The Death of Simulation

[pemerton]

Unfortunately it seems most all the powers that can be chosen are combat based and balanced around combat making the choice more trivial than I hoped it would be. Now I have seen the rules so maybe that might not be the case and I could be very wrong.

<snip>

I am pretty rocked on Shadow of Yesterday right now if i do a fantasy campaign. It has a really interesting way to deal with conflict and it allows you to integrate social, mental and physical damage and they can play off of each other. It borrowed the feats ideas from 3E.

I think you're mostly right. I don't think that this is as bad as you suggest, however, provided the monsters and powers really do allow different thematic notions to emerge in the course of mechanial play. We have been promised this in relation to Demons and Devils, and W&M makes similar sorts of noises in relation to all monsters, and the sample Paladin powers suggest that it will also be true of PC powers.

Now this is not highbrow narrativism. To me it is more like superhero comics, or westerns, or Hong Kong movies like The Bride with White Hair or Tai Chi Master: combat has to be understood not purely literally, but also as a metaphor for all other conflict. Thus there is no need for seperate mental or spiritual damage, because hit points stand in for all of it.

(Social challenges are permitted, as recruiting allies, sidekicks and whatnot is an acceptable trope. Environmental challenges are also permitted - they are really combats, but with nature herself as the antagonist.)

I would hope they redo some of the old modules like White Plume Mountain and Against the Giants as 4E would be perfect for them.

I'm not sure about WPM, because so much of its wackiness depends upon AD&D's lack of action resolution mechanics.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

not to do nitpicking, but there´s a difference between "mass" and "weight" and you are mixing them: mage hand limitation is measured in [lbs] this is a mass unit. weight is measured in newton (kg*m/s^2) so the loss of gravity doesn´t put anything into the mage hand's limit.

Actually, if we're nitpicking, the pound can ALSO be a measure of weight (unlike the kilogram which is explicitly mass). And given the use of the word "weighing" in the rules, it's a viable interpretation. This is also why an American spring scale can be interpreted as accurate on the moon but a European one isn't. ;-)

 

[Imban]

We're seeing the exact same thing with the Pit Fiend, by the way. Simulationists want to know how the Pit Fiend survives in the Nine Hells, how they weave their intrigue, how they can set up their fortifications, and all that good stuff. Because it isn't in the description/stat block, by their play style, the stat block is a definition for the creature. I think this is yet another clash between the Simulationist approach and, in this case according to definitions in this thread, a Narritivist approach. Actually, I think a whole lot of these arguments could break down into this very topic itself.

It's not good or bad, but it obviously clashes with a lot of people's preferred play style.

I'm personally pretty hard Simulationist, with Gamism coming in a very, very close second, and Narrativism not even being something I consider. Essentially, I try to run, and prefer to play in, games of heroes going around and being awesome and having fair and fun combats in a logical and consistent world. As such, I definitely consider a stat block the definition of a creature, but I very want them to (more or less) turn out a fun game. Pretty much everything you mentioned is pretty easy to get me to accept, though - and equally easy to make stupid enough that I can't.

How a Pit Fiend sets up fortifications doesn't really bother me - they've got all the basic abilities of real-life humans and then a ton, so they just build a fortress or get their slaves to do it for them. Now, a Beholder with a constructed lair? That needs a bit more interesting explanation that addresses the "how"s, considering a Beholder has no useful appendages.

How a Pit Fiend survives in the Nine Hells currently doesn't bother me that much either. So, they don't have Fast Healing... but they're still miles ahead of human politicians and celebrities in their ability to ward off assassination attempts, even when injured, simply because they can summon monsters and shrug off a ballista bolt to the face. However, it's still something I'd consider - if the fluff states or heavily implies that only a monster or NPC's vast personal power keeps it from getting whooped on the spot and the combat stats state that it has no such vast personal power, I have trouble buying it.

How they weave their intrigue? Well, as written they're superhumanly good at weaving intrigue in purely mortal manners and can kick ass when it comes down to it. And hey, if that wasn't enough, they can also grant Wishes once a century - the potential for corrupting people is obvious there. Because I work based on the stat block and the hard rules as a definition of the creature, however, it'd jar me to see a Pit Fiend using non-combat abilities that are never ascribed to them on the whims of an adventure designer or DM - you can raise a lot of Cain with a +22 Diplomacy, +27 Bluff, and +27 Intimidate, but you can't possess and speak through a bald seven-year-old with eyes of deep red flames. (As an aside, it's certainly possible for a DM or adventure designer to assign a specific monster an ability distinct from the racial standard. Sometimes this is cool to me, sometimes it comes off as "...yeah well this one can!" I honestly can't tell you what the dividing line is, save that I know it as soon as I see it.)

