R. Thompson : D&D still a sim/gamist RPG

[wgreen]

You have a rather odd metric for "roleplaying".

In addition, "how he chooses to deal with [his encounters]" is pretty much exactly what should define a character, yeah?

-Will!

 

[hong]

Hey! Look! Irony

I also do not think that word means what you think it means.

 

[marune]

The problem is that has nothing to do with the complaints people are making when they say "4e is not simulationist", which has to do with the apparent difficulty of using 4e to make a consistant world that feels "real" to people.

"Realism" is a kind of Simulationism, not a synonym. (e.g. you could do "Marvel comics" Sim game).

The common idea is to emulate something that is already established -> the reality we know in the first case or the "Marvel universe" in the second one.

 

[hong]

"Realism" is a kind of Simulationism, not a synonym. (e.g. you could do "Marvel comics" Sim game).

You know, you could avoid all this confusion by just not trying to frame every friggin' thing in GNS terms.

 

[marune]

You know, you could avoid all this confusion by just not trying to frame every friggin' thing in GNS terms.

It would a error to frame for example a single technique (4E skill check giving narrative autority to players) as G/N/S.

My OP was about the fact that D&D 4E is still a mixed Sim/Gam RPG like the past editions, GNS discussion was expected no ?

 

[small pumpkin man]

"Realism" is a kind of Simulationism, not a synonym. (e.g. you could do "Marvel comics" Sim game).

The common idea is to emulate something that is already established -> the reality we know in the first case or the "Marvel universe" in the second one.

Yes, I allready knew that. Admittedly, most of what I know is from Wiki.

Simulationist refers to decisions based on what would be most realistic or plausible within the game's setting, or to a game where the rules try to simulate the way that things work in that world, or at least the way that they could be thought of working.

When people complain in this forum about lack of "Simulationism", usually they're talking about how it does make sense from a character point of view for a martial character to have dailys, or about how monsters work under different rules to PCs, or how "hp" don't seem to have even the slightest connection to how physically hurt a characters is, and other ways there is a large dissconect between the rules and what is supposed to be "really happening" in the game world. All of which seem to be good reasons why 4e is far less simulationist. So, when you say

Evil Quote from the blog : A roleplaying game rewards the player for making choices that are consistent with his character.

That's is Sim support hard wired in the game design.

Which is a completely different facet of simulationism, (one which I've never seen in the extensive GNS discussion here) you're not paying any attention what the original posters were actually talking about.

In other words, a "non sequitor".

 

[smathis]

It would a error to frame for example a single technique (4E skill check giving narrative autority to players) as G/N/S.

My OP was about the fact that D&D 4E is still a mixed Sim/Gam RPG like the past editions, GNS discussion was expected no ?

But it's not an error to say that such a mechanic facilitates Narr play.

And what you're stating as a fact, clearly is not.

Hit points are more abstract than ever. Resource Management has been tweaked to the Gamist Facilitation Equivalent of 11. And there's been a seismic shift in how classes are handled, pushing D&D's capacity to satisfy the Gamist player even further.

All of these changes are what have the Sim people up in arms on this board. Or are you not reading the many, many threads decrying how these Grognards will never switch to 4e because it no longer supports Sim?

Either you (or they) are wrong. Because you're both taking completely different sides on the topic. Personally, I'm waiting to see the books. Then we'll know for sure.

If you want to have a Githyanki Death Match over it, though, be my guest. There will probably be another thread on how 4e has destroyed Sim in... 3... 2... 1...

Thus far, I've been pleasantly surprised by the changes made in 4e. If anything, 4e is geared toward Gamists with a Narrativist skeleton in their closet. So this Half-Narrativist Bard is just giddy to help these grognards out with some conflict resolution.

The only thing I honestly wish the designers would have thought of is better gradations of success and failure. Really, "Fumble-Fail-Succeed-Crit" is SOOOO 1980s.

Give me minor successes and minor failures in D&D and I can do Narr - to hell with what the acolytes and badwrongfun police say.

 

[Kishin]

It would a error to frame for example a single technique (4E skill check giving narrative autority to players) as G/N/S.

My OP was about the fact that D&D 4E is still a mixed Sim/Gam RPG like the past editions, GNS discussion was expected no ?

GNS muddies more waters than it ever cleaned up.

 

[marune]

But it's not an error to say that such a mechanic facilitates Narr play.

I was answering to another poster who claimed I was framing too much things in GNS.

I perfectly agree that mechanics can help one of the agenda.

Hit points are more abstract than ever. Resource Management has been tweaked to the Gamist Facilitation Equivalent of 11. And there's been a seismic shift in how classes are handled, pushing D&D's capacity to satisfy the Gamist player even further.

All of these changes are what have the Sim people up in arms on this board. Or are you not reading the many, many threads decrying how these Grognards will never switch to 4e because it no longer supports Sim?

Either you (or they) are wrong. Because you're both taking completely different sides on the topic. Personally, I'm waiting to see the books. Then we'll know for sure.

If you want to have a Githyanki Death Match over it, though, be my guest. There will probably be another thread on how 4e has destroyed Sim in... 3... 2... 1...

Thus far, I've been pleasantly surprised by the changes made in 4e. If anything, 4e is geared toward Gamists with a Narrativist skeleton in their closet. So this Half-Narrativist Bard is just giddy to help these grognards out with some conflict resolution.

The only thing I honestly wish the designers would have thought of is better gradations of success and failure. Really, "Fumble-Fail-Succeed-Crit" is SOOOO 1980s.

Give me minor successes and minor failures in D&D and I can do Narr - to hell with what the acolytes and badwrongfun police say.

The Sim players on the boards are not dissatisfied about the same Sim parts I'm dissatisfied with.

Many Sim mechanics elements are removed from the game and replaced by (improved) gamist ones. (I like that part, they hate it).

What I say, is that an important Sim part linger in 4E, the one R. Thompson talks about :

Good roleplaying = playing characters consistently with their definitions.

It is so much important, that such behavior is mechanicaly rewarded.

 

[marune]

when you say Which is a completely different facet of simulationism, (one which I've never seen in the extensive GNS discussion here) you're not paying any attention what the original posters were actually talking about.

It's not a different facet, in both cases the goal is to emulate something.

First is about Setting/Genre/System, second is about Characters.

In other words, Sim-minded players want a coherent world in wich they can play coherent characters in coherent situations, etc..