Could Wizards ACTUALLY make MOST people happy with a new edition?

[Imaro]

Is anybody, like me, waiting and hoping for Mearls to address this issue in his articles? He's discussed game balance, simplicity vs complexity, modularity, etc. but AFAIR, he's never touched upon this core concept of design intent.

I think that's like asking "Should we put a stop sign or yield sign here, how many municipal by-laws shall there be, etc." before we've pondered the ultimate goal of all these signs and by-laws.

I am very curious about this, and would in fact rather see his "dials" created in terms of adjusting D&D to a particular playstyle rather than the complexity level (or better yet, both if possible.).

 

[Balesir]

Simulationist, as defined in the GNS Theory seems to fit 3.5/Pathfinder much better than Gamist, If anything I would say 3.5/PF is a mainly Simulationist system with leanings towards Gamist... but also easily moded by a DM to run narativist games as well.

It depends what you compare it with; I think all D&D has been essentially Gamist-supporting, because of hit points, levels, experience points and the whole trope of "dungeoneering".

Sure, you can drift any D&D; you can generally spot a non-gamist focussed DM when they say "of course, we don't use experience points as written..."

Edit to add: I also think the task-resoltuion rather than conflict-resolution in D&D is Gamist-supporting rather than either Sim (where it's optional - arguably better to have aim-based resolution) and Nar (where conflict resolution is simply better).

 

[BryonD]

Personally, I think they're both primarily gamist systems.

3E is a gamist system with leanings toward simulationism.

4E is a gamist system with leanings toward narrativism (especially when you incorporate the advice given in the DMG2).

This ends up coming down to how you define your terms.

Bypassing that, I'm convinced that a game that is more kindred in spirit with 3E will appeal to a much larger base than a game that is more kindred in spirit with 4E. That isn't to say that a 4E approach is anything approaching doomed or anything like that. And it isn't to say that a "3Eish" game wouldn't lose a chunk of what 4E has now. But the *prospective* fan footprint would be a lot better.

Though you can't put the genie back in the bottle. I'm still convinced that 3E does a vastly better job of "doing 4E" than 4E does at "doing 3E". But, obviously(!!), 4E is vastly better at 4E than 3E is. So 4E fans who used to be ok with 3E are much less likely to accept a 3E style now. And, a lot of 3E style fans are quite content for the time being. So, unless a 3E style 5E was so stunningly awesome as to be overwhelming, it probably would have a hard time being any better than what they already have.

They have to play the hand they dealt themselves and the smart move, for now, is to STICK WITH 4E.

 

[Imaro]

It depends what you compare it with; I think all D&D has been essentially Gamist-supporting, because of hit points, levels, experience points and the whole trope of "dungeoneering".

How do hit points, levels, experience points, etc. necessarily determine whether a game is Gamist vs. Simulationist, at least from the GNS definitions, I don't believe they do... they are just a mechanical way of modeling something in the game... perhaps it would be better if we had some definitions of Simulationist and Gamist to refer to...

Gamist refers to decisions based on satisfying clear predefined goal conditions in the face of adversity: in other words, on the desire to win. As Ron Edwards mentions in Gamism, Step on Up:

I might as well get this over with now: the phrase "Role-playing games are not about winning" is the most widespread example of synecdoche in the hobby. Potential Gamist responses, and I think appropriately, include: "Eat me,"
(upon winning) "I win,"
and "C'mon, let's play without these morons."

​

These decisions are most common in games which pit characters against successively tougher challenges and opponents, and may not spend much time dwelling on why the characters are facing them in the first place. Gamist RPG design tends to place a strong emphasis on parity in character effectiveness: that is, the idea that all player characters should be (at least when properly built or optimised over time) equally strong and capable of dealing with adversity.
Combat is frequently heavily emphasised, as is a diversity in options for short-term problem solving (i.e., long lists of highly specific spells or combat techniques). Randomisation (i.e., Fortune methods) exist primarily to provide a gamble and allow players to risk more for higher stakes (for instance, attempting a more effective hit in combat requires a penalty on the dice roll), rather than modelling strict probability.

