Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 4443457" data-attributes="member: 18">I think you're a little confused here. AD&amp;D 1&amp;2E, whilst more simulationist than 4E (and to a lesser extent the somewhat confused 3E), are not exactly &quot;simulationist&quot; games. They're distantly wargame derived FRPGs which incorporate a mixture of game-oriented and simulationist concepts in a wierd and slightly random mix.Saying that 3E, for example, advocates a &quot;realistic simulation philsophy&quot;, to me, borders on the actually delusional. I have no doubt that Monte Cook and other 3E designers absolutely would not agree that that was what they were doing (esp. given intentional &quot;newbie traps&quot; etc.). Nor do I think Gary Gygax would have suggested that AD&amp;D 1E was really going for &quot;realistic simulation&quot;.I mean, when Gary DID go for &quot;realistic simulation&quot; in the utterly simulationist Dangerous Journeys (which amazingly, I own), it could hardly have been further from AD&amp;D, in most ways. Rolemaster would be a much more comparable game. Or GURPS, even. Those are games which go for a &quot;realistic simulationist&quot; approach, as do a couple of d20-based games, but D&amp;D? Pfffft.So, whilst I agree that you're completely reasonable to dislike 4E, and I can even say that I &quot;feel you&quot; on your criticisms, as they're problems I had with 4E at one time, too, I can't say that claiming you like &quot;realistic simulation&quot; as the reason you dislike 4E, seems even remotely reasonable. 3E was a good game with certain strengths, and clearly MORE simulationist than 4E. However, so is virtually every game on the market, that doesn't make them &quot;realistic simulations&quot;.Perhaps a more reasonable position would be for you to claim that you liked the peculiar mix of gamist and simulationist elements found in previous editions of D&amp;D, and feel that by almost entirely stripping simulationist elements from D&amp;D, 4E has also stripped D&amp;D of it's heart and soul for you.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ruin Explorer, post: 4443457, member: 18"] I think you're a little confused here. AD&D 1&2E, whilst more simulationist than 4E (and to a lesser extent the somewhat confused 3E), are not exactly "simulationist" games. They're distantly wargame derived FRPGs which incorporate a mixture of game-oriented and simulationist concepts in a wierd and slightly random mix. Saying that 3E, for example, advocates a "realistic simulation philsophy", to me, borders on the actually delusional. I have no doubt that Monte Cook and other 3E designers absolutely would not agree that that was what they were doing (esp. given intentional "newbie traps" etc.). Nor do I think Gary Gygax would have suggested that AD&D 1E was really going for "realistic simulation". I mean, when Gary DID go for "realistic simulation" in the utterly simulationist Dangerous Journeys (which amazingly, I own), it could hardly have been further from AD&D, in most ways. Rolemaster would be a much more comparable game. Or GURPS, even. Those are games which go for a "realistic simulationist" approach, as do a couple of d20-based games, but D&D? Pfffft. So, whilst I agree that you're completely reasonable to dislike 4E, and I can even say that I "feel you" on your criticisms, as they're problems I had with 4E at one time, too, I can't say that claiming you like "realistic simulation" as the reason you dislike 4E, seems even remotely reasonable. 3E was a good game with certain strengths, and clearly MORE simulationist than 4E. However, so is virtually every game on the market, that doesn't make them "realistic simulations". Perhaps a more reasonable position would be for you to claim that you liked the peculiar mix of gamist and simulationist elements found in previous editions of D&D, and feel that by almost entirely stripping simulationist elements from D&D, 4E has also stripped D&D of it's heart and soul for you. [/QUOTE]

Verification