One of things that does get me, especially since 3e was terrible about this, is when fluff and stats are drastic mismatches. Even taking into account the point of view that only combat statistics are necessary, combat statistics say a lot about a being's place in the world. If Asmodeus is a level 28 solo monster and he rules unquestionably over dozens of level-36 to level-43 solo monsters that could each individually kill him in a split second, consistency's gone pretty irrevocably out the window.

As an aside, the ring thing really doesn't bother me from a simulationist point of view at all. It quite probably makes some balance sense (of course, it might not at all) and is easy enough to explain in a consistent and logical fashion. It does bother me greatly, but that's because I don't view D&D as a vehicle solely for presenting "D&D fantasy." If I'm running a game inspired by whatever the heck else - let's say Diablo II, for fun - I don't want the system imposing upon me that I can't improve or debilitate ability scores in any way or that people wearing two rings from level 1 are verboten or that only weapons, armors, and cloaks/pendants can have solid numerical benefits.

 

[Greg K]

Simulationists want to know how the Pit Fiend survives in the Nine Hells, how they weave their intrigue, how they can set up their fortifications, and all that good stuff. Because it isn't in the description/stat block, by their play style, the stat block is a definition for the creature.

I consider myself more simulationist than gamist. Yet, I don't care how the Pit Fiend survives in the Nine Hells unless their abilities do not back up their ability to dominate lesser inhabitants. And, I could definitely care less about how they set up fortifications.

What I do care about are the following which break my suspension of disbelief:

1) Rings not being able to hold trivial powers that low level characters can utilize. I could easily imagine a wizard who enjoys traveling or lives in a cold environment, likes the little comforts and posessing a fondness for jewelry creating such an item. I also think it is reasonable that anyone wearing the ring would benefit from it. As such, level limits for benefitting all rings seems completely arbitrary and gamist to me.

2) character's gaining automatic bonuses to skills in which they have not been trained, have not had the opportunity to utilize or acquire knowledge of simply because they are of higher level ( I seem to recall the Star Wars: Saga Edition being mentioned as being in. If not scratch this.)

3) per encounter magic.
Player A: "What do you mean you can't use spell x again? You said that spell x is weaker (or of equal power) than spell y. So, why can you cast spell y now, but not spell x?"
Player B: " I don't know why other than the rules say so".


4) Per encounter combat maneuvers
I agree that physical combat needs to be made more interesting, but I thought the implementation of ToB: Bo9s was horrible. Prevent abusing powerful maneuvers by making it risky to attempt maneuvers with more powerful maneuevers carrying bigger risks for attempting them. It is the risk involved that keeps fighters from routinely using certain maneuvers unless they outclass an opponent, set up the attack, or the opponent drops their guard (whether due to injury, fatigue, a succesful feint, or inexperience). Otherwise, such maneuvers are used to catch an opponent of-guard or the fighter feels the risk is worth attempting to quickly disable the opponent or otherwise end the fight.

5) characters starting encounters fully refreshed
Hmm. I can use ability x only once during this one long fight, but I four seperate encounters within that same time span, I can use the same ability 4 times.

6) the bleeding rules: I am fine with the bloodied state inflicting penalties and indicating how the battle is going. However, I dislike the idea that the dragon breath weapon attack from that one early playtest example (or was it a design journal) might apply to all dragon's of that type, because the designers thought it was a "kewl" ability.

7) Keeping luck and skill as aspects of hit points. We now have game elements that can reflect skill and luck and, imo, hit points no longer need to reflect these elements. Skill is covered by level bonuses to save and class defense bonuses. Luck can be simulated by the use of action points. As for lethal blows being turned into nicks, action points expenditure could be used for this as can creating a feat or ability to roll with a blow. Furthermore, by removing luck and skill, there is no longer the bizarreness of healing spells curing luck and skill.

 

[Hussar]

4) Per encounter combat maneuvers
I agree that physical combat needs to be made more interesting, but I thought the implementation of ToB: Bo9s was horrible. Prevent abusing powerful maneuvers by making it risky to attempt maneuvers with more powerful maneuevers carrying bigger risks for attempting them. It is the risk involved that keeps fighters from routinely using certain maneuvers unless they outclass an opponent, set up the attack, or the opponent drops their guard (whether due to injury, fatigue, a succesful feint, or inexperience). Otherwise, such maneuvers are used to catch an opponent of-guard or the fighter feels the risk is worth attempting to quickly disable the opponent or otherwise end the fight.

