The Death of Simulation

[jdrakeh]

Simulation has been eliminated as a design goal in 4e.

Simulation was eliminated as a design goal back in 1976. Read the AD&D 1e DMG sometime. In it, Gary clearly states that when fun clashed with simulatuion in design, fun took precedence every single time. D&D has never been about simulation by design.

 

[Imban]

A few minor differences for combat perhaps, which again only makes up a very small fraction of world design and simulationism. Whether goblins get 5 imaginary hit points if they are an NPC or 10 imaginary hit points as a PC is nearly insignificant to me in terms of campaign style. I can see how if you use a streamlined system you're sacrificing detail for time, but these details come down to such a small resolution: who wins in combat. There are so many other resolutions to take into account that determine simulationism, and I've seen nothing new in 4E so far that would impact this.

Perhaps you missed my reference, in which I deliberately and intentionally referenced NPCs that, as NPCs, get unique abilities to regain HP and gain attack bonuses when they pass their saves against spells, grant Spell Resistance 14 to everyone in the area at level 4, and draw out the souls of their minions to heal themselves and power themselves up - all major abilities that PCs can never get that are much more significant than a few numbers being a bit higher or lower on the sheets because the monster used quick-play rules instead of full rules.

The light from a flashlight can last 6 seconds or 20 minutes depending on how it's used. I think this is is a clear area where the argument has no leg to stand on yet.

Er, what? If I turn on a working flashlight, it works until the battery dies, it breaks, or I turn it off. If I'm walking through a dark room, then a lit room, then a dark cave complex, I'm not forced to turn off my flashlight in the lit room, and probably wouldn't if there was a cave complex dead ahead.

'Real' races? IMO even the stat blocks in 3.5 only reflected streamlined combat templates, whether they were to be used as PCs or NPCs. You had to use much more than a stat block to simulate their society and non-combat behavior.

I meant as being capable of having the mechanical variety the full build system grants you, over being geared solely for being quickly dropped into an encounter without mechanical support beyond "well, make it up yourself" for variations.

 

[marune]

Simulation was eliminated as a design goal back in 1976. Read the AD&D 1e DMG sometime. In it, Gary clearly states that when fun clashed with simulatuion in design, fun took precedence every single time. D&D has never been about simulation by design.

Alignments and classes with built-in ethical code like Paladin "implicity" supported simulationist play from the begining of AD&D.

I could find many others examples (2E non-weapon proficiency comes to mind, DMG guidelines about "statu-quo" encounters, etc.)

 

[Charwoman Gene]

In it, Gary clearly states

Gary, like many people on this thread, including the OP, clearly had no business misusing GNS Forge-speak. He really should have researched the way they were used before committing them to paper in the DMG.

 

[takasi]

Perhaps you missed my reference, in which I deliberately and intentionally referenced NPCs that, as NPCs, get unique abilities to regain HP and gain attack bonuses when they pass their saves against spells, grant Spell Resistance 14 to everyone in the area at level 4, and draw out the souls of their minions to heal themselves and power themselves up - all major abilities that PCs can never get that are much more significant than a few numbers being a bit higher or lower on the sheets because the monster used quick-play rules instead of full rules.

How is this any obtainable by a PC than the arbitrary extraordinary, supernatural and spell-like abilities of monsters in 3rd edition?

Er, what? If I turn on a working flashlight, it works until the battery dies, it breaks, or I turn it off. If I'm walking through a dark room, then a lit room, then a dark cave complex, I'm not forced to turn off my flashlight in the lit room, and probably wouldn't if there was a cave complex dead ahead.

I was pointing out that variability in effects is not the issue, it's control. We have heard nothing about how much control a party has over when an encounter starts. This is a case where there is a lot of speculation but no actual rules.

I meant as being capable of having the mechanical variety the full build system grants you, over being geared solely for being quickly dropped into an encounter without mechanical support beyond "well, make it up yourself" for variations.

We've yet to see why you can't give a pit fiend fighter levels if you want to, and we've yet to see the system for increasing the pit fiend's natural abilities.

 

[Psion]

4E design rightly seems to be clearly/explicitly gamist, however I won't be sure until I read the DMG.

IMHO, that's a good thing because the gamist/sim mix in D&D was often incoherent.

That sounds like the oft repeated falsehood of the forge.

That there are different pursuits in playing and designing game is the "true" bit in threefold theories.

That they are true and pure like is was some physically distinct state of being like solid/liquid/gas is a forge falsehood. There is a significant overlap between many possible design goals. Whether or not incoherence exists is a function of individual parts of the game and how they play with each other, not straddling the lines that only exist in someone's model.


As to the OP: thank you for hitting on one of the main 2 reasons that 4e is looking like it will not be "the game for me."

 

[Reynard]

Simulation was eliminated as a design goal back in 1976. Read the AD&D 1e DMG sometime. In it, Gary clearly states that when fun clashed with simulatuion in design, fun took precedence every single time. D&D has never been about simulation by design.

That passage refers largely to the simulation of medieval combat, not the simulation of a particular milieu.

 

[marune]

That there are different pursuits in playing and designing game is the "true" bit in threefold theories.

That they are true and pure like is was some physically distinct state of being like solid/liquid/gas is a forge falsehood. There is a significant overlap between many possible design goals. Whether or not incoherence exists is a function of individual parts of the game and how they play with each other, not straddling the lines that only exist in someone's model.

When I say "gamist" design, of course it's a shortcut for a RPG that is designed in a way that playing as written will help the players pursue a gamist agenda over the course of a instance of play.

When a say clear/explicit design, I mean that players/DM will find in the book something like "The goal of the D&D game is to X Y Z". For instance, an explicit gamist D&D could say that the goal is to overcome enough challenges trough adventures to finally succeed and retire at 30th level (you win!).

 

[LostSoul]

That they are true and pure like is was some physically distinct state of being like solid/liquid/gas is a forge falsehood. There is a significant overlap between many possible design goals. Whether or not incoherence exists is a function of individual parts of the game and how they play with each other, not straddling the lines that only exist in someone's model.

As far as design goes, I think I agree with you.

Do you buy into the idea that each of GNS are (pretty much) incompatable in actual play? I have a follow up question for you depending on whether or not you think that's true.

 

[Doug McCrae]

There are several problems with The Forge:

1) They use lots of manufactured terminology. This terminology is explained very, very, very badly. I mean really badly. Normally only academics are this bad at explaining a concept. Never ever go to the Forge if you want an explanation of GNS, go here instead. GNS is actually really simple:

Gamism is all about challenging the players. Players solving a riddle instead of rolling their PCs' Solve Riddle skill? Pure gamism.

Narrativism is all about story.

Simulationism is all about (you guessed it) simulation. Not necessarily medieval reality, or even medieval reality with magic. You might be trying to simulate fiction. It can sometimes be hard to tell the difference between a simulation of fiction (ie a story) and narrativism.


2) They're dead wrong that games are worse when they mix GNS. It is, in fact, essential as WotC's market research demonstrated. This shows that there are several necessary features all players want from an rpg. Amongst these are tactical challenge and a good story which shows a game (by which I mean a period of units of play, not a published product) cannot succeed unless it has both gamist and narrativist elements.