Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Silent Cartographer" data-source="post: 4017240" data-attributes="member: 57089">Nail, meet hammer, heheh...&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> I agree that 4E is going to upset a lot of closet simulationists this spring.The design architecture for 4E clearly a vision of gamist flexibility and power, and supports narrative play mainly through the abstraction provided by that architecture. That same level of abstraction is what drives some simulation fans nutty.D&amp;D has never been particularly simulationist, but I agree with the OP that 3E gave the most support for sim-style D&amp;D compared to previous editions. Have you seen the Rules of the Game web articles that dig into the rules at an excruciating level of detail? Try the&nbsp; <a href="http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040629a" target="_blank">flying movement rules</a> (part 3 of 7 on movement!); that level of simulation was never attempted by previous editions. So I think there will be 3E fans who are disappointed that 4E is &quot;moving backward&quot; in that regard.However, I do think there is room for 'sandbox' style simulation. There may not be 'support' from the rules, but there are layers of gameplay above the rules layer (the so-called 'meta-game') that is free to be shaped in any way the GM and players choose. Grand Theft Auto is hardly realistic from a nitty-gritty POV, but it's a classic example of sandbox gameplay, and still has a consistent (if very silly) framework of cause and effect.I recently became aware of Ben Robbin's <a href="http://arsludi.lamemage.com/index.php/78/grand-experiments-west-marches/" target="_blank">West Marches</a> D&amp;D campaign articles, which I think are brilliant. I believe this is a classic example of a low-narrative, sandbox-style D&amp;D sim campaign that would work with any edition, including 4th.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Silent Cartographer, post: 4017240, member: 57089"] Nail, meet hammer, heheh... ;) I agree that 4E is going to upset a lot of closet simulationists this spring. The design architecture for 4E clearly a vision of gamist flexibility and power, and supports narrative play mainly through the abstraction provided by that architecture. That same level of abstraction is what drives some simulation fans nutty. D&D has never been particularly simulationist, but I agree with the OP that 3E gave the most support for sim-style D&D compared to previous editions. Have you seen the [i]Rules of the Game[/i] web articles that dig into the rules at an excruciating level of detail? Try the [URL=http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040629a]flying movement rules[/URL] (part 3 of 7 on movement!); that level of simulation was never attempted by previous editions. So I think there will be 3E fans who are disappointed that 4E is "moving backward" in that regard. However, I do think there is room for 'sandbox' style simulation. There may not be 'support' from the rules, but there are layers of gameplay above the rules layer (the so-called 'meta-game') that is free to be shaped in any way the GM and players choose. [i]Grand Theft Auto[/i] is hardly realistic from a nitty-gritty POV, but it's a classic example of sandbox gameplay, and still has a consistent (if very silly) framework of cause and effect. I recently became aware of Ben Robbin's [URL=http://arsludi.lamemage.com/index.php/78/grand-experiments-west-marches/]West Marches[/URL] D&D campaign articles, which I think are brilliant. I believe this is a classic example of a low-narrative, sandbox-style D&D sim campaign that would work with any edition, including 4th. [/QUOTE]

Verification