Simulationism refers to a style of play where the main agenda is the recreation of, or inspiration by, the observed characteristics of a particular genre or set of source material. Physical reality might count as source material for these purposes, but so might superhero anthologies, or any other literary, cinematic or historical milieu. Its most frequent concerns are internal consistency, analysis or modeling of cause and effect, and informed speculation or even extrapolation to the point of satire. Often characterised by concern for the minutiae of physical interaction and details of setting, Simulationism shares with Narrativism a concern for character backgrounds, personality traits and motives, in an effort to model cause and effect within the intellectual realm as well as the physical.
Simulation-inclined players are more likely to talk of their characters as if they were independent entities with minds of their own, and model their behaviour accordingly. (For example, they may be particularly reluctant to have their character act on the basis of out-of-character information, and indisposed to tolerate such behaviour in others.) Basically similar to the distinction between actor and character within a film or play, this stems from the sense of objectivity that a Simulationist strives for. Character generation and the modelling of skill growth and proficiency can be very complex and highly detailed.
Like Narrativists, Simulationists are highly intolerant of obvious railroading, but for different reasons- because it betrays the implied agreement that "internal cause is king". However, many Simulationist RPGs recommend "Illusionism" to create a story – in essence, the subtle manipulation of in-game probability and environmental data to funnel or nudge PCs toward predefined conclusions. For example, Call of Cthulhu's foremost concern is recreating the mood of brooding horror and cosmic insignificance of the Cthulhu Mythos, and makes heavy use of illusionism to craft grisly fates for the players' characters, thereby maintaining consistency with the source material.
Much of the Simulationist aesthetic revolves around promoting the daydream of a self-contained bubble universe that operates independently of player volition, with the result that many Simulationist techniques are both deterministic and relatively hands-off: events unfold on the basis of internal rules, not because the player decides it. Combat might be broken down into discrete, semi-randomised steps for modeling the input of attack skill, weapon weight, defence checks, armour, body parts and potential for critical damage, separately. That said, however, many Simulationist RPGs focus on the exploration of entirely different aspects of their source material, and may have no concern for realism at all. Toon, for example, is solely concerned with emulating cartoon hijinks. Others, such as GURPS and FUDGE, take a moderately realistic core system as their baseline, which can be extended or modified by optional sourcebooks or special rules.

IMO, 3e/PF seems to strongly support emphasize many of the charactersistics of simulationist play, such as...

1. Modeling of cause and effect (everyone shares the same rules, Str is for melee attks, Dex is for Rngd, etc.).

2. Characters that are independent entities with minds of their own, and model their behaviour accordingly... a sense of objectivity that is strived for. (very few if any meta-game mechanics for players... or DM's)

3. Promoting the daydream of a self-contained bubble universe that operates independently of player volition. (There are worldbuilding rules in 3.x)

4. Techniques are both deterministic and relatively hands-off: events unfold on the basis of internal rules, not because the player decides it. (Again very little, if any, meta-game abilities for players and DM's)

5. A concern for character backgrounds, personality traits and motives, in an effort to model cause and effect within the intellectual realm as well as the physical. (PrC's with prerequisites)

Now most people will claim that D&D 3.x/PF isn't realistic in its simulationist play... but it doesn't have to be in order to be a simulationist system...

... many Simulationist RPGs focus on the exploration of entirely different aspects of their source material, and may have no concern for realism at all... Others, such as GURPS and FUDGE, take a moderately realistic core system as their baseline, which can be extended or modified by optional sourcebooks or special rules

I also feel that certain aspects of Gamist play just don't exist or aren't as well supported in PF/3.x as they are in 4e...