The problem is, increasing randomness only punishes the PC's in the long run. Say you have a pretty decent maneuver that will bite you in the ass 1 time in 20. For monsters, they should use that every time. They are only going to make so many attacks on camera, so, the chances of it coming up are fairly slim.

For the PC's, OTOH, it will come up. Guaranteed. And, if it is bad enough, it results in a dead PC. Thus, players find a mid point between risk and reward and stick there all the time. The high risk/high reward maneuvers are avoided since it will kill you and the low/risk low/reward maneuvers aren't worth any risk.

Trying to balance mechanics through punishment never, ever works.

 

[small pumpkin man]

I consider myself more simulationist than gamist. Yet, I don't care how the Pit Fiend survives in the Nine Hells unless their abilities do not back up their ability to dominate lesser inhabitants. And, I could definitely care less about how they set up fortifications.

What I do care about are the following which break my suspension of disbelief:

1) Rings not being able to hold trivial powers that low level characters can utilize. I could easily imagine a wizard who enjoys traveling or lives in a cold environment, likes the little comforts and posessing a fondness for jewelry creating such an item. I also think it is reasonable that anyone wearing the ring would benefit from it. As such, level limits for benefitting all rings seems completely arbitrary and gamist to me.

3.x Potions and wands can only hold low level powers, Rods work differently than staves, Certain types of bonuses work better in certain slots, Magic and Magic Items have always had arbitrary rules, it's Magic. Oh, and btw? the ring rules are fairly obviously narrativist, they could easily be balanced without the tier restrictions, they're more likely to be there to make getting a ring an important story event for the character (helping to keep magic items "special" in the higher levels).

2) character's gaining automatic bonuses to skills in which they have not been trained, have not had the opportunity to utilize or acquire knowledge of simply because they are of higher level ( I seem to recall the Star Wars: Saga Edition being mentioned as being in. If not scratch this.)

3.x characters could take ranks in things which they'd had no training in, this is less silly since it's supposed to refer to their general knowledge, life skills and "main character"ness instead of specific training. In fact the way a character like, say, a 20th level Paladin, who can fall from orbit twice and then kill an elephant with a rusty spoon, but has trouble to climbing a tree or swimming a river was one of the larger verisimilitude problems I had with 3.x.

3) per encounter magic.
Player A: "What do you mean you can't use spell x again? You said that spell x is weaker (or of equal power) than spell y. So, why can you cast spell y now, but not spell x?"
Player B: " I don't know why other than the rules say so".

Again, exactly the same, the difference between resting 8 hours and resting 5 minutes should be non-existent in terms of verisimilitude.

4) Per encounter combat maneuvers
I agree that physical combat needs to be made more interesting, but I thought the implementation of ToB: Bo9s was horrible. Prevent abusing powerful maneuvers by making it risky to attempt maneuvers with more powerful maneuevers carrying bigger risks for attempting them. It is the risk involved that keeps fighters from routinely using certain maneuvers unless they outclass an opponent, set up the attack, or the opponent drops their guard (whether due to injury, fatigue, a succesful feint, or inexperience). Otherwise, such maneuvers are used to catch an opponent of-guard or the fighter feels the risk is worth attempting to quickly disable the opponent or otherwise end the fight.

So long as casters had similar (or different but equivalent) penalties you could do that, it would require messing around though. I personally think per encounter martial powers work fine, although they are fairly abstract, yes.

5) characters starting encounters fully refreshed
Hmm. I can use ability x only once during this one long fight, but I four seperate encounters within that same time span, I can use the same ability 4 times.

Yes, that would be the "resting 5 minutes part", there's nothing wrong here.

6) the bleeding rules: I am fine with the bloodied state inflicting penalties and indicating how the battle is going. However, I dislike the idea that the dragon breath weapon attack from that one early playtest example (or was it a design journal) might apply to all dragon's of that type, because the designers thought it was a "kewl" ability.

It's not in because it's "kewl", it's in because it makes the fight more interesting, dynamic and hopefully enjoyable, that's what gamist means. I could give you an explanation for how it works, but ultimately yes, it's in there for gamist reasons.

