Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 3738188" data-attributes="member: 4937">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.</blockquote>

Verification