1. Strong emphasis on parity in character effectiveness (This is 4e's claim to fame)

2. A diversity in options for short-term problem solving (i.e., long lists of highly specific spells or combat techniques). (powers for everybody definitely suppports this better than just spells for casters)

3. Randomisation (i.e., Fortune methods) exist primarily to provide a gamble and allow players to risk more for higher stakes. (AEDU structure, seems to support regularly risking higher or lower stakes on an attack roll.)

4. Games which pit characters against successively tougher challenges and opponents, and may not spend much time dwelling on why the characters are facing them in the first place. (Until recently this was one of the top complaints of many/the majority of WotC adventures released)

Sure, you can drift any D&D; you can generally spot a non-gamist focussed DM when they say "of course, we don't use experience points as written..."

But experience points,as they appear in 4e or 3.x/PF, don't have anything to do with Gamist play since they don't push for Gamist play unless the PC's are aware of them in-game somehow... or if they are divided up dependant upon one's contributions to an encounter as opposed to everyone involved in the encounter receiving the same amount for participating no matter what their particular contribution is... In other words they don't push you to win, only to participate. Of course this was a different case in certain older editions.

If anything I would say the main Gamist push in all editions of D&D comes from the possibility of death/TPK in an encounter... through this the rules set up a win/loose condition which pushes Gamist play where the PC is trying to "win" by surviving.

 

[TheUltramark]

I wish there existed an actual number of new people to d&D because of 4e vs people that left because of 4e.

That sort of number would be impossible to find, and people on this any many other boards can speculate as to what those figures would be, but the truth is, not even the marketing guys at hasbro know the actual exact figure.

 

[technoextreme]

I find they've (PF) created very readable rules text; explaining novel class abilities and covering a wide variety of applications without excess words. I'm not particularly familiar with the flavor text for either game, but reading some of the 4e preview books was a pretty bad experience for me. That said, it's a very subjective judgment I'm making. I feel safe in saying that my opinion is strongly represented in the rpg community, but feel free to start a discussion on writing style or art if you like (it would interest me obviously).

Its not really about writing style though. Its primairly formatting. I went from 4E to 3E and there seemed to be a drastic jump in how they actually went about communicating information like powers.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

I wish there existed an actual number of new people to d&D because of 4e vs people that left because of 4e.

That sort of number would be impossible to find, and people on this any many other boards can speculate as to what those figures would be, but the truth is, not even the marketing guys at hasbro know the actual exact figure.

I suspect that the number is lower than at the peak of 3.X, but greater than at the tail of 3.X. That 4e probably did bring in new people, while Pathfinder reawakened interest in the 3.X architecture.

I consider Pathfinder to be D&D for most intents and purposes..

Another, semi-related question might be 'how many people would drop Pathfinder if it were bought and published by WotC, with the current level of support?' (Perhaps under the title Dungeons & Dragons: Pathfinder.)

Are folks leaving 4e or are they leaving WotC? I suspect that for many old timers it is the latter....

The Auld Grump

 

[Balesir]

How do hit points, levels, experience points, etc. necessarily determine whether a game is Gamist vs. Simulationist, at least from the GNS definitions, I don't believe they do...

Of corse they don't - the (published) system used never determines what agenda is in play; Edwards talks rather about supporting specific agendas. My belief is that D&D has always supported a Gamist agenda best, even though many aspects of the system have been conflicted and even incoherent at times.

they are just a mechanical way of modeling something in the game... perhaps it would be better if we had some definitions of Simulationist and Gamist to refer to...

All RPG systems are, to some extent, "just a mechanical way of modeling something in the game". To support Simulationist the rules simply have to do this without unduly encouraging player competitive skill use or thematic input and thus encourage a focus on "stepping up" or "theme addressing". I think all editions of D&D do encourage "stepping up", because:

a) The trope of "Adventuring" assumes that the PCs will engage in deracinated conflict activity with more-or-less arbitrary goals in order to "progress" (i.e. get more powerful and capable of killing stuff).

b) The rules for combat, exploration and damage involve player skills (resource management, such as hit points, memorised spells, magic item uses, tactics such as flanking in 3E and weapon selection in all editions, etc.)

c) There are rewards that are clear to the players for winning encounters - treasure and experience points. These don't have to be unevenly split - mechanically supported inter-player rivalry in the same group is a hard-core Gamist option, not an absolute requirement for all Gamism.

