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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="nnms" data-source="post: 5778954" data-attributes="member: 83293">Sure thing, Plain Sailing.One thing I agree with Herschel on is that there are elements that cause people to get tripped up when it comes to verisimilitude and plausibility.I also agree that making a game be a perfect reflection of reality is impossible.However, that is not the goal of a simulation.  People often have the idea that a simulation must be a realistic representation of all aspects of a given subject.  And some game designers have believed this and tried to simulate everything.  This also leads to the impression that simulation focused design must be large and complex.It's actually the opposite.  A good simulation is one where only a few aspects are targeted for modelling.Let's take 4E as an example.  It takes high power heroic fantasy and simulates some aspects of it.  These include:a) heroic characters that are competent and hard to kill.b) escalating campaign story pacingc) tactical combat where the participants have high situational awarenessIt does a) well through high hit points, healing surges, encounter refresh systems, access to healing outside of clerical magic and more.It does b) well through the use of tiers, the tying of leveling up to the xp budget of encounters and more.It does c) well through it's grid based combat system and expectations of character knowledge in terms of bloodied values and assumed understanding of game effects.4E is actually a good simulation of particular features the designers decided were important to their game play.But what if the particular features or elements are not what other people want simulated?  What if someone is more interested in traditional play where the procedure of play is about plausibility of cause and effect and continual referencing of the constantly evolving narrative?  Or what if someone else is interested in procedures of play that create the structure of a story during play itself?  Rising action, climax and resolution?So back at 4E's release when I rejoiced that 4E was chucking out all that simulation stuff I didn't want, I was wrong.  I didn't understand that it was still simulating, just different things.  And now that I've gotten tired of those things, I'm hoping D&D Next's stated goals of having a broad appeal will materialize with strong support for games focused on a continual referencing of the narrative and a calling of the game mechanics by the narrative.If I start with a 4E style base, I have to cut things out to get to that point.  If I start with a OD&D/Basic D&D style base, I don't have to cut things out.  But I can still add in the 4E style elements when I want to.In short, a traditional RPG approach where you describe fictional elements, describe interaction with those elements, use the resolution system to resolve those interactions and then return to the beginning and describe the resolution as fictional elements would make a better generic core as you can transform it into a more game focused experience by adding elements.  If you start with the game focused experience and make those who want a narrative referencing experience chop things out, it'll be more of a barrier.Am I trying to argue for my preferred way of playing being the core of D&D next?  I don't intend to be.  I simply believe that it is easier to build upon it to create other forms of play than to chop things away to create it.  And, actually, it's not a way of playing that I universally prefer.  I like other modes of play and have enjoyed 4E immensely in the past.</blockquote>

Verification