Death of Simulation?

[el-remmen]

Tying spell usage to meta-game concepts ("the encounter") breaks the versimilitude of immersive D&D for some gamers.

You hit the nail on the head, brother - at least for me.

Thanks for understanding.

 

[mmadsen]

My attitude is that it needs both. It has to hit people's central emotional system with tie-ins to myths and legends and fairy tales; and it has to be a streamlined easy-to-understand core gaming system.

Well said.

 

[marune]

You hit the nail on the head, brother - at least for me.

Thanks for understanding.

I can't understand that such a simulationist hardcore accept the metagame concept of level but not of encounter.

 

[Mercule]

You hit the nail on the head, brother - at least for me.

Thanks for understanding.

Quite. It was also much shorter than my tirade.

 

[el-remmen]

I can't understand that such a simulationist hardcore accept the metagame concept of level but not of encounter.

Level is a measure of character advancement that you basically only have to worry about during advancement.

Encounters are much more nebulous and frequent.

 

[Mouseferatu]

I think people are reading too much into the phrase "per encounter."

Say you have an ability. Say that, once you use it, you need a full minute in order to either A) regain your focus, B) prepare the "spell" again, or C) catch your breath...

That's, essentially, a "per encounter" ability.

And that's (more or less) how it's done in both Star Wars SAGA and Bo9S. I'd be surprised if that wasn't also how it's done in 4E, though of course I can't say for sure.

"Per encounter" is a convenient shorthand.

 

[mmu1]

I can understand how you might feel less involved, but how is it any more mechanical? Neither system emulates anything from the real world -- it's ALL made-up mechanics.

It's a matter of degrees.

For example, sneak attack is a mechanical device - the circumstances under which you can use it are highly specific, some class abilities arbitrarily stop it from working, and it doesn't actually come close to representing all the possible outcomes attacking an unsuspecting or distracted target might have in real life. But it feels - to me, at least - reasonably natural. You hit someone when they don't see you, or when they're not paying attention, and you can land a better blow. (granted, only when you have Rogue levels, but I'm not after absolutes here)

Now, what happens if you replace sneak attack as it is right now with an ability called... "Sinister Strike", let's say... that lets you do extra damage and which you can use at will 3 times per encounter? You're replacing a more complicated but subtler mechanic with one that is simpler but blatantly arbitrary. There's no internally consistant reason for it (or at least, there no longer needs to be), it's just a purely gamist implementation. Click a button, get more damage.

I don't necessarily think the 4E characters are going to end up being as bland and boring as that, but I don't like what I see as a step in that direction. I like D&D primarily because of all the ways it's not like boardgames, card games, videogames, etc., where the gameplay mechanics are right at the surface. I need at least a veneer of simulationism.

 

[Alnag]

You can always play DnD a dramatist way... you just don't need that much supplements.

Seriously, I don't see much change towards gamism (in the original sense) because I think 3e is actually very deep in gamism and you can hardly go any deeper. What I see is really making this thing working, which is good. And honestly I see some interesting possibilities to cover dramatist bits here and there (which is part of simulationism in some different approaches so I actually thinks it is the opposite). Hell, I don't uderstand the think I just wrote but nevertheless... game the way you like it. Ignore the rest. That is the best way.

 

[marune]

"Look at the bones!"

I prefer the living world approach as well. If there is a dragon that lives in the hills, and players want to go face the dragon, that's thier decision. It's not my job to force them not to do foolish things. If the players run straight to danger and persist on the course despite all the warning signs, then they get the freedom to do that. They will learn one or two things in doing so. First, that there are things out there that can trounce them, and secondly perhaps that not every creature attacks on sight and fights ruthlessly to the death.

Here you face the fundamental problem of the simulationist approach, it works only when all the players and the DM have the same perception of the simulation result.

In your example, the warning signs may be clear for the DM, but not for the players.

The gamist and narrativist approach have different solutions to this problem. In the first one, the DM has to setup "balanced" challenges, in the second one, the DM has to keep the story moving forward.

 

[Celebrim]

I can't understand that such a simulationist hardcore accept the metagame concept of level but not of encounter.

Simulationists assume that level per se never actually breaks the fourth wall (well, breaks it in reverse). That is to say, the assumption is that level exists as a game mechanic, but that the inhabitants of the world don't actually know anything about hit dice, character level, etc.

Part of the humor of 'Order of the Stick' is that the story universe not only works according to game mechanics, but that the inhabitants of the story are aware of the mechanics.

In third edition, encounters exist at this level as well. Encounters can exist as a game mechanic (for assigning XP) without entering into the game universe. But, giving a creature abilities on a 'per encounter' basis potentially breaks that wall between the game and the meta-game. In the worst case, 'encounter' is defined in a gamist way, as the duration that a game element stays on the board. It's still the same encounter as long as we are still at the scenario location keyed #13. It's still the same encounter as long as the story is in chapter 5. It's still the same encounter as long as this is scene 3 in the adventure. In the best case, 'encounter' is defined as something between rest periods (lets say 10 minutes), and after some concrete period of 10 minutes you refresh your abilities. But even this presents potential problems. Suppose you have level 1 ability X and level 1 ability Y. Depending on the mechanics, you could get in a situation where each encounter you can use ability X and ability Y. But suppose you use X and now want to use X again? Both are supposed to be equally hard, why can't you use X rather than Y? There are strong gamist reasons for wanting to force the player to use Y rather than X, whereas a simulationist would (barring some in game world explanation like Vancian magic) want to say that the character ought to be able to use X.