Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="shadow" data-source="post: 6295989" data-attributes="member: 2182">Lately, I've been thinking about the issue of D&amp;D as a 'simulation' vs. D&amp;D as a game.&nbsp; In other words, how much the rules should aim at 'simulating' a fantasy story versus how much the rules should aim at creating a balanced game, regardless of believability.&nbsp; Of course, I suppose the term 'simulation' is somewhat of a misnomer because no set of rules could simulate anything completely or even believably.&nbsp; However, on the other hand, I have noticed that D&amp;D 4th edition and Pathfinder seem to have moved toward the idea of rules providing game balance without a huge regard toward the story. For example, this 'gamist' thinking is seen in the Pathfinder alchemist who can only use extracts on himself and only create a limited number of bombs per day regardless of available materials.&nbsp; Also this is seen in the 4e encounter/daily powers, which, although designed for game balance, do seem very 'metagamey'.&nbsp; Sure, you could come up with in game explanations for the limitations, but the rules as written are very vague as to why such arbitrary limitations exist outside the scope of game balance.So where should D&amp;D 5e aim on the spectrum of simulation vs. metagame?&nbsp; Should the designers aim at providing rules to simulate fantasy legends and stories and allow players to emulate the heroes of such stories at the possible expense of game balance?&nbsp; Should game balance be an overriding priority even when certain limitations seem completely arbitrary?&nbsp; Are the two goals even mutually exclusive?&nbsp; (If they aren't, how can game balance and play options be balanced?)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="shadow, post: 6295989, member: 2182"] Lately, I've been thinking about the issue of D&D as a 'simulation' vs. D&D as a game. In other words, how much the rules should aim at 'simulating' a fantasy story versus how much the rules should aim at creating a balanced game, regardless of believability. Of course, I suppose the term 'simulation' is somewhat of a misnomer because no set of rules could simulate anything completely or even believably. However, on the other hand, I have noticed that D&D 4th edition and Pathfinder seem to have moved toward the idea of rules providing game balance without a huge regard toward the story. For example, this 'gamist' thinking is seen in the Pathfinder alchemist who can only use extracts on himself and only create a limited number of bombs per day regardless of available materials. Also this is seen in the 4e encounter/daily powers, which, although designed for game balance, do seem very 'metagamey'. Sure, you could come up with in game explanations for the limitations, but the rules as written are very vague as to why such arbitrary limitations exist outside the scope of game balance. So where should D&D 5e aim on the spectrum of simulation vs. metagame? Should the designers aim at providing rules to simulate fantasy legends and stories and allow players to emulate the heroes of such stories at the possible expense of game balance? Should game balance be an overriding priority even when certain limitations seem completely arbitrary? Are the two goals even mutually exclusive? (If they aren't, how can game balance and play options be balanced?) [/QUOTE]

Verification