IMO, 3e/PF seems to strongly support emphasize many of the charactersistics of simulationist play, such as...

1. Modeling of cause and effect (everyone shares the same rules, Str is for melee attks, Dex is for Rngd, etc.).

It's certainly clear that 3E/PF has more simulationist-supporting elements than 4E, but 'continuity' is a requirement for all roleplaying, not just Sim. 3E/PF certainly make more attempt to "model the game world" as a focus with some priority than 4E does - but compared to games like HârnMaster or Pendragon it's pretty weak fare, I think.

2. Characters that are independent entities with minds of their own, and model their behaviour accordingly... a sense of objectivity that is strived for. (very few if any meta-game mechanics for players... or DM's)

The older editions talk a good line, here, but don't really deliver. What mechanical aspects really have bite, here?

For Gamist play I don't see meta-game mechanics as required at all - it is, after all, all about the game. Burning Wheel seems more like the benchmark for this - or Pendragon, again. Or even Call of Cthulhu.

3. Promoting the daydream of a self-contained bubble universe that operates independently of player volition. (There are worldbuilding rules in 3.x)

But in a universe that somehow accommodates "adventurers" that become as powerful as small armies without having the political system fall apart. Again, I think earlier editions talk the talk for this, but ultimately fail if put under any stress at all; either the PCs are the only uber-powerful characters (in which case who do they fight, and what happens if they decide the 'powers that be' need to be subject to 'regime change'?) or they are not (in which case, why the heck isn't the ruling class exclusively composed of "adventurers" and thus utterly unlike any "medieval" model?).

It's clearly partly a matter of personal aesthetics, but I have, in times past, tried quite hard to make D&D work for me in this respect - with no success.

4. Techniques are both deterministic and relatively hands-off: events unfold on the basis of internal rules, not because the player decides it. (Again very little, if any, meta-game abilities for players and DM's)

Huh?? The players determine the actions of their characters, using tactics and resource management in doing so. "Meta-game mechanics" are not required - just ways for player skill or daring to make a difference (even if the main skill in use is blagging the DM to let you get away with something not specifically covered by the rules - IME a common "skill application" in older editions).

Actually, player and DM ability to "trump" the normal systems for "story" reasons or "character play" reasons are distinctly anti-gamism. I don't actually think they are the best way to approach supporting Narrativism or Sim, either, but they are at least "admissible" there.

5. A concern for character backgrounds, personality traits and motives, in an effort to model cause and effect within the intellectual realm as well as the physical. (PrC's with prerequisites)

Prerequisites are a model of motivations and personality rather than a way to demonstrate system mastery to get the "best" ones? Yeah, well, I guess you could view them that way. I have never seen them actually used that way, though.

Now most people will claim that D&D 3.x/PF isn't realistic in its simulationist play... but it doesn't have to be in order to be a simulationist system...

Oh, agreed. The "non-realism" is really nothing to do with why I think D&D is Simulationist-supporting; I think it isn't Simulationist supporting because its system elemets encourage another play agenda and it doesn't, out of the box, model a coherent world setting.

I also feel that certain aspects of Gamist play just don't exist or aren't as well supported in PF/3.x as they are in 4e...

4E is much better as a gamist supporting system than 3E - I agree completely.

But experience points,as they appear in 4e or 3.x/PF, don't have anything to do with Gamist play since they don't push for Gamist play unless the PC's are aware of them in-game somehow...

Gamist play isn't done by the characters - it's done by the players. The players are thus the only ones that need to be aware of the incentives towards Gamist focus.

or if they are divided up dependant upon one's contributions to an encounter as opposed to everyone involved in the encounter receiving the same amount for participating no matter what their particular contribution is... In other words they don't push you to win, only to participate. Of course this was a different case in certain older editions.

