The Death of Simulation

[Greg K]

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).

Sorry, this is stepping on the DMs toes. How special rings are should be, imo, a DM decision based on the campaign not the designers.

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.

Accept
a) a guide mentiions insitituting training rules.
b) the DM saying no to putting ranks in a certain skill due to lack of training or having encountering situtations where the character could have developed the skill.

Then there is also Sean Reynolds Fewer Absolute article which opens up many trained skills to untrained characters without granting automatic bonuses based on level.

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.

My problem is with the paladin falling from orbit. I have no problem with the paladin not being a good climber. The character sould have been buying ranks in the skill if he had been climbing during his early training or later during his adventures (the same goes for swimming).

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

I never said Vancian was good. I am glad that they removed Vancian. However, the solution has introduced its own problems that are just as bad, imo. Better solutions already exist in 3e from third parties. Simply introducing hp loss or some other mechanic to represent strain and fatigue that can be recovered by taking time to rest or at a slower pace by engaging in non-strenous activites.

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.

My issue is not with differences between 4e and past editions. Every edition has its odd rules. My issue is with the designers of the new edition introducing odd rules of their own -especially, when the rule attempts to fix problems with spell casting and stale combat would have been fine if it had not broke verisimilitude, Why were 3rd parties able to offer solutions that fixed the problem while not breaking verisimitude?

As for taking the time to explain odd gamist rules that break verisimilitude, the fact that I can do so doesn't change the fact that the rules requiring me to do so exist. And, attempting to explain some of the rules to fit the world is still going to strain credibiity (per encounter for instance).

 

[loseth]

I don't think there is a "one true answer" when designing a game. For a game to have mechanical consistency you need to control the numbers carefully.

I agree with both of those assertions, though I don't think the latter affects or is affected by GNS.

If a character is expected to have a +10 to hit at 12th level then allowing an item into the game that would increase that to +40 would be perfectly acceptable by immersion sake(there is magic, with magic anything is possible, so it is possible to make an item that does that, so it makes sense that one exists). It isn't a good idea for game balance, however. So, one has to invent rules to prevent it for gamist reasons: "Magic doesn't get THAT powerful in this world."

Why can a wizard only cast so many spells per day? For balance reasons again.

Nearly every rule in the game sacrifices immersion in a world for mechanical benefit. Unless you have no problem immersing yourself in a world where all of those rules are true.

Here's where we disagree. This is what I mean by believeing (in my opinion falsely) that if you're doing one of GNS, you must be 'sacrificing' the other. I'm a serious immersionist, but the existence of a sword that makes someone hit his opponent every time not matter how poor his skill (which is effectively what the proposed +40 sword would be, assuming we're talking a D20-ish game) totally destroys my sense of immersion. It doesn't seem to fit with (simulate) the fantasy literature I know and love, thus jarring me from my immersion, and it doesn't fit my conception of how magic might affect the world were it real (simulating reality--i.e. verisimilitude). Now let's take a magic sword that, in the hands of a skillful warrior, increases his chance of defeating an opponent but doesn't make him invincible by any means. That provides genre emulation and verisimilitude for me, allowing me to immerse myself much more easilly in the game, setting and story. In this case, increasing the simulationist value of a given game element (the existence of magical sowrds and the bonuses they give) helps increase game balance and thus increases the gamist value of that same element.

Of course, as I stated earlier, there are places where two or more of GNS really do conflict and you'll have to choose, but I think there are many more situations (like the one above) where designers assume a conflict exists because the three elements of GNS are often wrongly portrayed as mutually exclusive 'styles.'

 

[Greg K]

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.

Other than the BAB penalties being slightly high (imo), I don't think the penalties from Book of Iron Might were out of line. The various penalties, if any, that a maneuver might cause included bab penalty, losing dex bonus, requiring a full round action, falling prone, suffering the effect of the attack, the opponent getting an attack or skill check that might disrupt the maneuver, the opponent getting saving throws to resist additional effects ( dazed, deafened, stunned, limb temporarily disabled (inflicting an attribute or other penalty), temporary blindness, knocking them prone), and a maneuver doing no damage just the additional effect .

