Death of Simulation?

[Mercule]

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.

So... it's a separate focus for each spell or martial maneuver? This is where Tome of Battle really lost me. I can totally buy the idea of ki focus (or whatever you want to call it), but it makes no intuitive sense to be concentrating on multiple manifestations of that ki.

In other words, it takes my ki focus to use my Iron Heart Focus and it takes ki focus to use Mithral Tornado. When I use Iron Heart Focus, it drains me so that I can't immediately follow up with Mithral Tornado. That makes sense. A round later, though, I'm refocused enough to use Mithral Tornado, but Iron Heart Focus is still not available. One excuse is that Mithral Tornado is less taxing than Iron Heart Focus. That doesn't hold up when you consider the drain if you perform the maneuvers in the inverse order. You end up getting to a point where you are left hand-waving it and that is very unsatisfying.

About the only way I could see it work is to have some sort of fatigue (spell point) system per encounter. That way, you can keep spending your ki focus on Mithral Tornado, if you want. You'll eventually run out of steam and stay balanced that way. Then rest up and be good to go the next battle. That is not an easy system to play, though.

For magic, I'd be willing to buy some sort of "hanging" of spells. In fact, I kind of like re-hangable spells as a mechanism. One of my concerns here is that in Bo9S, there was no way to ready the same maneuver twice. I guess that, if they actually explain the per encounter casting as being rehangable spells that they make it explicit that a certain amount (15 min?) of downtime is required and not just pound on to the next room. If there is still that opportunity to not rehang, I'd probably be fine with that magic system.

 

[marune]

I'm still not sure I understand what the 'simulationist' elements of D&D are?: 'Realism' was never the game's stated goal, and this goes as much for resolving a swing of a sword at an armored opponent as it does for the flight ability of mighty, magical dragons. Hit Points, Armor Class, and levels are the most abstracted, metagame concepts that exist in RPGs, and D&D has had them since the beginning, would probably not be D&D without them. And spells per day are as much of a metagame conceit as spells per encounter, ie., both are completely arbitrary, designed as two different ways to balance a game.

The biggest sim elements in D&D 3.x are : "Everything that NPCs got, PCs can get too" and a general "everything that happens in the game world must be described with rules".

 

[outsider]

I hope Gamism and Narrativism gank Simulationism and take it's stuff.

Really, I recognize that a game requires a certain amount of simulation in order to suspend disbelief. I just think the amount is much lower than old school AD&D provided though. 3rd ed was probably fairly close to the right amount, overall.

 

[Lanefan]

This, however, has already been countered by the fact that 4E includes social interaction/challenge rules, as well as rules for treating an event like climbing a mountain as an "encounter."

The problem with using a measure as nebulous as "encounter" for things is the simple question: what defines an encounter?

Some are obvious - walking through a forest you get ambushed by a small band of Orcs. You clobber 'em, reload, carry on.

Some are nebulous - crossing a dangerous bridge over a gorge, you get attacked by several Gryphons, and on reaching the far shore part of the cliff falls (or is pushed) down on you, blocking the path and forcing a dangerous climb...is this one encounter? Two? Three? Four?

Some are undefineable - the Icefield of Icy Ice is itself the biggest danger in these parts; none have successfully crossed it in living memory, but the only way to your goal is to go right through its heart...it'll take you several days if you live. Is the Icefield one big encounter? (can a single encounter last several days?) Is it a new encounter each day? Does meeting a monster on the ice count as its own encounter or as part of the bigger one?

Lanefan

 

[Celebrim]

I hope Gamism and Narrativism gank Simulationism and take it's stuff.

Really, I recognize that a game requires a certain amount of simulation in order to suspend disbelief. I just think the amount is much lower than old school AD&D provided though. 3rd ed was probably fairly close to the right amount, overall.

Really, I think alot of people here are using 'simulationist' to mean 'stuff I find boring'.

3rd edition has a far more simulationist stance than 1st edition AD&D. The number of examples are emmense, but lets just start with the way monsters are created. Every creature in the game, whether PC or NPC, was created with the same uniform set of rules, used the same mechanics, and was eligible for the same set of classes. Every third hit die, every creature in the game was eligible for the same general feats that the PC's were eligible for. Every creature in the game had the same 6 attributes that players had, and in fact, could be taken off the page and ran as a PC were you so inclined. The rules of the game were designed to be comprehensive, and to cover pretty much everything that could happen with specific rules which were applicable again and again. There were a large number of combat actions common to all creatures. All these things are all things which are very typical of games designed with a simulationist approach. The ruleset is intended to be comprehensive and universal. That's what made D20 such a flexible game system, capable of being ported to almost any setting.

