The Impasse

[xechnao]

But to criticize 4e for not going off in a totally different direction and abandoning all the D&D things because MMOs have used some of those things is a bit... out there.

I understand this. The problem of the confusion is mostly if not totally myself I guess. But I find that this happens frequently so I am not surprised.

 

[RefinedBean]

I am not familiar with Reign.

Supposed to be pretty cool, a friend of mine owns it. I might read it just because I've been yearning for something RP related that's not D&D.

Don't mind me, just contributing to the thread drift.

 

[xechnao]

I don't play The Sims with multiple players and/or at a game table.

Neither do I. I mentioned it as an example of regarding what it could be done towards this direction.

I am not familiar with Reign.

Give it a look:
RPGnet : Review of REIGN
RPGnet : Review of Reign
RPGnet : Review of Reign
And if a review of a supplement just in case it draws your interest
RPGnet : Review of Reign Supplement One

 

[Burrito Al Pastor]

A game system forces you to roleplay situations or conditions that the system tries to emulate. If not you would never be inspired by it to use it as a roleplaying medium.

There's no such thing as a system that "forces" roleplaying; there's no way to mechanically enforce roleplaying, save for DM fiat that "you aren't roleplaying enough".

People don't roleplay in an RPG because the system incentivizes them to do so; they roleplay because they enjoy roleplaying, which is why they're playing an RPG in the first place.

 

[Burrito Al Pastor]

I do not cite [MMOs] as positive influences since I... don't really like tactical miniatures in an RPG either.

Oooh, bad news, champ.

 

[xechnao]

There's no such thing as a system that "forces" roleplaying; there's no way to mechanically enforce roleplaying, save for DM fiat that "you aren't roleplaying enough".

People don't roleplay in an RPG because the system incentivizes them to do so; they roleplay because they enjoy roleplaying, which is why they're playing an RPG in the first place.

Then why do they choose to play in an rpg or rather why do they choose an rpg if they want to roleplay? I would say that rpsystems are modelers of a certain kind of situations so if you use a system you use it to roleplay in the situations it models. You can roleplay without a system but you cant use a rpsystem and not roleplay. Of course a system that is not universal cant be used to roleplay in and for all possible situations. But you could still try to roleplay situations that remain untouched by a given system. There is a "problem" here though that a system may limit the various possible situations by the choices it directs you to make if you want to follow it. But I think I have been analyzing things again too much.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

xechnao, I don't want to be a jerk here, but it seems like you're whole argument against 4E is that "its not simulationist enough".

 

[xechnao]

xechnao, I don't want to be a jerk here, but it seems like you're whole argument against 4E is that "its not simulationist enough".

There have been a lot of arguments and this might be a way to put it but by certain standards that have been discussed here even 3e or classic D&D would not be simulationist enough. So if you are saying this by the standard of 3e I do not believe that it gets me covered.

 

[Shazman]

4e not simulationist enough? That's ridiculous. I mean in the real world, people regenerate their wounds completely after 6 hours of rest. Don't they? Real world archetypes of paladins were known to challenge enemies and punish them with laser beams if they backed down. Let's not forget that real world archetypes of clerics are known for throwing around laser beams and healing with equal proficiency. In the real world a drill seargeant can convince a mortally wounded soldier to shrug it off and keep fighting by yelling at him, right? Let's face it. 4e embraces gamism at the extreme with hardly a hint of realism.

 

[Scribble]

4e not simulationist enough? That's ridiculous. I mean in the real world, people regenerate their wounds completely after 6 hours of rest. Don't they? Real world archetypes of paladins were known to challenge enemies and punish them with laser beams if they backed down. Let's not forget that real world archetypes of clerics are known for throwing around laser beams and healing with equal proficiency. In the real world a drill seargeant can convince a mortally wounded soldier to shrug it off and keep fighting by yelling at him, right? Let's face it. 4e embraces gamism at the extreme with hardly a hint of realism.

I don't think any version of D&D has ever really embraced "realism" as a design/play goal.

That said, I think your definition of "simulationist" is incorrect. (From what I know of it.) Simmulationist doesn't = realism. (It might be another goal of a game that is built with the simulationist mindset, but one does not have to include the other.)