Death of Simulation?

[marune]

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.

How they can explain that some wizards can cast 9th level spell and others not ? Spell levels are directly linked with character level (+- intelligence factor).

I repeat myself, but trying to play in a "simulationist" way with a game using classes and levels is flawed. Try a skill-based game and let D&D be gamist.

 

[mmadsen]

Is it just me or are the 4e designed totally ripping out all the semi-simulationist stuff, like monster leveling, many elements of encounter design, and increasing the gamist stuff, like "per encounter"

I'd like to reiterate that I don't see how that's the Death of Simulation, or even a reduction in simulation. (And apparently you don't either, judging by your "dunno" response earlier.)

As Mouseferatu pointed out, "per encounter" is a convenient shorthand, a lens through which to view the rules. The characters in the game world don't have to view their skills and spells as working "per encounter"; it's the game designer's role to balance things that way, while providing an in-game rationale that works.

Which leads us to Delta's excellent point that the game needs to resonate as a simulation of something we can sink our teeth into, while working as a fun game. "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."

I think that is awesome.

 

[Celebrim]

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.

No, no, no, no, no, no.

That statement is so typical of the 3rd edition mindset. Players do not actually have to know what the consequences of thier actions will be. DMs only need to know what the players intend to accomplish. But out in the real world, every one is used to the fact that what we intend to accomplish is often very different than what we actually accomplish. We all live in the 'fog of life'. Characters within the game world similarly live in that fog of uncertainty. It's an entirely gamist perspective to assume that the players in an RPG need to be able to reliably predict the outcome of what they do by analyzing the mechanics and examining the predictable range of results.

Yes, it is possible to take this too far (and I've heard lots of horror stories) and have all sorts of arbitrary consequences to your actions, but simulationist approaches fill in the gaps in player knowledge of the game by giving them consistancy and by making the world run in a basis that is logical and consistant with the assumptions of the game world provided the player emmerses himself in it and tries to think like the character would in that situation. If players of just starting out adventurers take thier characters to see the dragon, they are not thinking like inhabitants of the game world - they are thinking like players of the game. If you actually lived in the game world, you wouldn't think, "The DM would never introduce an encounter that isn't reasonable, dragon's have triple normal treasure, so therefore it's a logical decision to go kill the dragon and take its stuff." They would think, "Dragons are extremely fearsome creatures. This dragon has been living here a long time, and no one has killed it yet. And, look at the bones! Until I have a particular quarrel with this dragon and have more reason to be confident of my ability to face a dragon, I best leave it alone."

When I decribe the entrance to a dragon's lair, I expect the player to be thinking, "How would I feel in this situation? How would my character feel in this situation?" Unless you've chosen to play an overconfident idiot, the sight of the bones of all the would be heroes that has gone before should scream, "Blunder this way only if you want to have an early death."

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

Then they will be clear the next time.

 

[Li Shenron]

Is it just me or are the 4e designed totally ripping out all the semi-simulationist stuff, like monster leveling, many elements of encounter design, and increasing the gamist stuff, like "per encounter"

I think that is awesome.

The only truly important thing for me is that what is (quite generally) "humanly possible", is possible in the game. Difficult things may require some special training, but they should be open to everyone more or less.

I'm not an uber-fan of realism, and I know that if you want more realism in one aspect of the game you can add it in some supplements (like more detailed armors, or expanded rules for spells ingredients). It's usually better to add/complicate things later than making them core.

But the more arbitrary the rules, the harder the suspension of disbelief.

For some reason, my gaming group never liked action points at all, because they are a totally arbitrary gamist device. However, we accepted and quite gladly them when playing Rokugan, because there was a strong in-game explanation for them.

That said, they better provide at least some simple in-game explanation for anything arbitrary like per-encounter abilities (I am sure there are ways to explain them in-game), otherwise it'll be a huge turn-down for us.

 

[Celebrim]

How they can explain that some wizards can cast 9th level spell and others not?

That wizard is more skilled/experienced/favored by the gods than the others?

Spell levels are directly linked with character level (+- intelligence factor).]/quote]

Which is directly tied to experience.

I repeat myself, but trying to play in a "simulationist" way with a game using classes and levels is flawed. Try a skill-based game and let D&D be gamist.

