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

[thecasualoblivion]

People complain about 4E crapping on simulationist style games. Did 3.5E really do that good of a job at this? IMHO the game really isn't suited for it, and just kind of paid lip service to it. The simulationist aspects even tended to get in the way of things a lot of the time.

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?

 

[PHGraves]

The question should be: "Is 4E better than 3.5E for simulationists?"

Until 4E comes out, I doubt this question can be answered.

 

[Psion]

People complain about 4E crapping on simulationist style games. Did 3.5E really do that good of a job at this? IMHO the game really isn't suited for it, and just kind of paid lip service to it. The simulationist aspects even tended to get in the way of things a lot of the time.

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?

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.

 

[FourthBear]

I believe that in the development of 4e, the designers clearly had a vision of fantasy adventure to start with that they were interested in simulating with rules. Third Edition in its magic structure, more or less followed closely to the power progression found in the previous editions of D&D. When it comes to the power changes overall in level, I think 3e followed closely with 1e and 2e, with flight, invisibility, teleportation and similar abilities appearing roughly at the same levels where they did before. While changes in class structures, feats and skills and many other important changes in 3e made large differences in gameplay, I don't think they overall affected the implied worldview of a D&D world in the same way that, say, the existence of low level Detect Alignment spells do.

During 4e development, I think it's clear that the designers started with a vision of a world of sword and sorcery genre and then reworked the rules and specific examples to better match that. Or, at least, stretch the level zone where that kind of game is plausible out as far as possible. I suspect that Epic play will indeed involve things such as multiple flying PCs, straightforward resurrection and the frequent use of powers to avoid non-magical challenges, but I suspect the designers wanted to push that off.

 

[hong]

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.

See, the trick is to shift from using seamless map transitions, to separate map scales for overland travel and combat.

Either that, or concentrate on the pressing issue of whether dragonborn females have breasts.

 

[Roman]

People complain about 4E crapping on simulationist style games. Did 3.5E really do that good of a job at this? ]

3.5E may not have been a perfect game for simulationism, but it was good enough for me. Besides, I don't really want to DM fantasy PnP games other than D&D, because I like D&D tropes. Most of the departures from simulationism in 3.5E were at least relatively well-grounded in long D&D tradition and were thus easier to accept on inertia alone. 4E moves away from simulationism and does not seem to make even a token effort to support the playstyle, though the jury is still out on that one to some extent - for example, one of my main simulationist gripes about per encounter powers appears to have been addressed. The new edition is not only less simulationist, but also departs from simulationism in different ways that are less rooted in D&D past and thus more difficult to accept. And of course, 4E is ostensibly also abandoning many of those D&D tropes that make me want to DM D&D despite its simulationist shortcomings in the first place...

I should say I still remain undecided about whether to move to 4E (there are certainly aspects of the new edition that I do like, for example the lack of dead levels for all classes).

 

[Derren]

The question should be: "Is 4E better than 3.5E for simulationists?"

Until 4E comes out, I doubt this question can be answered.

Most of us "grognards" would be perfectly happy with 4E being "only" as good as 3.5 for simulationist gameplay. But with all the previews many get the impression that 4E will support this style of gaming less than 3E which means that we are forced to either change the definition of what we enjoy or look for another system which might be too simulationist or simply not the D&D we grew up with.

 

[Steely Dan]

Most of us "grognards" would be perfectly happy with 4E being "only" as good as 3.5 for simulationist gameplay. But with all the previews many get the impression that 4E will support this style of gaming less than 3E which means that we are forced to either change the definition of what we enjoy or look for another system which might be too simulationist or simply not the D&D we grew up with.

I've said it before; just play with whatever game/system/edition etc floats your boat.

I never thought I would say this, but after DMing 3.5 consistently for over 2 years, I would rather play, well certainly DM, any other edition of the game at this point.

…Fighting Man here I come!

 

[Malleus Arianorum]

People complain about 4E crapping on simulationist style games. Did 3.5E really do that good of a job at this? IMHO the game really isn't suited for it, and just kind of paid lip service to it. The simulationist aspects even tended to get in the way of things a lot of the time.

...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.

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?

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.

 

[hong]

"The Tyranny of Fun" would make a pissy name for a rock band, but is perhaps not too bad for a student politician manifesto.