Death of Simulation?

[Celebrim]

D&D has never been about simulation. If Joe Average can't kill the toughest fighter in the world with one shot from a crossbow- it ain't a simulation.

Simulationist and realistic have different meanings. You can't say, "If it has dragons, then it isn't a simulation."

 

[Kaodi]

I think there are going to be some things I miss in 4e that we have in 3e, but D&D has to become a better game if it is ever going to attain a wider appeal.

 

[(contact)]

I think the idea is that for a simulationist, the D&D rules should be simulating *a* world -- not necessarily our own -- in which the conventions of the game simulate the world. D&D spellcasters use Vancian magic because that's the way the laws of magic work in that world.

Limiting spell effects to time measurements might really be all about gamist goals (game balance), but at least they are framed as a simulation of "the way things work" within the game world.

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

If I'm not understanding you fellas correctly, please hop in, but I think that's the concern here.

All I'd really like to add is that if you look at it critically, D&D has always had some dissonance between simulationist and gamist mechanics. My guess woudl be that just like you have in the past, you will eventually be able to mortar over the fault lines in your game, and settle on the version of the rules that actually works for your group.

For me, the congative dissonance between the game world as stated and what the rules imply must exist is a fun space to draw ideas from, so I've never had a problem with getting any gamism in my simulation.

 

[hexgrid]

I don't *want* my players to see the cave that is the lair of a dragon, outside of which are scattered the bones of high level adventurers or whatever, and think that at lvl 3, they can go in there, because they're not confronted with things too tough for them. I prefer the simulationist approach where it's a living world, and the players need to choose which threats they're going to deal with, and know when they're in over their heads. That way, I can have the dragon be there, and be a looming threat, but be something which they know they can't tackle early in their careers....then, when they're lvl 12, and they come back, they'll be able to tacitly see how much they've advanced.

What have you heard about 4e that implies you won't be able to keep playing the game this way?

 

[Delta]

As someone who is a "simulationist" - or at least has simulationist leanings - I don't like it at all.

Absolutely agreed.

 

[marune]

I don't *want* my players to see the cave that is the lair of a dragon, outside of which are scattered the bones of high level adventurers or whatever, and think that at lvl 3, they can go in there, because they're not confronted with things too tough for them. I prefer the simulationist approach where it's a living world, and the players need to choose which threats they're going to deal with, and know when they're in over their heads. That way, I can have the dragon be there, and be a looming threat, but be something which they know they can't tackle early in their careers....then, when they're lvl 12, and they come back, they'll be able to tacitly see how much they've advanced.

If you don't want the 3rd level PCs to enter the dragon's cavern, don't ask the players : "You've found the entrance ... bla bla.. what you do ?"

If you want them to know about that cavern, tell them something about the cavern, it's fine, you don't need to create the illusion that they have the choice to go in there.

 

[Mercule]

Why?

I feel that it stretches suspension of disbelief in the same way the Vancian and x/day mechanisms do, in that an ability is available a limited number of times without regard for a rest period or what that ability actually is. So, it really brings nothing to the table, in terms of suspension of disbelief. It doesn't even carry over the single semi-charming thing about slots, which is resource management across an environment (i.e. a dungeon delve).

In short, it trades depth of play for a quick fix and an ADD mindset.

I do, however, think that a per encounter mechanism might be appropriate for certain situations and am willing to entertain the idea that it could be revamped to be more broadly applicable.

For example, I think the barbarian rage ability is a poster child for where per encounter is better than a per day. It stretches credulity that a barbarian PC could rage three times before 9:00 am, eat some lunch, get a message, and then not be able to rage at 3:00 pm on the same day; but the next day, he can do a forced march across a swamp and still flip out at 5:00 pm. On the other hand, to say that a barbarian can rage for (level/4)+1 rounds per encounter, every encounter, makes quite a bit of sense and makes it a nice, reliable ability.

To say the same thing about, say, magic missle, doesn't make sense, though. If you know MM, you should be able to cast it. If there is a requirement (slot), then how do you recharge? Can you load multiples? Do you need your book? Can you swap out and how? Why? How much time does it take? If it takes time, why not use that as the balance? If it doesn't, what is the in-character limitation?

Those last two are big ones, IMO. If you have some meta-limitation of "well, it takes 15 minutes for a wizard to reset his focus", why not just use 15 minutes as the key in the first place?

If it really is "per encounter", how does book-keeping differ between multiple rooms of a multi-room encounter (like the new Dungeon Design article) and walking between two rooms with a different key? "I'm sorry, you can't cast magic missle again because these guys were lying in wait while you slew their boss. But, if you leave your party to fight them while you open the next door, you can use it there."

I found it especially disappointing in Tome of Battle because those manuevers were supposed to be non-supernatural tricks learned by the martial adepts. So, why can't I do my signature strike twice, even if I wait a round and do it to someone else? What do these slots represent? The players shouldn't have to parse the meta-system of, "WotC enacted an arbitrary balancing mechanism. Your character still knows how to do that, but chooses not to because the combat should be more interesting."

What is the point of a system that doesn't actually represent what the characters are doing and can do? If WotC goes with more encounter-based abilities (and it sounds like they will), then I hope they address that question and show me how per encounter slots make sense. I'll listen. I just don't actually see how a system like Tome of Battle could do that.

IMO, the per encounter mechanic is one of the very, very few that is more arbitrary, makes less sense, and provides less satisfying game play than the Vancian slots. I very much hope to be proven wrong.

 

[TerraDave]

Is it just me or are the 4e designed totally ripping out all the semi-simulationist stuff,

wait, I though that was 3rd edition.

To quote Col Pladoh in early Dragon Magazine

"Dungeons and Dragons...is a simulation of nothing"

 

[Delta]

I think there are going to be some things I miss in 4e that we have in 3e, but D&D has to become a better game if it is ever going to attain a wider appeal.

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.

It's relatively easy for a game designer to do one or the other well. What you need is a master game designer who can get the two to work together at the same time, and that's a lot harder, especially as a game evolves away from its roots. (I've seen the two sides fall out of synch with each other in just this way, as a computer game designer/engineer in a former job.)

 

[Celebrim]

If you want them to know about that cavern, tell me them something about the cavern, it's fine, you don't need to create the illusion that they have the choice to go in there.

"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.

Dragons like to play with thier food, don't you know.