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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Blackeagle" data-source="post: 4235078" data-attributes="member: 41120">I've been thinking about this for a while, and after Lizard's <a href="http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=226835" target="_blank">epiphany thread</a> I decided to post about it.The "simulationist" label has gotten thrown around a lot in some of the recent arguments about 4e (the recent <a href="http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=225724" target="_blank">minion thread</a> for instance).  However, I don't think the simulationist label gets at why some people don't like what they've seen of 4e.  I think some simulationists can like elements of 4e that drive other simulationists crazy (see Lizard's epiphany, for instance).  The real distinction here is how willing a person is to accept a the change from a process-response model to a black box model, particularly for character and monster development.Black box vs. process-response is one way scientists classify different models.  In a nutshell, a black box model tells you what happens, while process-response model tells you how something happens.  How is generally a lot more difficult to figure out than what, so process-response models are usually a lot more complicated.  If you want a more scientific definition (lifted from <a href="http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20050082846_2005082801.pdf" target="_blank">this article</a>):In general, 3e leaned towards process-response models, particularly when it comes to modeling characters and monsters.  If you wanted to make a more powerful version of the regular monster, you had to advance it to more hit dice, or give it character levels, or give it a template.  Each of these is complicated and has all sorts of side effects.  In 4e, from what we've seen, you slap on a more powerful power or two, add some hit points, compare it to an existing elite or solo monster and say, "looks good".  The monster's "internals" don't matter, all that matters is the stuff that interfaces with the players.  This is a classic black box model.  When the D&D designers talk about exceptions based design, what they're really talking about (at least when it comes to characters and monsters) is moving from a process-response model to a black box model.Another area where the 4e rules moved from a process-response model to a black box model is the grappling rules.  In 3e, if you try to grapple someone, you provoke an AoO, you make a roll to grab, you make a roll to hold, you move into the target's space.  Then next turn you're presented with a menu of actions you can choose from with detailed rules for each.  It's definitely a process-response model with a nice little chain of cause and effect.  In 4e you make one roll to grab an opponent.  If you succeed you can hold on.  Much more of a black box model, we don't care about all the details of the move, just whether you managed to latch on or not.So, 4e black box models allow us to jettison a lot of the complexity that goes along with process-response models, but at the cost of not being able to see the internal details of the model.  I think a big part of whether or not a person (particularly a "simulationist") is going to like 4e depends on whether they think this is a good thing or not.  Do we want to know about the internal workings of a monster or the minutia of a grapple check badly enough to deal with added complexity?  Do you want to model characters and monsters, or the interactions between characters and monsters?</blockquote>

Verification