D&D 4E How did 4e take simulation away from D&D?

[Balesir]

Can you say more about Rolemaster?

Not much My play experience with it was just one campaign.

The central point is that it uses levels, and I have come to the conclusion that no system that uses levels can be very good at any form of Simulationism. The reasons are fairly identifiable:

- Any society in which the physical power of an individual can grow to be significantly more than that of the common run is doomed to fall apart.

- This is because the more powerful characters become deracinated from society; once they are significantly higher level than the local 'police' and 'army' equivalents, the law no longer effectively applies to them. Once they are much more powerful that their family and neighbours, those family can be little help to them and yet the characters pose a threat simply by being near the "mundanes" (since the characters' enemies, attacking them, would likely wipe out their family as "collateral damage").

- The organisation and rulership of societies ceases to be determined by ability to organise and command loyalty, or force of tradition and societal norms, if some characters are capable of single-handedly defeating the forces that keep such governmental mechanisms in place.

- In short, 'Doctor Who' may be cool, but his very existence poses a threat not just to Daleks and Cyber-Men, but to all forms of organised government everywhere - good or bad.

Now, by reducing what each 'level' means and swinging emphasis away from level onto skills, etc., you can clearly mitigate this effect. But, at root, that is saying that "levels are unhelpful, here" - so why not just do away with them entirely for this mode of game?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Not much My play experience with it was just one campaign.

The central point is that it uses levels, and I have come to the conclusion that no system that uses levels can be very good at any form of Simulationism. The reasons are fairly identifiable:

- Any society in which the physical power of an individual can grow to be significantly more than that of the common run is doomed to fall apart.

- This is because the more powerful characters become deracinated from society; once they are significantly higher level than the local 'police' and 'army' equivalents, the law no longer effectively applies to them. Once they are much more powerful that their family and neighbours, those family can be little help to them and yet the characters pose a threat simply by being near the "mundanes" (since the characters' enemies, attacking them, would likely wipe out their family as "collateral damage").

- The organisation and rulership of societies ceases to be determined by ability to organise and command loyalty, or force of tradition and societal norms, if some characters are capable of single-handedly defeating the forces that keep such governmental mechanisms in place.

- In short, 'Doctor Who' may be cool, but his very existence poses a threat not just to Daleks and Cyber-Men, but to all forms of organised government everywhere - good or bad.

Now, by reducing what each 'level' means and swinging emphasis away from level onto skills, etc., you can clearly mitigate this effect. But, at root, that is saying that "levels are unhelpful, here" - so why not just do away with them entirely for this mode of game?

This seems like more of an observation about power curve than about levels vs skill based systems. Level based systems have been typically D&D and a few other games in a similar genre, which have all traditionally had steep power curves. I'd agree that level based systems probably do tend to gravitate in that direction, but you can easily create a skill based system with an equally steep curve. It isn't even really a matter of progression, every super hero game has the same issues and power progression in those systems is usually pretty limited, you just start out very strong.

While I hate the "this doesn't sound like a type of game D&D will do well, use something else" statements, in this case it seems fairly appropriate. If a game is going to be one where the PCs stick near to home and interact with ordinary people who are meaningfully capable in relation to them, then D&D is not the system to use (any edition really, though some less than others).

I'd note too just for the sake of accuracy that Rolemaster is a sort of hybrid system. Your class provides a framework, but mostly it determines which abilities are cheap for you to purchase, which is all done using points.

 

[kaomera]

I blame the internet. On-line game discussions like these create a group-think, not a consensus, so much as a lack thereof that leaves no refuge beyond wrapping yourself in the Rules As Written.

That's a good point. House-rules are much harder to discuss on a level field when outside of your home group. And I think this is what's led to the very distinct impression I've gotten that in 4e, everything published is to be taken as "core", and limiting or banning anything is generally not a great idea.

 

[pemerton]

Any society in which the physical power of an individual can grow to be significantly more than that of the common run is doomed to fall apart.

<snip>.

Now, by reducing what each 'level' means and swinging emphasis away from level onto skills, etc., you can clearly mitigate this effect. But, at root, that is saying that "levels are unhelpful, here" - so why not just do away with them entirely for this mode of game?

