Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Cadfan" data-source="post: 4086982" data-attributes="member: 40961">1) We're all used to the things in 3e that break simulationism.  For example, the weird interactions between hit points and healing and environmental damage and shooting someone pointblank in the chest with a crossbow.  We're not used to things in 4e that break simulationism.2) We're all used to ignoring (or in some cases embracing) the simulationism breaks generated by 3e magic (scry, teleport, kill?).3) We're all used to the things that 3e handwaves.  Spell components?  Nobody counts those, the rules tell you not to.  But arrows, the rules tell you to count these in excruciating detail.  Food?  Chances are your game didn't count food costs each day, though you could have, and you might have if the DM wanted to do a plotline about hunger.  But chances are you stopped once that plotline ended, or you went back to handwaving details ("I buy dinner and food for the road.  How much is it?"  "Lets call it 10 gp.")4) Using a grid, by its nature, reduces simulationism in certain ways.  Suddenly, circular effects are pixelated, for example.  But we're used to the way in which 3e effects pixelate.  So now we argue about things like "square fireballs are unrealistic!" when previously we had funny pixelated fireballs.  We're essentially arguing about how much pixelation is ok, but we forget that the 3e version even has pixelation because we're accustomed to it.  (If you want to eliminate this, play without a grid.  Use a ruler and miniatures and have perfectly round fireballs.  There's nothing wrong with that.  Wargamers do it all the time. [Ick! Other types of geeks! I hates them and their influences!  They are inferior to me in all ways!])5) 3e approached certain problems in this manner: The game needs spells that last for one encounter.  We expect that an encounter lasts X rounds.  So we need spells that last about X rounds.  Voila!  6) 4e skips that reasoning in favor of: We need spells that last for one encounter.  We'll just make them last one encounter.  For people who want to use them out of an encounter, we'll declare that they last 5 minutes.  And then we'll say that an encounter is over once the party rests for five minutes.  Voila!  This is slightly different from (5), but not by much.Overall, there are certainly some ways that 4e seems to reduce simulationism.1) Diagonal movement is more realistic in 3e.  Personally, I don't think the difference is significant, because what really matters to me is how far off long term calculations become, and most distances aren't far enough for the disparity to propagate too noticeably.2) Duration of effects is more realistic in 3e because effects have a precise time for which they last.  In 4e, there are guidelines instead of sharp rules.  However, these guidelines get you to the same place the vast majority of the time, so I don't see this as a significant loss.3) Healing in 3e happens differently because hit points are now much more abstract.  For some players who like to envision lost hit points as physical wounds, this is a loss of simulation.  From my perspective, hit points were already so abstract that this does not bother me.  I can even stomach healing completely overnight.  Sure, its not realistic that a character can be bleeding out and nearly dead, and then ok the next morning without magical intervention.  But its also not realistic that a character can be bleeding out and nearly dead, and then doing acrobatics and flips and things the next morning at 2 hit points from his overnight healing.  D&D has never modeled meaningful wounds without the use of houserules.  Personally, I might look into getting some houserules to cover that sort of situation- maybe, if you drop below 0 hp, you've been maimed in some way, and even if you get back up, you have a penalty until its magically fixed.  But I don't consider this a huge difference between editions, and in any case it will rarely come up due to the availability of healing magic.So overall, yes, I see a decrease in simulationism.  Just not a very big decrease, and not one that I think matters much.  For me, what matters to a campaign isn't simulationism per se, its realism, and a vague sense that things are functioning as advertised.  Realism tends to stem from the DM's efforts, and from the lack of magical "exploits" that break the setting (Flying, Invisible, Buffed, Enlarged parties of PCs led by a War Weaver break a realistic war campaign.  I can testify to this.).  The DM thing is the same no matter the edition, and magical exploits seem to have been reigned in. As for the "working as advertised" issue, its harder to define- but basically, it means that acrobatic rogues should be able to balance on tightropes while armor clad fighters fall, that the greatest warrior in the land should be frightening to the greatest wizard in the land and vice versa, that 20th level characters shouldn't drown because up until now the DM didn't force them to deal with water, so they never put points in a basic skill like Swim, and so on.  4e seems to be fixing a good bit of this.So overall I'm optimistic.  I expect that I'll be telling equally simulationist stories in 4e as those I loved in 3e.  After all, the simulationism is mostly going to come from my efforts to create a game world that's believable and in which logical acts have logical consequences.  There may be some handwaving about distances, but heck, I ran without a battlegrid for years- I sketched on a sheet of paper.  With a pen.  (I'm hardcore, baby!  Booyah!)  So I'm sure I'll be able to handle things just fine.</blockquote>

Verification