combat, they will use them out of combat, as often as they can.

This is where you tell them "play your characters stupid, or I will throw dice at you".

The PCs won't be the first with such powers in all of demi-human history,

Why not?

 

[Lizard]

Why not?

Because that leads to a boring and unbelievable world. And a boring and unbelievable world is no fun to save.

 

[hong]

Because that leads to a boring and unbelievable world.

That's where the 2nd level monsters come in, as said previously.

And a boring and unbelievable world is no fun to save.

You'll notice that you're the one not having fun.

 

[Lizard]

That's where the 2nd level monsters come in, as said previously.

Said 2nd level monsters having already run roughshod over a world with no hereos in it. Ever.

You'll notice that you're the one not having fun.

If the DM ain't havin' fun, ain't NOBODY havin' fun.

 

[hong]

Said 2nd level monsters having already run roughshod over a world with no hereos in it. Ever.

That makes for all the more people with red circles around their feet, one of the principles of a "points of light" setting, yes?

If the DM ain't havin' fun, ain't NOBODY havin' fun.

The DM can solve this by the simple tactic of not thinking too hard about fantasy.