Fair enough. In my experience the first sentence I've quote here isn't really true for Rolemaster, because of diminishing returns on skill development plus open-ended rolls and critical tables. But Rolemaster is a game that is played so differently by different groups, depending on the supplements and house rules in use plus the way that some of the more arcane aspects of the game are interpreted and applied, that I wouldn't be at all surprised if my experience was not widely shared.

As to the other quoted paragraph - good question. I see RM as really a points-buy game, but with levels leading to the possibility of double-development costs which in turn produces a type of silo-ing which in turn produces more rounded and "total" PCs.

As I said, though, that may well be an idiosyncratic perception based on idiosyncratic play experiences.

 

[Balesir]

This seems like more of an observation about power curve than about levels vs skill based systems. Level based systems have been typically D&D and a few other games in a similar genre, which have all traditionally had steep power curves. I'd agree that level based systems probably do tend to gravitate in that direction, but you can easily create a skill based system with an equally steep curve.

I agree, it would be quite possible to design a "skill" based system with serious increases in character power through "character development", and this would suffer from mch the same issues. The inclusion of 'levels' is, however, a pretty strong indicator of intent that characters will get seriously more powerful through the course of play.

The things I find such sharp power ramps do are twofold:

1) As I said above, they generate (usually without specific consciousness or intent - see below) dysfunctional setting "societies" because of the previously noted effect, and

2) The very existence of a 'power ramp' IME drags the players' focus inexorably to the goal of "developing" their character (i.e. ramping their character up the power curve).

Neither of these are really conducive to a game that sets out (by intention or default) to explore characters and setting in a non-theme-specific manner. It makes a fairly good 'motor' for gamist games (although it can be a little flawed, leading to "beat the rules" rather than "beat the challebges" play) and can apparently provide a motor for 'dramatic' (theme driven) play, too - though maybe this is restricted to "power" themes, I don't know.

As a result, I think the system I have had the best "exploration" based games with (in "mixed company") is Traveller. The lack of any character power ramp here ensures that players will not get sucked into pursuing it (except some still try to seek it our in the gear arena, trying to acquire uber-weapons for their "heroes"...). The main problem I have come accross is that some players, bereft of their "comfort blanket" of character power pursuit, don't know what to do with the game. This is merely a matter of discussion, coaching and trial-and-error (after which they may find it's not to their taste, which, since I much prefer informed opinion to uninformed, is a win!).

It isn't even really a matter of progression, every super hero game has the same issues and power progression in those systems is usually pretty limited, you just start out very strong.

I think that SuperHero games, along with SuperHero comics, generally avoid this issue by making the whole question of what "Super Powered" individuals does to society the theme or "point" of the setting. Generally the "Supers" have recently started appearing, and the effect they have on society and the worldwide balance of power (in all sorts of senses) is a major "question" underlying the plot(s).

While I hate the "this doesn't sound like a type of game D&D will do well, use something else" statements, in this case it seems fairly appropriate. If a game is going to be one where the PCs stick near to home and interact with ordinary people who are meaningfully capable in relation to them, then D&D is not the system to use (any edition really, though some less than others).

More specifically, if the game is intended to focus on exploring the societies and characters of the game world, then any system with a sharp power ramp is not really an optimal choice. D&D most certainly qualifies as having a "sharp power ramp", here.

I'd note too just for the sake of accuracy that Rolemaster is a sort of hybrid system. Your class provides a framework, but mostly it determines which abilities are cheap for you to purchase, which is all done using points.

True - as does C&S (which is why I grouped the two earlier) - but if "I" start the game at 'Level 1' and there are Levels 2, 3, 4 and so on, it seems like a built-in assumption that I should be aiming to attain those levels!

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I agree, it would be quite possible to design a "skill" based system with serious increases in character power through "character development", and this would suffer from mch the same issues. The inclusion of 'levels' is, however, a pretty strong indicator of intent that characters will get seriously more powerful through the course of play.

