Clerics can't heal (NPCs)?

[GnomeWorks]

Please tell me you're kidding here, GW. (Even if you are, it's not so funny.)

Weak.

Kidding about what?

 

[ruleslawyer]

I recommend smilies for that sort of statement.

 

[mach1.9pants]

Ding! We have a winner. Though I think the two can be reasonably reconciled into one system.
I agree. That's why I'm not going to 4e, and I'm leaving 3.5.

That is sad, I reckon that you can convert any rules set to be more or less simulationist. If you like the base mechanics e.g. /w/e/d etc. (Maybe you do not) and are not adverse to a little house ruling, a simulationist campaign is achievable, even with 4E IMO. I did it with 3E and I reckon I could do it with 4, although I don't plan to. I will create a living, consistent world within the constraints of 4E (and a little house ruling I guess) because I like the rules base math so far.
You certainly couldn't run a simulationist game using a published campaign setting IMO but with house ruling the world is your oyster (or in sim-speak huge ball of life capable rock and magma )

 

[small pumpkin man]

Please tell me you're kidding here, GW. (Even if you are, it's not so funny.)

I tihnk it's fairly safe to blame Hong's confusion aura, in regards to all of us.

 

[HeinorNY]

I agree. That's why I'm not going to 4e, and I'm leaving 3.5.

So where are you going?

IME, the more complex a system is, in order to try be "the physics of the gameworld", the more it fails. The more abstract/simpler systems, IMHO, are the most suited for "simulationist" desires.

 

[GnomeWorks]

I recommend smilies for that sort of statement.

I'm now going to assume that you're hong wearing a hat, because that statement seems rather hong-ish. If I'm wrong, feel free to correct me by not being obtuse.

That is sad, I reckon that you can convert any rules set to be more or less simulationist. If you like the base mechanics e.g. /w/e/d etc. (Maybe you do not) and are not adverse to a little house ruling, a simulationist campaign is achievable, even with 4E IMO. I did it with 3E and I reckon I could do it with 4, although I don't plan to. I will create a living, consistent world within the constraints of 4E (and a little house ruling I guess) because I like the rules base math so far.

I do like a lot of the 4e mechanics.

But there are a lot of other things that both 3.5 and 4e are missing that I feel need to be in a system. I want a sensical economy, I want a detailed crafting system, I don't want level-based spells anymore (because they irk me)... the list goes on and on.

I like the base math, too. I don't like a lot of the other things they're doing to the game, or have failed to do in either edition. So this is where I'm hopping off the edition train.

 

[hbarsquared]

GnomeWorks -

First, my terminology is a little loose. I see the DM as a player in a game of D&D. The DM has a different function from the other players, but the DM remains a player.

Second, the setting may be the sole creation of the DM, but the DM has created it for the players, so the players can interact with it.

The setting, the "world" the DM has built, is not a thing apart. It is within the mind of the DM, and created for the purpose of providing a background for the players. The "setting" is not enriched by the players' interaction with it: you and the players are enriched by their interaction with it. How it is created, whether "simulationist" or "narrative" or what have you, is inconsequential. It's purpose remains the same: to provide a fun time.

Bringing this back to the source of the argument: Different rules for PCs and NPCs does not preclude this. Especially since the DM can still run a "simulationist game" in 4E! You can still stat out all NPCs with character class levels, GnomeWorks, if you want. You can make the world as active as you like, outside the player character's effects, and representing a commoner as +8 History has no effect on your ability to do so.

 

[GnomeWorks]

So where are you going?

IME, the more complex a system is, in order to try be "the physics of the gameworld", the more it fails. The more abstract/simpler systems, IMHO, are the most suited for "simulationist" desires.

Homebrew system, all the way.

Abstraction is alright. But the abstractions need to be sensical. The things the mechanics represent need to be sensical, and have sensical explanations.

 

[GnomeWorks]

First, my terminology is a little loose. I see the DM as a player in a game of D&D. The DM has a different function from the other players, but the DM remains a player.

True, the DM is also a player, in a loose sense. But his interaction with the world and the game differs from that of everyone else at the table, hence why I make the distinction.

Second, the setting may be the sole creation of the DM, but the DM has created it for the players, so the players can interact with it.

Nope. I make the world for the sake of its own existence. That the players play in it is happy coincidence.

The setting, the "world" the DM has built, is not a thing apart. It is within the mind of the DM, and created for the purpose of providing a background for the players. The "setting" is not enriched by the players' interaction with it: you and the players are enriched by their interaction with it. How it is created, whether "simulationist" or "narrative" or what have you, is inconsequential. It's purpose remains the same: to provide a fun time.

That is not the purpose of the world. That is the purpose of the game, which is an interface to the world in the DM's head. The purpose of the world is to exist.

 

[ruleslawyer]

I'm now going to assume that you're hong wearing a hat, because that statement seems rather hong-ish. If I'm wrong, feel free to correct me by not being obtuse.

You might want to check my join date, post count, et cetera.

I think you're ascribing obtuseness to the wrong side of this conversation here. Or are we deviating into a discussion of Hamlet?

Here's the thing. A lot of the stuff about which you're expressing concern may well be handled by the final version ruleset. Crafting rules, social interaction, wealth management, economics, et cetera. What IMO does not need to be "handled" in order to create a compelling gameworld is stuff like "Do NPCs need a method for determining healing surges by level along a similar line to PCs"? Equating NPC build rules = PC build rules with suspension of disbelief or compelling world-building is, as Mouseferatu stated earlier, a canard.