Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Sword of Spirit" data-source="post: 6256602" data-attributes="member: 6677017">And you would not be wrong with that interpretation. There are different ways of measuring simulationism. There definitely are ways in which 3e was more simulationist than AD&D. I'm trying to go from my overall impressions.AD&D Simulationism:+Ecology and Environment. Random encounters based on locale rather than party level. Detailed random weather.+Event systems. Random social events, wars, and such. This was more optional than other components, but fit the tone of the game very well.+Settings. The world must go on. The settings were definitely not based on the players. Published materials just kept them a going whether you ever went there or not.+Rules. Weapon type versus armors, and similar bits.2e AD&D paid lip-service to narrativism, but the rules didn't really back it up. Telling someone to focus on a story, while providing rules that have no story-related elements is style over substance when it comes to narrativism. (White Wolf's games had a much stronger case of this. They so much wanted to be narrativist, but came well before theories about how to do that were around, and consequently were simulationist games with a few bolted on narrativist components.)*3e Simulationism:+Tons of little fiddly details. Racial and monstrous abilities were expanded.+Monsters followed the same rules as characters.-Setting about the same as AD&D-Different rules, but still a focus on simulationism.I would say that 3e rules for characters and action (rather than setting) attempted to mimic the physics of the world more than AD&D, as you said. But there were discrepancies, where AD&D would just go crazy with things like weapon speed and longswords doing more damage to larger targets, and having an easier or harder time hitting certain types of armor because it was a slashing weapon.If I were going to go into more detail I'd use a system where each of the three styles I mentioned had different degrees.AD&D: Narrativism 2 (respectful regard), Simulationism 3 (focus), Gamism 2 (respectful regard)3e: Narrativism 1 (nary a nod#), Simulationism 3 (focus), Gamism 3 (focus)4e: Narrativism 3 (focus&), Simulationism 1 (nary a nod), Gamism 3 (focus)* This might sound like I'm pro-narrativist and anti-simulationist. I'm not. I enjoy all of the different styles for different games. I'm just commenting on design integrity--whether the rules encourage playing the game the way the game tells you to play it. Most games have issues in that area, even if they are fun games. They would just be even more fun if they better game design to so that results matched instructions given.# 3e really didn't have much narrativism. Most of it's adaptation of challenges to party was based on gamist inspiration.& 4e narrativism is odd because of its hybridization with gamism. If I wanted to get more grainy, I'd give it only a 2.5.</blockquote>

Verification