The things I find such sharp power ramps do are twofold:

1) As I said above, they generate (usually without specific consciousness or intent - see below) dysfunctional setting "societies" because of the previously noted effect, and

2) The very existence of a 'power ramp' IME drags the players' focus inexorably to the goal of "developing" their character (i.e. ramping their character up the power curve).

Neither of these are really conducive to a game that sets out (by intention or default) to explore characters and setting in a non-theme-specific manner. It makes a fairly good 'motor' for gamist games (although it can be a little flawed, leading to "beat the rules" rather than "beat the challebges" play) and can apparently provide a motor for 'dramatic' (theme driven) play, too - though maybe this is restricted to "power" themes, I don't know.

As a result, I think the system I have had the best "exploration" based games with (in "mixed company") is Traveller. The lack of any character power ramp here ensures that players will not get sucked into pursuing it (except some still try to seek it our in the gear arena, trying to acquire uber-weapons for their "heroes"...). The main problem I have come accross is that some players, bereft of their "comfort blanket" of character power pursuit, don't know what to do with the game. This is merely a matter of discussion, coaching and trial-and-error (after which they may find it's not to their taste, which, since I much prefer informed opinion to uninformed, is a win!).

I think that SuperHero games, along with SuperHero comics, generally avoid this issue by making the whole question of what "Super Powered" individuals does to society the theme or "point" of the setting. Generally the "Supers" have recently started appearing, and the effect they have on society and the worldwide balance of power (in all sorts of senses) is a major "question" underlying the plot(s).

More specifically, if the game is intended to focus on exploring the societies and characters of the game world, then any system with a sharp power ramp is not really an optimal choice. D&D most certainly qualifies as having a "sharp power ramp", here.

True - as does C&S (which is why I grouped the two earlier) - but if "I" start the game at 'Level 1' and there are Levels 2, 3, 4 and so on, it seems like a built-in assumption that I should be aiming to attain those levels!

I'm not convinced you can't make a fairly reasonable seeming society though. I mean in the real world there are people who simply ARE more powerful than us. No, not always in a physical sense, but as an ordinary person we can't defy those kinds of people. They run whole countries. I think the results wouldn't be THAT much different than what human society is actually like. Even Epic characters and NPCs can't be everywhere. Most influence is a matter of who will do what you want/need them to do.

Other than that I think we can pretty much agree. There would be little point to making a level based game with a flat power curve.

We played a lot of Traveller but there were problems with the lack of ANY progression. I found that players really wanted it, and we just constructed our own advancement rules. Instead of having a career you could just spend points on different skills and whatnot. That worked well, players had a goal that would drive the story forward. Stock games went flat after a while. There was only so much you could do and almost no character could reasonably survive in the long term. Adding a few more skill points didn't do a LOT to keep you alive, but it didn't hurt and at least your journey to that stray bullet (or pulse laser) was more interesting.

 

[pemerton]

The things I find such sharp power ramps do are twofold:

1) As I said above, they generate (usually without specific consciousness or intent - see below) dysfunctional setting "societies" because of the previously noted effect, and

2) The very existence of a 'power ramp' IME drags the players' focus inexorably to the goal of "developing" their character (i.e. ramping their character up the power curve).

Neither of these are really conducive to a game that sets out (by intention or default) to explore characters and setting in a non-theme-specific manner. It makes a fairly good 'motor' for gamist games (although it can be a little flawed, leading to "beat the rules" rather than "beat the challebges" play) and can apparently provide a motor for 'dramatic' (theme driven) play, too - though maybe this is restricted to "power" themes, I don't know.

As a result, I think the system I have had the best "exploration" based games with (in "mixed company") is Traveller.

Good post. And Traveller certainly makes sense there.

On the power-ups-and-themes issue, and the restriction to "power themes". I'm not sure how broad or narrow your notion of "power themes" is, so I'm not sure if the answer is "yes" or "no".

