Breaking Edition Stereotypes

[Tequila Sunrise]

I have a strong realistic/simulationist streak. There are some things that I can simply not think about; sports, celebrity gossip, how long it'll take to pay off my student loans. But D&D's rules and how they reflect its in-game reality is not one of those things; I can’t help but think about what hit points mean, and how the schools of magic are organized, and how non-casters can have per-day abilities. I can't help but think about these issues and others, and I want the rules to agree with my in-game reality. So it may be surprising that my favorite game is D&D, and my favorite edition to play and to DM is 4e.

Despite its reputation as the edition of hand-wavium and action movie physics, I don't play it that way. The in-game reality is magical and strange, and the rules reflect that reality. Hit points represent an actual protective phenomenon, martial characters have their own kind of magic, and so on. Of course, characters in the game world don’t call these things strange or magical; they just call it ‘how the world works.’ The game rules represent the facts of their lives.

Let me explain: most D&Ders think of the game world as 'real world + magic.' There's a clear distinction between characters and things that are allowed to be unrealistic by virtue of being magical. And then there’s everything and everyone else, which is expected to conform to real world reality. There was certainly a time when this was the extent of my comfort zone. And this comfort zone would still make sense if I were playing an rpg based on say, Harry Potter, where the game world really is the real world + magic.

But D&D worlds have no need for a clear distinction between magic and reality. When I play, I’m not modeling the real world, or even the real world + magic. I’m modeling a fantasy world, where I can edit natural laws that get in the way of my fun.

And that’s how I break D&D 4e stereotype! What edition stereotypes do you break?

 

[Libramarian]

First edition, probably that I am not an adversarial DM.

 

[TerraDave]

I have a strong realistic/simulationist streak. ...and my favorite edition to play and to DM is 4e.

Despite its reputation as the edition of hand-wavium and action movie physics, I don't play it that way. The in-game reality is magical and strange, and the rules reflect that reality. Hit points represent an actual protective phenomenon, martial characters have their own kind of magic, and so on. Of course, characters in the game world don’t call these things strange or magical; they just call it ‘how the world works.’ The game rules represent the facts of their lives.

Let me explain: most D&Ders think of the game world as 'real world + magic.' There's a clear distinction between characters and things that are allowed to be unrealistic by virtue of being magical. And then there’s everything and everyone else, which is expected to conform to real world reality. There was certainly a time when this was the extent of my comfort zone. And this comfort zone would still make sense if I were playing an rpg based on say, Harry Potter, where the game world really is the real world + magic.

But D&D worlds have no need for a clear distinction between magic and reality. When I play, I’m not modeling the real world, or even the real world + magic. I’m modeling a fantasy world, where I can edit natural laws that get in the way of my fun.

And that’s how I break D&D 4e stereotype! What edition stereotypes do you break?

Nice. (and when my pc's were sent to gamma world, the martial characters also lost some powers, along with the wizard...but don't worry, they got some mutations and tech to make up for it).

Since about 1994 I have run a pretty "classic D&D" style game, but with minis and fairly tactical combat. And I like skills, and players who put interesting twists on their charecters.

So you might think 3E (or PF) is my favorite edition.

And it totally isn't. (though its ok).

 

[Mallus]

Hmmm... let's see. I don't think of the game world as "the real world + magic". I think of the game world as "fiction", regardless of edition and/or system.

So whatever editions of D&D are considered "strongly simulationist", they aren't when I'm running them. Currently that's AD&D. For 4.5 years it was 3e/3.5e.

Now I do sometimes think of may games as simulations... but they're simulations of fiction... which is quite different from what the "rules-as-physics" crowd seems to want.

For me, that sort of treating fantasy as if they were a kind of old-fashioned, extrapolation-heavy science fiction --ie the literature of engineers-- is an interesting exercise, an interesting body of techniques, but it's not really my game. Hell, that's not the only kind of science fiction.

So... AD&D and 3e being "simulationist" -- not so much!

 

[Ahnehnois]

Personally, I get a lot out of my edition (3.5) of choice, and more out of my houserules. Where I think I buck stereotypes is in being a low-prep, seat-of-the-pants type of DM. Despite the game's increasing desire to have detailed rules for everything, I am perfectly happy to fudge and handwave. Despite the complex encounter building system, I just make a few monsters without knowing how or when they will be used. I think of myself as being in some ways more like an "old school" DM (at least in ENW's terms), despite never having run anything before 3e.

