Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 6004909" data-attributes="member: 87792">And I'm saying that 3E is from this perspective terrible simulationism.  It simulates one thing and one thing only.  It simulates itself.  The only reason our Master Basketweaver or Master Debater are extremely good in combat are because the 3.X rules force them to be because the "simulationism" won't let them be anything else.If a simulation takes you to a wrong result then you should discard the simulation just as if a map regularly doesn't match the actual landscape.In 4e the levels measure how good an adventurer you are.  Not "how skilled you are".  They are about your adventuring and combat skill.  If you are an adventurer, this works.  If you want to play Traders and Craftsmen, you probably don't want to play Dungeons and Dragons - and certainly don't want to play D&D 4e.And I'm saying that levels work if and only if you are measuring one basic axis.  If you aren't, they are an incoherent mess with a lot of unfortunate results such as the way for a scholar to get more hit points and be better with a sword is to read more books.Levels are terrible world simulation.  What they are is a structure for measuring the power of adventurers.  And the key test for whether something's a simulation is whether the outcomes match the desired outcomes.  Your map can be as pretty as it likes, but if it doesn't mark the major rivers and you want to go hiking, it's a pretty crummy map.If you want a good simulationist game, try GURPS.  One of the things that makes it a good simulationist game is that it doesn't assume levels and adventurer-type associations with hit points and resilience.  Simulationism isn't wrong (I have more GURPS books on my shelf than any other system).  But levels are a non-simulationist simplification that works only for the purposes of measuring the power of adventurers in a game focussed round something (whether dungeon exploring as in 1e or questing as in 4e).  Levels have many uses - but they cripple any attempt to make a world-sim.The problem with 3e's simulationism isn't that it is simulationism, but that it is extremely flawed simulationism due to being a level based system.  Levels work well for both narrativist and gamist play but hamstring simulationism because they force everyone to be measured as if they were an adventurer (or they cease having meaning).  And what you are defending isn't simulationism.  It's the idea that a game with a very gamist core can be hacked into a sim without becoming laden with down right perverse results.It is possible.  We just have to make the game levelless and classless.  And I've a lot of tolerance for what is and isn't D&D - but levelless, classless, and with no focus on adventurers is way outside mine.And for the record, non-combatant PCs can be made in 4e by abusing the bard and lazy warlord builds.  It works.Agreed absolutely.  And it's simulation of outcome that is the part that matters.  If you can get simulation of rules to match it, good.  But the outcomes are the important part.  If you can get simulation of rules and outcome to match up, good.  GURPS tries - and doesn't do a bad job.  But the second you are into a class and level based game, you're forcing a choice.  And a choice that will make the rules meaningless.</blockquote>

Verification