Just from my own experience, I think the themes need to be ones where gaining in power - character growth manifested in this visceral sort of way in the gameworld - makes sense as part of what is involved in engaging or resolving the thematic issue. But this can include (to give a few examples from my actual play experience):

*Winning and then choosing whether and how to keep the love of a dragon (will she even notice a mere mortal? what about one who is now almost a peer with the gods? - surely she's bound to me now whatever I do!);

*Choosing whether to accept the racist rules of a wizard's guild, or to try and challenge and change them even at great personal cost (if I become a stronger wizard, maybe I can try and take control of the guild);

*Should I submit to heaven's judgment or fight to remain free of it? (if I become more powerful, maybe the fight will be easier - or maybe I can even persuade them that it was fitting that I remain free, given what I've become)

*Will I sacrifice myself to save my god from suffering through an eternal struggle with the forces of chaos? (this choice only becomes a meaningful one if I'm powerful enough to offer to take my god's place);

*or even the more prosaic, How far will I depart from my principles in order to get a cushy job from my friend's evil wizard mentor (I can always persuade myself that once I get a bit more powerful, I won't need the money and security that comes from the cushy job anymore, and will able to be right the wrongs I did and perhaps even take on the evil wizard).​

I don't think these are just power themes in any narrow sense. And as someone who teaches in a law faculty, the last one cuts rather close to the personal bone (thinking about myself and also about what I'm preparing my students to do/be).

 

[Balesir]

I'm not convinced you can't make a fairly reasonable seeming society though. I mean in the real world there are people who simply ARE more powerful than us. No, not always in a physical sense, but as an ordinary person we can't defy those kinds of people. They run whole countries. I think the results wouldn't be THAT much different than what human society is actually like. Even Epic characters and NPCs can't be everywhere. Most influence is a matter of who will do what you want/need them to do.

In the real world there are powerful people, for sure - but the source of their power is their links with the society itself. "Power" in the real world comes from close engagement with society and developing links (or 'strings' that can be pulled) within it, not by separation from it to draw power from some "Arcane", "Martial" or "Primal" (or even "Divine") source. As a result, those with power may only be challenged through the source of their power, and they have built in defences (their networks and 'position') in that field. With "levelled" RPGs, however, PCs have access to an independent source of power, against which non-levelled characters have no effective protection. When power becomes "how many mini-games you have won" instead of "how strong a network of friends you have", the resulting 'society' is not what we are acquainted with on this world.

 

[Balesir]

On the power-ups-and-themes issue, and the restriction to "power themes". I'm not sure how broad or narrow your notion of "power themes" is, so I'm not sure if the answer is "yes" or "no".

I'm in good company, then!

I don't have the experience to really tell, here - I'm speculating, really. Saying that, for all of the themes you relate, I could parse them as "Will increasing personal capability solve this issue for me or render me immune to it?" I can see many themes that could work that way - and maybe several that couldn't.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

In the real world there are powerful people, for sure - but the source of their power is their links with the society itself. "Power" in the real world comes from close engagement with society and developing links (or 'strings' that can be pulled) within it, not by separation from it to draw power from some "Arcane", "Martial" or "Primal" (or even "Divine") source. As a result, those with power may only be challenged through the source of their power, and they have built in defences (their networks and 'position') in that field. With "levelled" RPGs, however, PCs have access to an independent source of power, against which non-levelled characters have no effective protection. When power becomes "how many mini-games you have won" instead of "how strong a network of friends you have", the resulting 'society' is not what we are acquainted with on this world.

What I'm saying is some real world dictator can send armed thugs to deal with you. They are effectively PHYSICALLY more powerful than you are. A high level NPC can go do it PERSONALLY but he can't actually do more than what the dictator can, which is inflict some form of violence on you. Now, arguably there are levels of NPC/PC power in D&D where the character has capabilities or access to mechanisms that are beyond personal power (maybe if an NPC evil priest can call down the wrath of his god and make a drought or a plague that destroys the whole province or something). Still a 20th level evil thieve's guild master can only spread his personal ability to kick people's butts so far, he's really not materially much better off at that or more powerful than if he was 10th level. Nor is he really a lot better off than some real-world gang leader.

Cerainly it makes sense that the D&D society is going to be controlled at the top by higher level figures to some extent. I just think that their EFFECT on society is going to be similar to powerful people anywhere. The biggest difference is that moving up will logically require XP and levels.