Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 4018994" data-attributes="member: 4937">The 3rd edition flying movement rules are a simplification of the 1st edition rules as laid out in the DMG.&nbsp; Based on my reading of the first edition DMG, I think D&amp;D was explicitly simulationist from the offset.&nbsp; It spends a very large amount of time discussing the world's physics, as it where.&nbsp; It may have not had in its first stab an elegant ruleset for simulating things, but it was drawing in the near term from a wargaming mindset which is explicitly simulationist.&nbsp; One of the reasons that the 1st edition game was so prone to rules arguments was that many of the rules were laid out in a simulationist fashion - this happens because this is true about the interaction of X and Y - which prompted players to seek ad hoc rulings or disagree with ad hoc rulings based on thier understanding of the 'physics' of the situation.&nbsp; This was inherent in the rules.&nbsp;&nbsp; To view 1st edition D&amp;D as gamist because it does not have a the holistic approach to the rules we associate with modern simulationist games is I think viewing the game out of context.&nbsp;&nbsp; If you actually read the 1st edition DMG and the Dragon articles from the period of 1st edition, they are very much of the approach, 'When this happens in the world, how do we simulate it?'&nbsp; If everyone is adopting a different approach to the question, its mainly because when these questions are being asked they are often being asked for nearly the very first time.&nbsp; The rules set wasn't designed; it evolved.In any event, I think you are wrong to suggest that 3E represented the high point in D&amp;D's simulationism and we are only know moving from it.&nbsp; Things like 'Infravision' were taken out of the game precisely because the explaination involved too much rules trouble.&nbsp; The flight rules were simplified, and so forth.&nbsp; What 3E represents is not so much the height of simulationism in the game, but the height of simulationist elegance in the game.&nbsp; It produces the most elegant simulationist toolset of any edition. You are right however that 4E is no longer seeing this as a high priority design goal.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 4018994, member: 4937"] The 3rd edition flying movement rules are a simplification of the 1st edition rules as laid out in the DMG. Based on my reading of the first edition DMG, I think D&D was explicitly simulationist from the offset. It spends a very large amount of time discussing the world's physics, as it where. It may have not had in its first stab an elegant ruleset for simulating things, but it was drawing in the near term from a wargaming mindset which is explicitly simulationist. One of the reasons that the 1st edition game was so prone to rules arguments was that many of the rules were laid out in a simulationist fashion - this happens because this is true about the interaction of X and Y - which prompted players to seek ad hoc rulings or disagree with ad hoc rulings based on thier understanding of the 'physics' of the situation. This was inherent in the rules. To view 1st edition D&D as gamist because it does not have a the holistic approach to the rules we associate with modern simulationist games is I think viewing the game out of context. If you actually read the 1st edition DMG and the Dragon articles from the period of 1st edition, they are very much of the approach, 'When this happens in the world, how do we simulate it?' If everyone is adopting a different approach to the question, its mainly because when these questions are being asked they are often being asked for nearly the very first time. The rules set wasn't designed; it evolved. In any event, I think you are wrong to suggest that 3E represented the high point in D&D's simulationism and we are only know moving from it. Things like 'Infravision' were taken out of the game precisely because the explaination involved too much rules trouble. The flight rules were simplified, and so forth. What 3E represents is not so much the height of simulationism in the game, but the height of simulationist elegance in the game. It produces the most elegant simulationist toolset of any edition. You are right however that 4E is no longer seeing this as a high priority design goal. [/QUOTE]

Verification