The Death of Simulation

[Lanefan]

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

This is a fact.

This is a theory, as at this point is much of what we know about 4e. That said, the evidence is piling up fast...

D&D 4e is not ideally suited to sandbox play or rules-emergent world building.

What do you mean by "sandbox play"?

We don't need 40 Threads that amount to whining about this fact.

Yes we do. As it has been stated that initial design is even now still in flux - never mind secondary design for the second-third-fourth round of core releases - *and* that WotC are paying at least some attention to what is said here, then having 40, or 60, or 320 posts/threads asking "where'd the simulation (def.: realism) go?" would indicate there's at least some desire for them to keep it/put it back.

I feel bad for simulation players and DMs, it reflects the sandbox experience I wish I could find others to enjoy with me. 3e was kind of a heyday for you. But its done, if you want to protest, speak with your wallet and voices, but let the criticism focus on what can be fixed.

I'm not sure 3e was the heyday here, as it was more rules-heavy. The lighter the rule-set, the more (or less) realistic things can be made, depending on the DM.

Lanefan

 

[Dragonblade]

I say nuke it from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

Nice! My game group quotes that all the time.

 

[Kunimatyu]

jep, but there is only one verb which is used for both^^ and lb is still a mass unit

another problem is, that you can´t use enchanted mage hand things to propell your ship, because at least the magehand thingy is magical... so it doesn´t work even then.

But maybe you could try using a magic/antimagic drive and use the free energy...

Or handwave it with an Eldritch Machine and get on with the damn story?

 

[SkidAce]

The ring thing is part and parcel for the simulationist/gamist divide.

The Simulationist sees that you can't wear Rings until 11th level and asks "Why is the character able to put on a Ring and nothing happen at 10th, but at 11th level the ring functions?" And from that starting point, the question is answered.

The Gamist sees that you can't wear Rings until 11th level and asks "What powers does a Ring have that make it inappropriate for a character of 10th level, but appropriate for a character of 11th level?" And from that starting point, the question is answered.

This is the true difference between the simulationist and the gamist. And, this is why I think, as far as the 4e rules are concerned, the designers are putting gamist questions ahead of the simulationist.

Well said....what shall we call a halfbreed with mixed simulationalist/gamist parentage?

Cause I think that's where I fall...

 

[Professor Phobos]

In a clearly gamist RPG, the DM is a opponent, not a storyteller.

That's not true; even in a gamist RPG, the GM still has the fundamental duty of all GMs:

"Ensure everyone has a good time."

Now, when people pick "gamist" play, they're having fun facing down challenges presented by the GM, granting it a semblance of adversarial play. But the "everyone has fun!" objective is overriding.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Well said....what shall we call a halfbreed with mixed simulationalist/gamist parentage?

Cause I think that's where I fall...

simugamalist!

 

[SkidAce]

sounds.....kinky...

does Eric's grandma approve?

 

[mmadsen]

What shall we call a halfbreed with mixed simulationalist/gamist parentage?

Normal.

Most people want a game that simulates a fantasy world full of adventure. They want a challenge, but they want it to be free-form enough that they can "think out of the box" and not just run the numbers within a well-defined list of options.

 

[Alnag]

D&D is pretty simulationist game and it always was. It is a simulation of specific genre indeed. Not real world physics. It simulates sword & sorcery fantasy. Heroic one. It do a great job. It works. And I see no big change in this paradigm...

D&D has a great element of gamism. Indeed. It has XPs and challenges... but it might not be used solely that way. And if it is not, the other part of it - the simulation one is stronger than.

There is not much of a drama, although one might speculate about this one as well, and I have heard pretty good specualtion about it too.

But please, spare us bitching about how the game is no longer simulationist. In your definition of that it never was in the first place. In mine it still is and will be.

 

[Cbas_10]

The ring thing is part and parcel for the simulationist/gamist divide.

The Simulationist sees that you can't wear Rings until 11th level and asks "Why is the character able to put on a Ring and nothing happen at 10th, but at 11th level the ring functions?" And from that starting point, the question is answered.

The Gamist sees that you can't wear Rings until 11th level and asks "What powers does a Ring have that make it inappropriate for a character of 10th level, but appropriate for a character of 11th level?" And from that starting point, the question is answered.

This is the true difference between the simulationist and the gamist. And, this is why I think, as far as the 4e rules are concerned, the designers are putting gamist questions ahead of the simulationist.

Well, if I had to label myself, this would firmly entrench me with the Simulationist crowd. Unless, of course, there is something in the game that would give some reason - from more of a character's perspective - why this phenomenon exists.

Wait....I guess that is still simulationist. But, I don't need realism as much as I want a sensible reason why something works like it does. "Wizards can make +2 armor once they reach 6th level because they are then able to channel that much energy and harness that power when they have sufficient skill" seems a lot more sensible and interesting in a story sense than "your Ring of Doing-Something-Interesting won't work until you have garnered a certain amount of skill and experience that has nothing at all to do with wearing and using that Ring."