I've refereed GURPS games. Heck, I used to use the GULLIVER variant. Skills are no less gamist than levels. Real world skills don't have nice discrete levels, nor do they hang around at high levels when they aren't regularly used. In fact, skill level is dependent on short, medium, and long term memory. Skills are tightly intertwined, so that its hard to get good at some things without being good at others, but simulating this results in an absurd number of complex skill defaults. Levels are just convienent bundles of skills.

But you are making an all or nothing argument. It's not that GURPS is pure simulationist and D20 is pure gamist. It's that D20 is slightly more gamist than GURPS. It is I think a very good balanced approach. To much more simulation makes game preparation too difficult. Too much less simulation, as we had in many areas of 1st edition, leads to alot of frustration with the systems inconsistancies, lack of internal non-gamist logic, and inability to handle situations not expressly covered by the rules. Frustration with the lack of internal consistancy and the unreality that rules encourage din player play was the reason I got out of AD&D. Third editions fix of those problems is the reason I left GURPS to come back to D&D. It now sounds like D&D is going backwards from my perspective.

 

[Kaodi]

Maybe I am confused by the terms here, but I thought simulationist vs. gamist was more of a mechanics argument than a setting argument. Maybe I was wrong.

For instance, between a choice of having skills as they are now and having skills as they apparently are in SAGA, where as I understand it everyone has the same skills modified only by ability modifiers and focus, it would seem to be that the current approach is simulationist while the latter may make for a better, more streamlined game, and is thus gamist.

Whether or not your first level party is stupid enough to raid a dragons lair I would of thought was a different argument from simulationist vs. gamist. I mean, if I am playing Monopoly, if I land on the most expensive property but only have enough for the least expensive one, not being able to purchase that property does not make the game any less gamist, does it?

Looking at the Wikipedia page for Gamist/Narrativist/Simulationist, it now appears that I have no idea what I am talking about. Oh well, :\ .

 

[Celebrim]

Whether or not your first level party is stupid enough to raid a dragons lair I would of thought was a different argument from simulationist vs. gamist.

The gamist approach is that the 1st level party should not be allowed to go raid an ancient dragon's lair, because it isn't 'fun' for them to do so (since they would certainly die).

An example of the gamist approach to encounters is the sample dungeon in one of the D&D basic sets (I forget which edition), in which thier is a room with a door that can only be opened by 3rd level characters (or something like that). You can only get into the difficult encounter when you are ready to handle it, and not before.

Another example of a gamist approach is the random dungeon creation appendix in the 1st edition DMG that prevented a type X monster from showing up on the first level of a dungeon.

A MMORPG might be designed like that. You might have a section of the world you can only enter after you have sufficient levels. That's a gamist consideration to keep new players from stumbling into places they really shouldn't be, and becoming frustrated.

If you take the suggestions for balancing encounters in the 3rd edition DMG as actual hard and fast rules, as some on on the boards have argued that you should, then the CR/EL system likewise takes on a gamist character in that it is the implicit assumption under the 'rules' that the party will not have to face something with a wholly inappropriate challenge rating. This is in my opinion a big step backwards.

The fear here is that 4E will go even further in that direction rather than away from it.

 

[Doug McCrae]

The bones outside the cave isn't particularly simulationist, it's either narrativist or gamist, depending on whether the DM expects the PCs to fight or flee, respectively.

If he expects a fight it's foreshadowing and building tension. Woo, scary! If he expects the PCs to flee it's a warning to do so, a signal that 'superior players' will recognise. Gamism is all about challenges - the challenge here is not just the fight but avoiding foes that are out of your league. And doing so by reading the DM, a purely player skill, nothing to do with the characters.

A strictly simulationist DM could have very good reason not to place bones - a dragon's digestive system is so efficient it can digest them or the dragon, being greedy, wants adventurers to come to its layer so it can kill them and take their stuff, so it hides the bones.

 

[Glyfair]

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

Indeed, from Mike's latest Design & Development article, we can even assume that the definition of "encounter" may undergo a change. He's clearly lumping a number of dungeon rooms together as a single encounter there.

 

[Doug McCrae]

The gamist approach is that the 1st level party should not be allowed to go raid an ancient dragon's lair, because it isn't 'fun' for them to do so (since they would certainly die).

Gamism isn't about fun, it's about challenges. Fun is a byproduct if, and only if, you enjoy challenges.