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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="lutecius" data-source="post: 4453458" data-attributes="member: 60332">hmm no. Not considering the fanboi attitude of many posters who defended that.That would be implying 4e is not what the designers intended and that they screwed up somehow.I don't think dnd was that good at simulation before. The point is now it's worse.Each previous edition was a step away from its wargamey origins, 4e is a step back. It bothers me precisely because dnd wasn't "sim" enough to my taste, even though i liked the base mechanics.4e may be more streamlined, more balanced, more "fun", but it's definitely more abstract and gamist too.I'm not very familiar with shadowrun or the GSN definitions but to me "simulationism" doesn't necessarily mean detail and complexity, just that the rules represent something consistent "in game" and justifying them doesnt involve jumping through a series of hoops like 4e's Vancian combat and many powers do.Like you must know by now, I loathe Vancian casting but i believe it was actually meant to simulate, well... Vancian magic, or at least it could be easily justified by "the quirky nature of magic".From a purely gamist pov, a system that didn't require the whole party to rest every hour would have made more sense and a magic point system would have been more obvious.Levels are not that hard to rationalize but the way xp were earned in AD&D, the multiclassing restrictions and skills being tied to your level certainly were.The subsequent editions tried to alleviate these inconsistencies but 4e brought them back with the rigid classes and the new skill system.</blockquote>

Verification