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

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

...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.

You mean you don't like fun?

Off course you don't. You find fun in simulationismn (at least in amounts that are not going too far).
Question is: Can the fun derived from the "game fun" of D&D 4 be so high that the loss in "simulationismn fun" is worth it?
Answer is: How the hell am I supposed to know? ;-) Everyone has to judge for himself. Possibly only by actually using the system.

---

The moment a game system
- Uses ablative hit points
- or lacks a skill system
It turns into something less well suited for the simulation of a game world. Abstract hit points don't tell you what they simulate in any kind of details important for simulating the world (Am I bleeding already? Did I dodge this blow?). Without a skill system, how do you model people being good/bad or becoming better at a task?

 

[BryonD]

...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.

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.

I know what you mean, but I'm on the 4e side. I want fun.
I've seen other people playing 3E and they appear to be having fun, but I know they can't be. That hard math you talked about rings so true to me. I think I'm pretty smart, but 3E just requires to much thinking for me. I kinda suspect that those other guys are just pretending to have fun.

 

[Walking Dad]

...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.

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.

just don't use squares. use:

BTW Reach in 3.5 didn't use 1-2-1. Is inconsitensy more simulationist?

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

I know that I found the simulationist aspects of 3e to get in the way all the time. I couldn't craft a story because there was always some rule that said it couldn't be done that way. It always ended up making one player way too powerful but it HAD to be that way, it was the only way it made "sense".

Had to make sure everyone packed enough food for their journey and made them roll their saving throws against the effects of the heat of the desert every hour for the 3 week journey. If they took damage, I needed to carefully track the damage they took and the spells expended to heal it. And at which hour of the day it happened in to make sure the spells were cast at the right time in case they came across a random encounter later in the day.

And really, I wanted the focus of my adventure to be exploring the tomb of the ancient Lich who lived in the center of the desert and dealing with his traps and minions.

4th Edition has taught me to focus my game on what I want to focus it on and not to worry about the small details of simulation.

 

[I'm A Banana]

As usual, Psion says it best:

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.

I'll add to it that I want to suspend disbelief, but 4e's explanations leave me hollow.

You make something too simple and too abstract or too unrelated to some sort of reality, and you do have one of the problems of videogames, without any of the sweet graphics.

 

[Lizard]

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?

It did a *better* job than 4e seems likely to do.

This is not the same as saying it did a *good* job.

Also, because so many people played 3x, there was a lot more time spent coming up with fanwank simulationist explanations for game-balance rules, allowing it to seem more simulationist than it actually was.

 

[mmu1]

I really think it bears repeating because of how often it's misrepresented: No one on the 3E side really claims that 3.5 was the ultimate in simulationist gaming, or that they necessarily enjoy playing a purely simulationist system best.

I just want a little simulationism in my high fantasy gaming - enough that if I see something happen, I can make sense of it within the "physics" of the world. (unless it's something extremely alien or unusual) I want the characters and their abilities to make at least some sense outside of a combat encounter. And I don't want gamist class balance if it's to be achieved by making all classes more similar and neutering magic so that it feels no more powerful than any other tool. (even though I only rarely play casters)

 

[JahellTheBard]

I know what you mean, but I'm on the 4e side. I want fun.
I've seen other people playing 3E and they appear to be having fun, but I know they can't be. That hard math you talked about rings so true to me. I think I'm pretty smart, but 3E just requires to much thinking for me. I kinda suspect that those other guys are just pretending to have fun.

Just pretending to have fun???
Hope you are joking .... why someone should 'pretend to have fun?

I do not say that someone can say '3E just requires to much thinking for me' , so will be happy for something that is not requiring this terrible effort ... but some other people can have fun thinking at what they do, not just throwing dices ... is a matter of taste ... anyone will chose the flavour he preferes .. surelly i'm not for a D&D edition where thinking is out ...

 

[mmu1]

Just pretending to have fun???
Hope you are joking .... why someone should 'pretend to have fun?

I do not say that someone can say '3E just requires to much thinking for me' , so will be happy for something that is not requiring this terrible effort ... but some other people can have fun thinking at what they do, not just throwing dices ... is a matter of taste ... anyone will chose the flavour he preferes .. surelly i'm not for a D&D edition where thinking is out ...

...yeah, I'm pretty sure he's being satirical.

 

[BryonD]

I really think it bears repeating because of how often it's misrepresented: No one on the 3E side really claims that 3.5 was the ultimate in simulationist gaming, or that they necessarily enjoy playing a purely simulationist system best.

I just want a little simulationism in my high fantasy gaming - enough that if I see something happen, I can make sense of it within the "physics" of the world. (unless it's something extremely alien or unusual) I want the characters and their abilities to make at least some sense outside of a combat encounter. And I don't want gamist class balance if it's to be achieved by making all classes more similar and neutering magic so that it feels no more powerful than any other tool. (even though I only rarely play casters)

Thanks. It is good to have this repeated.

It isn't a matter of perfection. It is a matter of picking the game that is simply closer to the goal.