Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
D&D Older Editions
How did 4e take simulation away from D&D?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Crazy Jerome" data-source="post: 5491825" data-attributes="member: 54877"><p>Mainly this. The "dropping of the pretense" that 3E and earlier simulated much via their mechanics was also big.</p><p> </p><p>Prior to 4E, there was a lot of instances in D&D where you had a mechanic that produced one effect, and the fluff said another. For example, not infrequently the fighter was portrayed in fluff as more scary than he really was, strictly mechanically. I'm not as bothered by that discrepancy as some people are, as player attitude about the character matters a great deal to the experience. But it would be equally unfair to say that the discrepancy never caused problems--sim, game, and story. </p><p> </p><p>Also, on action resolution, I'd qualify "effect" as "direct effect". Whatever simulation is left in 4E (or "emulation" if you prefer) is very consciously of the indirect type, frequently more macro than previously. That is, in 4E you often still get "simulation" of <strong>results</strong> that are in tune with the fluff, often more so than previously.</p><p> </p><p>A party of adventurers goes into a dungeon and finds a dragon. Claw, sword, spell, and fire breathing are involved. Characters and monsters get hurt. What you frequently end up trading in the simulation department is that you drop the idea that the fighter mundanely swung his sword a bunch of times, hit the dragon, and gradually wore him down. You add that the fighter mixed in some rather exotic moves with sometimes dodgy direct cause/effect simulation explanations. OTOH, you also add that mechanically and within the fluff, the fighter got to stay in the dragons face, replacing the discrepancy where the fluff said he could, but the mechanics didn't support it. </p><p> </p><p>If the discrepancy was something that gave your DM wiggle room to play around with the narrative, and he or she used it, and it didn't much bother anyone at the table--then you lost some simulation capability. If the discrepancy was something your DM didn't care to exploit this gap, and the players didn't want to deal with it, then you also lost some simulation capability--that you didn't really much value, because the discrepancy irritant was too great for what was delivered through it.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Crazy Jerome, post: 5491825, member: 54877"] Mainly this. The "dropping of the pretense" that 3E and earlier simulated much via their mechanics was also big. Prior to 4E, there was a lot of instances in D&D where you had a mechanic that produced one effect, and the fluff said another. For example, not infrequently the fighter was portrayed in fluff as more scary than he really was, strictly mechanically. I'm not as bothered by that discrepancy as some people are, as player attitude about the character matters a great deal to the experience. But it would be equally unfair to say that the discrepancy never caused problems--sim, game, and story. Also, on action resolution, I'd qualify "effect" as "direct effect". Whatever simulation is left in 4E (or "emulation" if you prefer) is very consciously of the indirect type, frequently more macro than previously. That is, in 4E you often still get "simulation" of [B]results[/B] that are in tune with the fluff, often more so than previously. A party of adventurers goes into a dungeon and finds a dragon. Claw, sword, spell, and fire breathing are involved. Characters and monsters get hurt. What you frequently end up trading in the simulation department is that you drop the idea that the fighter mundanely swung his sword a bunch of times, hit the dragon, and gradually wore him down. You add that the fighter mixed in some rather exotic moves with sometimes dodgy direct cause/effect simulation explanations. OTOH, you also add that mechanically and within the fluff, the fighter got to stay in the dragons face, replacing the discrepancy where the fluff said he could, but the mechanics didn't support it. If the discrepancy was something that gave your DM wiggle room to play around with the narrative, and he or she used it, and it didn't much bother anyone at the table--then you lost some simulation capability. If the discrepancy was something your DM didn't care to exploit this gap, and the players didn't want to deal with it, then you also lost some simulation capability--that you didn't really much value, because the discrepancy irritant was too great for what was delivered through it. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
D&D Older Editions
How did 4e take simulation away from D&D?
Top