Contrast this with 1st AD&D. Every monster was unique. There was no uniform system for designing monsters. Virtually every thing in the system used not only its own rule, but its own resolution system. There were literally hundreds of rules subsystems which treated each and every action as its own problem. There was no attempt at internal consistancy, and no attempt to be comprehensive. Referees were strongly encouraged to make up resolution systems on the fly. In 3rd edition, an NPC class is something a PC wouldn't want to take. In 1st edition, an NPC class is something a PC isn't allowed to take. In 3rd edition, there is a uniform set of mechanics for making the magic items in the game. In 1st edition, not only is there no such system, but most of the items the PC's are expressly not allowed to make. The 1st edition DMG is littered with advice to the DM from a gamist stance, and is written from a gamist stance. The general advice to DM's is not, 'play fair', but rather, 'keep it challenging'.

As a DM, I gave up on the inherent limitatoins of the 1st edition AD&D game system (it was too much work when you tried to play a game other than the one it was designed for) and moved to GURPS - widely regarded as one of the most simulationist game systems out there. That wasn't good enough, so I added in the GULLIVER mods to be even more 'realistic'. Now I could play the game that I wanted to play, but now it was too much work to prepare the game I wanted to play. (GURPS is so simulationist that I think its mostly played as a solitary mental excercise by refs. It's hell to run games in unless you are a master of improv, and even then, sheesh.) So, when 3rd edition came out I saw it as a game with a good balance between satisfying gamist and simulationist needs and went back (taking with me things I'd learned from my experience with the GURPS/GULLIVER system).

To be honest, even I hope gamist/narrativist concerns gang up and steal simulationists stuff. That's what its there for in my opinion. It doesn't exist (to me) as a reason in and of itself except as a solitary exercise (a perfect valid one however much 'clomping nerdism' it requires). The purpose of simulation is to provide tools to a game to give it coherency, consistancy, and a high level of challenge. The purpose of simulation is to provide drama with versimilitude, depth, and emmersion. I know longer feel like I need to roll the dice to find out if the wine glass would break when its thrown against the wall, but I do like the peace of mind as a DM of knowing that by the rules if I needed them it would. First edition AD&D had a very low regard for this kind of need. I got tired of having to overturn the rules because they produced nonsensical results when applied, and I got tired of fighting with rules lawyers who would insist on the nonsense when it benefited them. Third edition has a much higher regard for the value of simulation, and I've found myself overturning fewer rules and fighting fewer battles over the nonsense.

Fourth edition sounds like its making a big step backwards to me towards things I hated about 1st edition. I hope you like where its going, even if you don't know the name of the destination.

 

[Glyfair]

Really, I think alot of people here are using 'simulationist' to mean 'stuff I find boring'.

Actually, I think you'll find they are referencing the extremes. Indeed, I believe if you look at most of these discussions you'll find that people are referencing the extremes when they are talking about a direction they generally don't like, whether it's a narrative direction, gamist direction or a simulationist direction. That's probably the biggest weakness with even labeling the tendencies.

 

[marune]

Really, I think alot of people here are using 'simulationist' to mean 'stuff I find boring'.

3rd edition has a far more simulationist stance than 1st edition AD&D.

Ron Edwards on AD&D 1E

I hope Gamism and Narrativism gank Simulationism and take it's stuff.

From the text above, it's already done : gamist movement rules coming from simulationist wargame movement rules.

 

[hong]

The biggest sim elements in D&D 3.x are : "Everything that NPCs got, PCs can get too" and a general "everything that happens in the game world must be described with rules".

I'm with Gene. Die, sim elements. Die. Die. Die.

 

[Mouseferatu]

The problem with using a measure as nebulous as "encounter" for things is the simple question: what defines an encounter?

And for all we know, the game will provide a specific definition. (In fact, I expect it to.) Ergo, it may not be a problem.

 

[hong]

The problem with using a measure as nebulous as "encounter" for things is the simple question: what defines an encounter?

If you've ever DMed a 3E barbarian, you already know how to handle this issue.