Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 8606483" data-attributes="member: 42582">I agree strongly with [USER=7028554]@Grendel_Khan[/USER] - when someone starts a thread asking for pointers towards FRPGs that are more simulationist than D&amp;D, trying to argue that D&amp;D really is a simulation isn't really helpful.Here are some examples of the sorts of thing that you won't find in RM or RQ:* In 3E D&amp;D, dragons have +30 or better natural armour bonuses. What does that mean in the fiction, given that someone needs to be a god, or close to, to forge +6 plate armour which grants something like a +15 bonus to AC? In Rolemaster or RuneQuest or Burning Wheel, it's always pretty clear what various stats mean in the fiction.

* In any version of D&amp;D, as [USER=22779]@Hussar[/USER] said, a character is hit for 5 hp of damage and, unless this also inflicts a condition (like dying, or dead, or 4e's bloodied) then it is completely unspecified what has happened in the fiction, except that the character was perhaps set back in some fashion. In RM or RQ or Burning Wheel, we know where a blow struck, whether or not armour blocked or blunted it, whether it was a mere bruise or something more serious, etc.Something else that flows from the basic mechanics-to-fiction set-up of games like RM, RQ and BW tends to be a less gonzo, more &quot;realistic&quot; or grounded setting. Generally these systems foreground non-combat conflicts and action resolution to a greater degree than D&amp;D does; and when combat occurs it tends not to involve the same numbers and weirdnesses of opponents as D&amp;D does. This tends to complement the simulationist feel of the mechanics.These systems also often involve higher rates of failure than modern D&amp;D does - that's definitely true for BW, but I would also say that RM contains quite a bit of failure. This can combine with the core mechanics to push towards a &quot;gritty&quot; vibe, which also complements and reinforces the sense of a non-gonzo setting.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 8606483, member: 42582"] I agree strongly with [USER=7028554]@Grendel_Khan[/USER] - when someone starts a thread asking for pointers towards FRPGs that are more simulationist than D&D, trying to argue that D&D really [i]is[/i] a simulation isn't really helpful. Here are some examples of the sorts of thing that you [i]won't[/i] find in RM or RQ: [indent]* In 3E D&D, dragons have +30 or better natural armour bonuses. What does that mean [i]in the fiction[/i], given that someone needs to be a god, or close to, to forge +6 plate armour which grants something like a +15 bonus to AC? In Rolemaster or RuneQuest or Burning Wheel, it's always pretty clear what various stats mean in the fiction. * In any version of D&D, as [USER=22779]@Hussar[/USER] said, a character is hit for 5 hp of damage and, unless this also inflicts a condition (like dying, or dead, or 4e's bloodied) then it is completely unspecified what has happened in the fiction, except that the character was perhaps set back in some fashion. In RM or RQ or Burning Wheel, we know where a blow struck, whether or not armour blocked or blunted it, whether it was a mere bruise or something more serious, etc.[/indent] Something else that flows from the basic mechanics-to-fiction set-up of games like RM, RQ and BW tends to be a less gonzo, more "realistic" or grounded setting. Generally these systems foreground non-combat conflicts and action resolution to a greater degree than D&D does; and when combat occurs it tends not to involve the same numbers and weirdnesses of opponents as D&D does. This tends to complement the simulationist feel of the mechanics. These systems also often involve higher rates of failure than modern D&D does - that's definitely true for BW, but I would also say that RM contains quite a bit of failure. This can combine with the core mechanics to push towards a "gritty" vibe, which also complements and reinforces the sense of a non-gonzo setting. [/QUOTE]

Verification