Specific Dragon abilities aside, if Bloodied is 80-90% of the time a bad thing, then at least the idea of Bloodied makes hp better from both a simulationist and a gamist PoV, can't always do that, but it's nice when it does happen.

7) Keeping luck and skill as aspects of hit points. We now have game elements that can reflect skill and luck and, imo, hit points no longer need to reflect these elements. Skill is covered by level bonuses to save and class defense bonuses. Luck can be simulated by the use of action points. As for lethal blows being turned into nicks, action points expenditure could be used for this as can creating a feat or ability to roll with a blow. Furthermore, by removing luck and skill, there is no longer the bizarreness of healing spells curing luck and skill.

How exactly is healing spells healing morale and luck "bizarre"? A cleric using their faith to raise morale and give the blessing of luck makes more sense and is far less wacky and out there than it literally closing wounds.


Look, most of these are just "4e works different to older editions", they make no more or less sense than their 3.x or 2e equivalents, the only parts where verisimilitude is taking second seating to gameplay are martial per encounter abilities, and maybe some abilities based off bloodied, and it's not like they can't be explained and fit into the world if your willing to take the time.

 

[Vegepygmy]

This whole discussion is a confused mess because certain posters have failed to define their terms. Half of us are talking in Forgespeak (not necessarily a bad thing) and half of us are assuming that 'simulationism' means realism, which is a common-sense thing to assume if you're not familiar with Forgist game design theory.

And some posters seem to be using the GDS or "Threefold Model" definition of simulationism, which predates Ron Edwards's GNS model used by The Forge.

Threefold Simulationism Explained

"Threefold Model" @ wikipedia

The Threefold Model FAQ

 

[Lanefan]

I want the campaigns I run to be entertaining, fun, internally consistent from start to finish (e.g. no splatbooks or drastic rule changes introduced halfway through), somewhat whimsical at times, luck-based to a significant degree, long (5+ years minimum), larger than any one player or PC (i.e. able to withstand the unforeseen loss of same for whatever reason), a place where what the character would do is what the character does (e.g. if it makes sense that a PC would choose to leave the party, it leaves), and a place where powergaming is of little use.

What kind of '-ist' does that make me?

Lanefan

 

[Alnag]

Oh good lord. It was only a matter of time, till the Forge poison will spill here as well.

I use terms simulationism, gamism and dramatism in a way they were originally meant, not in that twisted "newspeak" meaning created for the cause of diverting discussions. For that look here rather than the Forge:

http://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/theory/threefold/origin.html

http://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/theory/threefold/simulationism.html

http://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/theory/threefold/faq_v1.html

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Fire-breathing dragons that defy physics via thier mass, wingspan, and aerodynamics.....who cares? This is fantasy....it is a story....Dragons are magical creatures that fly by the use of thier wings assisted by some sort of magic that neither needs to be detailed, nor really matters. The point is that they almost could fly on their own, but have that little bit of fantasy edge in the form of magic. It is not realistic, but relatively sensible. But Rings that don't function until some arbitrary point in a person's life after they have performed a number of travels, fended off a number of creatures, and successfully socially interacted with enough people? I'm open to suggestions of explinations.....but until then....

Every rule can be explained in a simulationist way, including this one. In this world people's souls or spirits become stronger as they accomplish great deeds. The stuff of magic is attracted to those that interest them by doing "great" things, whether they be good or evil or anywhere in between. Maybe the gods decreed that it be so, maybe the particle stuff of magic is naturally attracted to powerful souls naturally. As people accomplish more and more of these great deeds their soul becomes stronger. It is known that people with strong souls are much luckier than everyone else. They are able to survive poisons that would drop lesser people in no time. They are able to survive damage that would rip someone in half. They have stronger will power than others. It is because of this will power that they can command rings who are notoriously stubborn and hard to command. Perhaps the rings draw their power from the soul of the wearer and don't have enough energy in the hands of a "lesser" soul.

It is just as magical an impossible as a dragon flying. Both require an impossible explanation to explain. The point is that simulationist play can be done with ANY rules. It's that most people don't want to simulate the world created by WOTC, they want to simulate a different one that only exists in their head(or one that looks mostly like the real world in some cases).

To be fair, 3.x has an aspect that I wholly dropped/changed because it made little or no sense to me in the sense of telling a story: charging XP for spellcasting or item creation. Instead, the "Power Component" optional rule is a standard requirement.

The above explanation works fine for magic item creation as well. Imbuing part of your soul into an item to allow it to function but it gets more powerful as you do great things, so it will come back.