Now I do sometimes think of may games as simulations... but they're simulations of fiction...

What's the fiction simulating?

 

[Mallus]

What's the fiction simulating?

I don't think most fiction can rightly be said to simulate anything, so nothing?

I mean, fiction is almost always boils down to people and their personal lives/relationships. Those really can't be simulated. People aren't particles or airfoils in a wind tunnel. Representation isn't the same thing as simulation -- "to simulate" implies a lot more, which is kinda why I don't like using the word in RPG discussions, even though it's a popular term.

(it's also a *big* question you asked -- might be a topic for a new thread)

 

[Ahnehnois]

I don't think most fiction can rightly be said to simulate anything, so nothing?

I mean, fiction is almost always boils down to people and their personal lives/relationships. Those really can't be simulated. People aren't particles or airfoils in a wind tunnel. Representation isn't the same thing as simulation -- "to simulate" implies a lot more, which is kinda why I don't like using the word in RPG discussions, even though it's a popular term.

My take is that all fiction originates from our understanding of the world; we can't not try to simulate it. For fiction to deviate from our reality, it requires the creator to either make an intentional choice to do so, or to err in his/her understanding or translation of reality. Clearly you're looking at it differently.

As far as relationships, isn't that what the players and DM are simulating? D&D isn't some computer model, the human participants are integral parts of the game.

(it's also a *big* question you asked -- might be a topic for a new thread)

Indeed.

 

[Manbearcat]

My take is that all fiction originates from our understanding of the world; we can't not try to simulate it. For fiction to deviate from our reality, it requires the creator to either make an intentional choice to do so, or to err in his/her understanding or translation of reality. Clearly you're looking at it differently.

I think what Mallus might be referring to is High Concept Sim; the simulation of genre conventions/conceits/mood/tone/pacing. Those don't try to simulate the real world. An example of this would be A-Team married to Indiana Jones.

When people talk about "action-movie physics", they are talking about High Concept Simulation. Eg; When someone shoots a person with a shotgun at close range the go EXPLODING backwards. This doesn't happen in real life...the energy transfer isn't anywhere near this. This can be seen with the up-close execution of cattle. Their head doesn't snap with the momentum of the round (due to the energy transfer), it actually snaps back toward the gun due to neuromuscular response (same thing happened with JFK).

However, most people don't know that because they've watched a million and one action movies. So they simulate that in their games mistakenly. However, even when they know its wrong, they may still simulate those action-movie physics; because its pretty awesome. That is High-Concept Simulation.

 

[pemerton]

My take is that all fiction originates from our understanding of the world; we can't not try to simulate it. For fiction to deviate from our reality, it requires the creator to either make an intentional choice to do so, or to err in his/her understanding or translation of reality.

Perhaps this is true for a certain sort of historical fiction. But I don't think a novel like Great Expectations, or The End of the Affair, or The Wind Up Bird Chronicle, is a simulation of anything. The stereotypical "literary" novel is not trying to reproduce an understanding of the world, but rather to show that the world answers, in some fashion, to the author's understanding of what is important to humanity.

In other words, I agree with [MENTION=3887]Mallus[/MENTION] - both the contrast between ficiton and simulation, and a preference for the former rather than the latter. (Though when running process simulation systems, like RM or RQ, I may stick more to process simulation resolution than does Mallus - but don't use them to run world simulations of any sort.)

 

[Ahnehnois]

Perhaps this is true for a certain sort of historical fiction. But I don't think a novel like Great Expectations, or The End of the Affair, or The Wind Up Bird Chronicle, is a simulation of anything.

Really? Do those novels have people? Do they behave like people? Do they have places and objects that function as they would in the real world? There is, in the words of Lovecraft, and inherent humanocentricism to every work of fiction that humans create.

I don't see how any fiction could not be built from elements of reality. In the context of gaming, the fiction is the simulatory element. Non-simulatory elements are likewise not part of the fiction, but are instead metagame or "dissociative" elements.