I don't get the arguments for bioessentialism

[Bill Zebub]

I'm not sure that if it is significantly better if racist tropes are applied to a culture rather than species. In fact, that's closer to the real life.

Ermmm....that's not what I was saying.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

This is just not a good frame for analyzing art and games.

Yes it is, for designing new games.

And you haven't actually argued otherwise, you've just made an insulting comparison and an appeal to traditionalism.

It's not like Monopoly is a better game than chess even though it is centuries more modern design.

Monopoly was intentionally designed to be a horrible game, and that mission was achieved, so you might want to pick a different example.

We don't know what the goals of the designer of chess were, and honestly if chess is literally your entire and only example, that's not an argument that you can extend beyond chess.

 

[Cadence]

Yeah I feel like by making mental stats, especially INT (which was the biggest problem for race/species, too!) just part of your upbringing or somehow worse, occupational background with 5E 2024's Backgrounds (again, I can reiterate this enough, something nobody asked for, and that wasn't acceptance-tested or playtested!), they really just shifted the problem to an area Americans consider less problematic. And like yeah, it is, by why shift the problem when you could eliminate the problem? All they had to do was nothing!

That's what blows my mind with that decision. All they had to do was nothing. Just stick with how Tasha's did it - let players choose +2/+1 or +1/+1/+1 and the attributes. There was no pressure to move the fixed bonuses! People were pretty much in two camps:

1) "I like species-based bonuses"

2) "I like freely choosing where the bonuses go"

And WotC invented a goddamn cursed third way that ensured neither side was happy. They just straight-up chopped that baby in half and acted like they'd chopped the Gordian Knot...

Arhghghghghg!

My imaginary heartbreaker sometimes has Strength just called Athletics and using different encumbrance rules (so I can stop being annoyed by 5e halflings) and Intelligence and Wisdom replaced by Perception and Willpower and makin replacing the rest by the knowledge skills (so I can dispense with that)... but then I can't stop myself from wanting to <insert multiple threads full of lots of peoples ideas on ability scores>.

 

[Maxperson]

When art comes with "mechanics", then you'll have a point.

There kinda are. There are guidelines, conventions and best practices that are typically followed for scriptwriting, playwrighting, etc. They aren't hard, fast rules, but then neither are game mechanics.

 

[Corinnguard]

And yeh, "these people are born evil" or equivalent is literally the stupidest and laziest way to show that the species tends to have certain type of temperament, and that is definitely not what I mean, when I say that species with different biology might also behave differently.

If your character had wings or the ability to breathe air/water, you certainly would have a different outlook on life. You and your species would be able to do things the other species couldn't do without the aid of magic or technology. And as a result might look at those who don't have your species' gifts in a less pleasing light.

And WotC invented a goddamn cursed third way that ensured neither side was happy. They just straight-up chopped that baby in half and acted like they'd chopped the Gordian Knot...

They should have gone with what Level Up was using for its' Background ASIs. One fixed ASI and one floating ASI of your choice. If your character was formerly a Soldier, he would have gotten a +1 STR as his fixed ASI. But for their floating ASI, they could have picked a +1 ASI from any of the remaining five. Which could have led to an agile Soldier, a hardy Soldier and so forth.

 

[Alzrius]

When art comes with "mechanics", then you'll have a point.

No, I think @Crimson Longinus has a point even without art having mechanics.

 

[Cadence]

RE: Chess over time

Chess's rules have changed a lot since the 1200s. And even if the rules of chess haven't really changed much since, say, 1828 (with three-fold repetition, touch-move, white always goes first, and some others afterwards)... the actual play that occurs by those who know what they're doing is vastly different. And Fischer Random Chess/Chess 960 has been growing in popularity with some big name proponents. (My favorite variant is still bughouse/pass chess/double chess).

 

[Staffan]

What that makes me think of is that I'd really like to see a simulationist RPG like Rolemaster (in conceptual thesis), but built from "first principles", without assumptions, without "Well this is how Rolemaster did it so...", and with modern design knowledge, modern design standards (which are inarguably better than say, 20+ years ago), proper understandings of things like usability, statistics, and so on.

As far as I know, we haven't had a real modern simulationist RPG that wasn't just derivative or attempting to replicate/build on an existing RPG.