As for biting the players, there are ways to address that.
If the player is the attacker:
- action points to improve the attack roll, gain a reroll (minimum roll 10), temporarily negate a maneuvers penalty.
- choosing to use a maneuver when the opponent is suffering penalties either from the damage track or from a previous successful maneuver
- the use of feats, talents that allow a second roll or temporarily inflict a penalty on the opponent's ability to defend.

if the player is the defender
- saving throws to avoid things like dazed, deafened, blindness, etc. It is really no different than resisting a spell and the opponent still has to successfully hit.
- opposed skill checks that can negate a maneuver's additional effect (or primary effect if it does know damage).
- action points to boost saving throws or allowing them to either offer a second roll (minimum die roll 10) or simply negate an affect
- feats or talents similar to those in M&M that allow second second saving throws.

 

[apoptosis]

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

That is a good point about D&D and its damage metaphor....funny my favorite game of the moment TSOY actually really uses 1 Harm tracker that integrates social, mental and physical damage, which I REALLY REALLY like.

For WPM..my feeling was that the addition of action resolution mechanics that i figured 4E was going to bring to the table would be why WPM would be a great module to redo. Maybe I am thinking about 4E incorrectly but I thought that 4E would really improve action resolution mechanics compared to previous editions.

We definitely seem to be on the same page it seems

 

[apoptosis]

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.

While I agree in principle, if you are a heavy simulationist perspective then this is not the likely outcome as the DM needs to think what would the monster do in a situation if it were the main character in the story.

 

[apoptosis]

I really find it very difficult to use GNS to meaningfully articulate what I like in terms of game design. I want a game that lets me enjoy overcoming challenges by immersing me in a fictional world through the window of characters participating in an entertaining story. Any time a game puts itself in a situation where the above are mutually exclusive--or, more often IME, a situation where the designer falsely believes that they are mutually exclusive--a little voice goes off in my head saying 'bad design: you should have thought about this a little more.'

There are definitely times where they can be exclusive.

Simulationism many times is exclusive of either gamism or narrativism.

XP is not simulationism in most peoples ideas of a fantasy world. You would get better at skills that you practiced though the system is such that you can get better at skills you didnt practive based on you having more XP.

It really is a question of in what circumstances do you want some choices dictated by one of the three perspectives.

This doesnt mean that you cant ad hoc all sorts of explanations to make your ideas seem consistent or part of the physics of the world, but that is irrelevant to the original intent of the design decision.

 

[apoptosis]

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).

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.

Making an ad hoc explanation for a gamist (or narrativist) design decision (rule) is NOT simulationism. It is an ad hoc explanation for a rule.

The perspectives that should be looked at is what is primary driving the design of the rule.

The entire discussion about simulationism is not about rationalizing why a rule could exist in the world, it is about why was the rule designed that way.

Now there are obvious cases where someone is trying to do both I want a cool rule that fits in with the simulation of the world, but generally the rule is designed to accomplish one of the goals (eg game balance, consistency with the genre fluff, giving characters the ability to narrate results in the story etc..)

 

[Blackwind]

Of course the real fatal flaw in 4E's design, and the real reason why people are getting so upset with the changes, is that the designers are intentionally moving away from both Retro and Stupid design features, thus shifting D&D from Retro Stupid (which is really fun) to some new abyss of reason which is neither Retro, nor Stupid, nor Pretentious... utter crap if you ask me.

Nowadays, and even moreso once 4E is released, gamers seeking Retro Stupid play will be forced to migrate to C&C, or revert to earlier editions of D&D.*

</onlylike80%joking>

http://jrients.blogspot.com/2006/02/i-got-your-threefold-model-right-here.html

---

*Don't flame me. I think C&C and older editions of D&D are fun, too.

 

[helium3]

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

What is this Forge poison you speak of?

 

[malladin]

GNS-Just Say No