They push you to "step on up" to adventures and encounters and beat them. Inter-player rivalry is hard-core gamism, but not a requisite for "soft gamist" play. If you choose for your character to go into business as a storekeeper, you don't get xp, so you don't get levels, so you don't get cool stuff. Sounds like incentive to "step on up" to the in-game challenges, to me.

If anything I would say the main Gamist push in all editions of D&D comes from the possibility of death/TPK in an encounter... through this the rules set up a win/loose condition which pushes Gamist play where the PC is trying to "win" by surviving.

Survive and gain levels, sure. And get phat loot. How many D&D gamers have you listened to expounding (at enormous length, perhaps) about their unfeasibly-high-level character? Or about the named-because-they-are-super-hard monsters they have "killed"? And did this start with 4E?

I think what you are seeing is the shades around the edges. When I compare D&D in any edition with games really designed to support Simulationist or Narrativist play, I can see shadows of such support in D&D, but it's all just flitting around a solid core that has always been fundamentally Gamist supporting and incentivising, as I see it.

 

[Peter FdH]

Are folks leaving 4e or are they leaving WotC? I suspect that for many old timers it is the latter....

Exactly. Having played one 4e campaign (the horrible Keep on the Shadowfell and its 2 successors) I personally concluded that the 4e system was great but that much of the support material was very poor. Most players in my group, however, had decided before even creating PCs that they hated the system.

Along with some dire modules, WotC have alienated the community by not releasing on-line tools that they said they would and changed the successful character builder to the on-line version that drops a lot of the functionality that the community liked. Their paranoia around letting anyone else near copyrighted material has strangled third party support and community input. Finally, you have a confusing marketing strategy that has resulted in a core 4e release, an essentials 4e release and a red box release.

I could go on but I think that it's Wizards and not 4e where the problem lies.

 

[heretic888]

Simulationist, as defined in the GNS Theory seems to fit 3.5/Pathfinder much better than Gamist, If anything I would say 3.5/PF is a mainly Simulationist system with leanings towards Gamist... but also easily moded by a DM to run narativist games as well.

Ehhhh.... I dunno. I have a hard time with any game system making use of Character Classes, Character Levels, Armor Class, Hit Points, and Vancian Spellcasting claiming itself to be "Simulationist" at its core. Exactly which "gameworld physics" are all these elements supposed to "simulate"??

However, I suppose its an argument of degree, rather than kind. Gamist With Simulationist Trappings vs Simulationist With Gamist Trappings really amounts to about the same thing, at the end of the day.

That said, I have a really hard time seeing 3.5 (I dunno about Pathfinder never played it) doing anything remotely Narrativist without some serious heavy-duty house rules. The rather rigid linking of Mechanics and Narration/Fluff makes this a difficult undertaking, IMO.

On the other hand I would say 4e is a Gamist system which can be moded by the DM to be slightly narativist or slightly simulationist but doesn't through it's mechanics favor one or the other... all IMO of course.

I can only speak from my own experiences, but I find running 4E naturally lends itself to a quasi-Narrativist orientation with very little "modding" or "hacking" on the part of anybody.

A lot of the basis doesn't come from the rules in and of themselves, but how they interact in synergistic ways. This is related to how easy it is to create or customize challenges on the fly in 4E as well as the extreme ease of adjudicating improvised actions via Rule 42. I also find that Terrain Powers, a large supply of Encounter and Daily Powers, Action Points, the abstract nature of Hit Points/Healing Surges, Skill Challenges, and the very soft link between Mechanics and Narration//Fluff all lend themselves to ample opportunities for the players to take narrative control of a scene with their characters, as well as creative opportunity for "filling in the blanks" as far as narration and scene framing goes.

So, I guess you could say 4E is more like a Gamist System With Emergent Narrativism. It just creeps up on you after awhile. ;-)

(... also, the 4E DMG2 blatantly promotes Narrativist play via cooperative world-building and scene framing.)