There's a Swedish game called Eon which got a new ground-up 4th edition made about a decade ago, is currently in the process of releasing a touched up 5th edition (apparently crowdfunder backers have gotten PDFs now), and is simulationist in at least parts. It has a highly detailed combat system, reminiscent of Hârnmaster, with detailed injuries and such. It also has a huge skill list – I think it has like 70 core skills, plus open-ended lists of Crafts, Expertises (highly specialized skills like "Blame someone else", "Cheat", or "Speed-eating"), and Characteristics (things that are true about your character that sometimes can be used as skills ("Animal friend", "Pedant", "Proper bearing").

It has a somewhat odd mix of simulationist and narrative traits – as mentioned, the combat system is very detailed and there are weapon lists a mile long (particularly if you also include the optional Combat expansion), but you also have a Challenge system where you can measaure the outcome of a more involved task by the combined result of three skill checks (which can be from different players, depending on the situation). In many cases, players themselves can suggest skills to use. For example, the players might need to search an office for some sort of document without being found out by guards. The GM tells them that Search is a mandatory skill in the challenge, and they should suggest a plan for the rest. Maybe they decide to climb in through a window in which case Climb and Sneak would be good skills. Or one might suggest flirting with a maid or a guard and steal their key while they're distracted, which would be Flirt or Persuade followed by Legerdemain. Or whatever else seems appropriate.

Another element that's both narrative and simulationist is Focus and Personality traits. Focus is a resource you can spend, primarily to get a bonus to rolls, representing extra effort. You regain focus by doing things in accordance with your personality traits, of which you normally have two. Doing "regular" things get you back a little Focus, doing dangerous/costly things gets you back more, and risking your life or the equivalent gets you back all of it or can resolve other issues. One one hand it's narrative because it's a metaresource, but on the other hand it's simulationist in that it reflects how you'll feel better about yourself if you're doing the kind of stuff you live for.

And sure, it's "based on" an earlier RPG from the mid-90s, but it's about as different from it as D&D4e is from AD&D. You see echoes in it, but it's basically an entirely different game.

 

[jmartkdr2]

And that why modern art is considered universally better than the renaissance art and modern literature superior to Shakespeare.

I think the differences in timescale are a factor here; ttrpg design is only 50 years old. I would think we’ve learned things in that time.

Painting, as an art, is hundreds of thousands of years old. We probably haven’t had the same pace of discovery in that field in the past few decades.

Which isn’t to say all new ideas in ttrpg design are better, but we do have pros now and they have experience. Gary and Dave were not able to call on that.

 

[Micah Sweet]

What that makes me think of is that I'd really like to see a simulationist RPG like Rolemaster (in conceptual thesis), but built from "first principles", without assumptions, without "Well this is how Rolemaster did it so...", and with modern design knowledge, modern design standards (which are inarguably better than say, 20+ years ago), proper understandings of things like usability, statistics, and so on.

As far as I know, we haven't had a real modern simulationist RPG that wasn't just derivative or attempting to replicate/build on an existing RPG.

And I think if you had a skilled design team, like actually committed to the concept, and throwing out all preconceptions about how simulationism "should" work mechanically (i.e. rather than conceptually), you could probably come out with something incredibly interesting.

Like, we've got our "modern design narrative-influenced fantasy game" with Daggerheart, we've got our "modern design OSR/NSR-influenced fantasy game" with Shadowdark, we've got our "modern design tactical-influenced fantasy game" with Draw Steel!, we've got a bunch of cool D&D variants with A5E, DC20, ToV and so on, all of them of sort of primarily gamist with some nods to simulation and narrative and tactics (as 5E itself is and both 13th Ages), but where's our "modern design simulationist-influenced fantasy game" which real dials up that simulationism? And it sure isn't stuff like Against The Darkmaster or Mythras, which are cool but just streamlined older designs a bit, rather than designing towards the concept from "first principles" or in a more open-minded way.

IMO, the current edition of ACKS is a modern simulationist game. It had advanced far beyond its roots in B/X, and is extensively detailed with rules modules to simulate just about any fantasy or historical aspect of it's Late Antiquity-inspired setting, and beyond. It provides rules for classes (including species-as-class), monsters, spells, and many other things, and instructions for designing your own versions of them, balanced on a throughly researched and designed point system. There's very little I can think of in a fantasy RPG that you can't simulate in ACKS.