Mearls' Chicken or the Egg: Should Fluff Control Crunch, or the Other Way Around?

[billd91]

The fact is - and it is a fact - D&D has always given massive allowances to "simulation" for the purpose of "fun." That you have over-romanticized older editions to the point of most likely not even recognizing them doesn't preclude this.

All games do from Monopoly, to Traveller, to Advanced Squad Leader, to D&D. But because they all do have to sacrifice simulation to the game mechanic abstraction/model, that doesn't mean there isn't a difference between rust that destroys and rust that gets better.

 

[rounser]

Yes tell me more about the vast simulation that is "Sentient Jelly."

In a world with magic, that's possible. What is not possible are 4E's common sense-defying mundane powers, like healing from dragon breath because someone tells you to rub some dirt on it, or the big bad being baited forward against all character or common sense because some crazy mundane game power based on a regular taunt says so. That makes sentient jellies look utterly plausible by comparison. 4E cannot excuse it's hokier mundane powers, sim-nothing mechanics and weird corner cases with magic the way gelatinous cubes can.

 

[Bluenose]

But, more importantly, imo, is that the question seems to make a fairly decent litmus test (at least for the extremes). People who find 3E/PF to their taste tend to see that question as asking "what are the details? what are the relative important aspects to me?" While people people who express distaste for 3E's approach consistently express the question as a challenge to the idea that D&D has ever simulated anything.

Clearly, for a lot of people out there RPGs have never been about simulation.

This is utterly, utterly, false. There are RPGs which set out to simulate things which I love playing. I don't own and play and love Pendragon because I can't stand it's simulationist approach to Arthurian medieval fiction. I didn't have a site on the Traveller Gearhead web-ring because I disliked the idea of analysing and designing SF ground/air/grav vehicles and their capabilities in terms of the FFS rules. I didn't write chapters on world building from a geographers perspective because I care nothing about realistic world geography.

So, let me know what D&D is trying to simulate, and I'll evaluate it on how well it does that. If it isn't trying to simulate anything in particular, then I'm going to assume it's not meant as a simulation and evaluate it's merits as a game.

 

[Neonchameleon]

What you've missed is that the Shifty power doesn't do any of this on it's own. Hey look... Power Attack in Pathfinder makes your attack directly more powerful (causes more damage), at a reduced chance to hit. That is a mechanic backing fluff... the attack is actually more powerful in damage than a regular attack. Shifty in and of itself allows you to shift 5 feet as a 5' move, and generates none of the supposed fluff people want to attribute to it. Nothing about it is sneaky, deceptive, or involves trickery.

Shifty demonstrably makes Kobolds slippery little buggers. It means they can move when and where other people can't. It doesn't make them deceitful (although actually it does make them better at ducking into cover and hiding - they can use their minor to either poke their heads out to prepare to attack or to dart back into cover). It makes them slippery and hard to lay your hands on. Which helps any trickery they want to do that involves moving.

In terms of mechanics and fluff, Power Attack is, by contrast, barely visible. In order for anyone except the wielder to notice a power attack it needs to explicitely be called out. And would barely be noticed in character at all. The average power attack has an effect that's barely distinguishable from a normal blow. You'll still end up in the normal range most of the time. Shifty, on the other hand, you see on the tabletop. It's much more visceral. It's not in the normal range of things (unlike PA). A better comparison to Shifty would be Spring Attack.

In terms of mechanics supporting fluff, putting Power Attack up against Shifty is the equivalent of entering an arse kicking contest with a centipede the same size you are.

An RPG which apes MMORPGs and M:tG for design direction. D&D is better and more "D&D" when it draws upon an important wargaming habit: attempting some sort of simulation of the topic at hand. Thus your RPG is arguably a regression from something done better decades ago.

When D&D tries to go fully simulationist it becomes a clarinetist; it simultaneously sucks and blows. Have you ever looked at the D&D economy? As your rant about epic wizards illustrates, D&D does not simulate its source material (it has epic wizards but not epic fighters and the wizards get to overpower everything). 4e on the other hand is great at simulating both pulp action and mid-power mythology; the fighters can't cut the tops of mountains - but the wizards aren't epic either. Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser work well in 4e (Mouser just needs a ritual caster feat) and can go on for quite a while. It doesn't do grit - but the genres it simulates aren't gritty either. The whole thing runs on Holywood Physics (which might include Michael Bay movies, but also includes Raiders of the Lost Ark, Die Hard, and the 13th Warrior - and I really wouldn't bet against Holywood using square fireballs). Classic D&D on the other hand tries to simulate the real world. Except where it doesn't, and where the whole thing collapses.

 

[Umbran]

It seems pretty clear that folks, even years into things, are still not prepared to discuss some topics without degenerating into edition warring. Thread closed.