Charwoman Gene
Adventurer
Mouseferatu said:
??
Simulationist aspects like building monsters out of class-like types, with a hidden "race" underneath it?
Death of Simulation?
- Thread starter Charwoman Gene
- Start date
??
Simulationist aspects like building monsters out of class-like types, with a hidden "race" underneath it?
I'm not getting into all the GNS theory stuff, as I find the definition of those keep shifting.
I love the idea of per encounter abilities. Is it really that hard to explain as a few minutes of rest? If a 3e ability can only be used once every three minutes, isn't that effectively the same as saying once per scene for 99.9% of the time anyway? This is the exact same thing, just with less paperwork.
Perhaps this is because I take such a cinematic approach to gaming. I don't see the game as a continuous virtual reality, but as a series of scenes. To explain what I'm talking about, I will almost never detail the twists and turns of a cave complex leading to an orc lair, instead saying 'You make your way through the twisting complex to the orc lair'. Cut from one scene to the next, not worrying too much about how far one is from the other or how many minutes it took to walk there. There's far more interesting things going on here!
I love the idea of per encounter abilities. Is it really that hard to explain as a few minutes of rest? If a 3e ability can only be used once every three minutes, isn't that effectively the same as saying once per scene for 99.9% of the time anyway? This is the exact same thing, just with less paperwork.
Perhaps this is because I take such a cinematic approach to gaming. I don't see the game as a continuous virtual reality, but as a series of scenes. To explain what I'm talking about, I will almost never detail the twists and turns of a cave complex leading to an orc lair, instead saying 'You make your way through the twisting complex to the orc lair'. Cut from one scene to the next, not worrying too much about how far one is from the other or how many minutes it took to walk there. There's far more interesting things going on here!
Mouseferatu
Hero
Charwoman Gene said:
Hmm... Perhaps I'm using the term wrong, but I'm speaking specifically to the way the game is played. I could care less how simulationist the process behind-monster building is, as long as it produces a monster that's
A) Fun/interesting for the DM to play,
B) Provides an interesting challenge for the PCs.
I agree with those saying that the terms are confusing. It gets worse because there's two totally different definitions for Sim, and at least one of them I don't grok. (Not to mention that lots of the uses of the term in this thread don't match either.)
One of the ways to break it down is "Is it easy to play-balance for a challenging but not impossible fight?" versus "Is it consistent and believable (within the game setting) for this fight to include these opponents?" Well, usually it's both to some extent.
Of course there's places in the world that the PCs aren't ready for yet, but they're probably not going to adventure there. Whether it's because you're explicitly balancing the CR vs. party level, or because they're fighting orcs because they're tough enough to take them on and have it be non-trivial, either way the game is going to be about the PCs dealing with things that are challenging but not impossible. (Dealing with, not necessarily fighting head on.)
So, taking out the terminology, I read the original poster as saying "I like the consistency of monster NPCs being built with classes and levels like the PCs are, and removing this to simplify the rules would make me unhappy." It's not such a sweeping statement, but it's certainly a valid opinion.
One of the ways to break it down is "Is it easy to play-balance for a challenging but not impossible fight?" versus "Is it consistent and believable (within the game setting) for this fight to include these opponents?" Well, usually it's both to some extent.
Of course there's places in the world that the PCs aren't ready for yet, but they're probably not going to adventure there. Whether it's because you're explicitly balancing the CR vs. party level, or because they're fighting orcs because they're tough enough to take them on and have it be non-trivial, either way the game is going to be about the PCs dealing with things that are challenging but not impossible. (Dealing with, not necessarily fighting head on.)
So, taking out the terminology, I read the original poster as saying "I like the consistency of monster NPCs being built with classes and levels like the PCs are, and removing this to simplify the rules would make me unhappy." It's not such a sweeping statement, but it's certainly a valid opinion.
howandwhy99
Adventurer
I'm for simulation over emulation. Yeah, it can go too far. In fact, I think it did about 25 years ago. But folks always want to have more combat options codified into the rules. And so we get 4 editions of "advanced" rules for anyone who wants to play with core required options.
What's wrong with making so many of these elements as optional? I mean, I can toss SR out the window in 3.5 and it's not a problem. But too many elements are layered into the rules such that changing them is more time consuming than going to a different game.
Simulation cannot be removed from a roleplaying game unless you want to remove the roleplaying portion too.
What's wrong with making so many of these elements as optional? I mean, I can toss SR out the window in 3.5 and it's not a problem. But too many elements are layered into the rules such that changing them is more time consuming than going to a different game.
Simulation cannot be removed from a roleplaying game unless you want to remove the roleplaying portion too.
howandwhy99
Adventurer
This is not a myth. Where have you proven it so?skeptic said:
Mouseferatu
Hero
Charwoman Gene said:
You know, I want to come back to this.
Why is this any less "simulationist" than building monsters entirely on type? After all, humans and dwarves are built on class, with race providing only an underlying foundation. Why is doing the same with other creatures any different?
S
shurai
Guest
skeptic said:
Weird, the second line there didn't appear in the post, but it did when I hit "Quote".
Anyway, he's right for the definitions of the words that I imagine he means (howandwhy99 seems to be using the worlds in their original meanings, devoid necessarily of the especially constructed GNS language . . . care to clarify one way or another, howandwhy99?).
Anyway, I think he's right. Roleplaying games, no matter how you play them with respect to GNS, are about imagining things, usually human beings or humanlike personalities in some kind of interesting context. I guess it's possible that some D&D players are so divorced from their characters that it really is just the numbers and mechanical parts being moved in a very complicated dry state machine, but for the rest of us, imagination comes in there somewhere.
Using ones imagination is an act of simulation -- your mind may be the computer running the simulation, which is awfully squishy, emotional, and creative compared to an actual computer or mathematical model, but it's doing the same work: Taking as inputs information about the in-game situation, and then outputting character decisions. The model used could be knowledge of the game system or just as easily knowledge of reality, or the reality-like place in which the game is set, which could be devoid of game rules as such.
Mouseferatu
Hero
skeptic said:
Uh, what? What is playing "in-character," if not at least very slightly simulationist? And what is role-playing, if not (at least to some extent) making decisions and choices in-character?
