A Subtle Shift?

[Remathilis]

What I'm wondering is whether the reduced lethality will lead to a reduction in the number of edge-of-the-seat we're-all-gonna-die moments of tension that make a session memorable.

I don't think the lethality will be reduced as much as obscured. Quick, your friend just took a crit and is down, your other friend is slowly turning to stone, and the beholder still has another action to take is very intense IMHO.

What I think you'll see less of (thanks to higher hp, better defenses, no SoD) is the tension build as one side gains and presses an advantage over multiple rounds, rather than the bulk of the encounter's tactical (hence dangerous) elements happening in round 1 and the remaining rounds being a formality if even necessary.

 

[Mercule]

I'm somewhere between a storyteller/dramatist and simulationist, cycling between them. I got over my hang-ups with the gamist mentality a long time ago, though.

I realized that, when I'm playing a game, it's probably best to have the rules designed by a gamist. There's a reason the two words are so similar. I can usually take a solid set of rules and tell a good story or build a setting with them. I have a harder time taking crappy rules and doing much of value with them.

 

[Varianor Abroad]

Although I'm skeptical and have my reservations, how is it possible to render an informed opinion without a) reading and b) playing the game?

 

[Rechan]

Can someone define the terms "Gamist" vs "Simulationist"?

Because I've looked at 2e. It's not really... simulating "real time combat". I mean, positioning, squares, etc, didn't effect anything - and a combat round was a Minute. Nor is 3e very simulationist - any game where "I get four attacks and then you get four attacks" isn't very "simulating" a real combat sequence.

 

[Psion]

Can someone define the terms "Gamist" vs "Simulationist"?

Because I've looked at 2e. It's not really... simulating "real time combat". I mean, positioning, squares, etc, didn't effect anything - and a combat round was a Minute. Nor is 3e very simulationist - any game where "I get four attacks and then you get four attacks" isn't very "simulating" a real combat sequence.

That's because you misconstrue what simulationism is. It's not not necessarily simulating reality. It's treating the game world not as its a tactical scenario, nor a story in the making, but an emulated world that operates by its own rules.

I recommend John Kim's definitions of these terms (the Forge version of these terms seem to be more in vogue, but they have some emotional and intellectual baggage hung on them...)

http://www.darkshire.net/~jhkim/rpg/theory/threefold/faq_v1.html

To wit:

• "gamist": is the style which values setting up a fair challenge for the players (as opposed to the PCs). The challenges may be tactical combat, intellectual mysteries, politics, or anything else. The players will try to solve the problems they are presented with, and in turn the GM will make these challenges solvable if they act intelligently within the contract.
• "simulationist": is the style which values resolving in-game events based solely on game-world considerations, without allowing any meta-game concerns to affect the decision. Thus, a fully simulationist GM will not fudge results to save PCs or to save her plot, or even change facts unknown to the players. Such a GM may use meta-game considerations to decide meta-game issues like who is playing which character, whether to play out a conversation word for word, and so forth, but she will resolve actual in-game events based on what would "really" happen.

 

[Rechan]

Oh, wow. Then call me Gamist all the way. I could never run anything like a simulationist.

 

[HeinorNY]

"simulationist": is the style which values resolving in-game events based solely on game-world considerations, without allowing any meta-game concerns to affect the decision. Thus, a fully simulationist GM will not fudge results to save PCs or to save her plot, or even change facts unknown to the players. Such a GM may use meta-game considerations to decide meta-game issues like who is playing which character, whether to play out a conversation word for word, and so forth, but she will resolve actual in-game events based on what would "really" happen.

Nice definition.
I like to think that things in the game happen because they are meant to happen that way, and not by any other motive, like a cinematic scene, some dramatic story twist, or any other meta-game reason.

As a simulacionist DM I always say to the players that all I do is to tell them what's going on around them. It's not my fault, I have nothing to do with the events, when bad things happen, they were supposed to be like that. I think it helps the immersion in the game. Players at some extent actually "believe" in the story and in the events, or at least, it gives credibility to the game, and this is important to a RPG, IMO.

 

[Ranger REG]

That's because you misconstrue what simulationism is. It's not not necessarily simulating reality. It's treating the game world not as its a tactical scenario, nor a story in the making, but an emulated world that operates by its own rules.

I recommend John Kim's definitions of these terms (the Forge version of these terms seem to be more in vogue, but they have some emotional and intellectual baggage hung on them...)

http://www.darkshire.net/~jhkim/rpg/theory/threefold/faq_v1.html

Then by those definitions, I'm a gamist.

I want a gamist's game ... for gamists.

 

[howandwhy99]

Then by those definitions, I'm a gamist.

I want a gamist's game ... for gamists.

Yeah, most everyone who plays D&D is a gamist by those terms. I think the desire for challenge, to win, to succeed are a very strong draw. My preference for Sim though is desiring to succeed in the world vs. succeeding at the rules.

 

[med stud]

Personally I'm still hoping that WotC (or perhaps some enterprising 3rd party publisher if the 4E OGL allows it?) will take my suggestion to extract levels 1-10 and publish them as a separate stand-alone game...

I thought about this as well but with a different twist. I think you could simplify the rules, have only levels 1-10 and make a board game of it, with rearrangable dungeon tiles. Many people play board games so I think this is a good way of getting new recruits for traditional PnP RPGs.