The Impasse

[Imaro]

I believe, and I could be wrong here, that simulationism means that the mechanics of a game actually try to represent (or simulate) a specific thing. As an example in 3e, to "trip" someone is a mechanic but it is also concerned in representing to an extent someone or something actually being tripped in the simulated world. Thus certain things cannot be tripped or are harder to trip, etc...

While in 4e, the gamist mechanic of being knocked prone is less concerned with simulating any particular thing within the simulated world, but instead focuses on supplying a set of rules that create a mechanical effect when said condition is inflicted upon anything.

I could be wrong though.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Okay, now it has been shown that simulationism doesn't have to equal realism at all, so what's next on the accusations toward 4th edition? That it was made from the skin of little human children?

4E has two simulationist faults. First, it is more up front about not being realistic than previous editions. Second, it takes cares more about good gameplay than keeping the rules consistent in the sense of modeling a game world where the "reality" of the rules system applies equally to the PCs and the rest of the game world.

 

[Sadrik]

There have been MANY threads where people who like/love 4e have noted things about it that rubbed them wrong, but instead of pounding on WOTC, they decided to make a houserule and share it. More productive, less anger and unnecessary bashing. And I believe there are much fewer "blind followers" by your definition than you think there are.

This is where the blind truly shine.

 

[DandD]

First, it is more up front about not being realistic than previous editions.

But being less realistic does not equal being more simulationistic, does it? It's how the rules are applied for world-building, where they do emulate fictional physics (a very very dumb idea, of course, but somehow, it found its way into some kind of simplistic and overblown "theory" about roleplaying in general).

Second, it takes cares more about good gameplay than keeping the rules consistent in the sense of modeling a game world where the "reality" of the rules system applies equally to the PCs and the rest of the game world.

Inconsistent rules disqualify a ruleset to be "simulationistic". And 4th edition is packed up with tons of exceptions, like player characters, and how they interact with foes and environment, or the infamous no-sense-making economy, where only player characters characters walk around in equipment worth several baronies.

So how are these simulationist faults, if they disregard the basis of a simulated world?

 

[thecasualoblivion]

I think you are misreading me. I'm commenting on people who favor simulation being angry at 4E. As far as me, 4E and simulationism go, I say good riddance.

 

[Vegepygmy]

I believe, and I could be wrong here, that simulationism means that the mechanics of a game actually try to represent (or simulate) a specific thing.

Yep, you're wrong. (But don't worry; it's a common mistake.)

"simulationist" is a style which values resolving in-game events based solely on game-world considerations, without allowing any meta-game concerns to affect the decision. Thus, a fully simulationist GM will not fudge results to save PCs or to save her plot, or even change facts unknown to the players. Such a GM may use meta-game considerations to decide meta-game issues like who is playing which character, whether to play out a conversation word for word, and so forth, but she will resolve actual in-game events based on what would "really" happen.

 

[Vegepygmy]

4E has two simulationist faults.

I assume you mean "4E has two faults, from a simulationist perspective."

First, it is more up front about not being realistic than previous editions.

Right. It has explicitly embraced gamism over simulationism.

Second, it takes cares more about good gameplay than keeping the rules consistent in the sense of modeling a game world where the "reality" of the rules system applies equally to the PCs and the rest of the game world.

Right again. It has explicitly embraced gamism over simulationism.

 

[xechnao]

Yep, you're wrong. (But don't worry; it's a common mistake.)

"simulationist" is a style which values resolving in-game events based solely on game-world considerations, without allowing any meta-game concerns to affect the decision. Thus, a fully simulationist GM will not fudge results to save PCs or to save her plot, or even change facts unknown to the players. Such a GM may use meta-game considerations to decide meta-game issues like who is playing which character, whether to play out a conversation word for word, and so forth, but she will resolve actual in-game events based on what would "really" happen.

What if these meta-game considerations become game-world considerations? People know about risks, know they can die for example and they live and react according to that.

EDIT: Of course this will make what worked as was meta-game more in-game but I see only benefits in this.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

As far support for stunts is concerned: MMOGs showed us that if an option is less efficient, it'll not get used often. As long as stunts are not better than powers players are discouraged from making stunts.

I am not sure if you missed my post regarding that, but:
4E stunts are not weaker than powers.

 

[Fenes]

And what about my point that if stunts trump powers, why have powers? And my example that stunts can be used to come up with something roughly equal to a power, but more useful to the circumstances at hand?

I do not want powers (at least not martial encounter/dailies). I'd much prefer more at-wills and have the martial encounter/dailies be replaced by stunts (which would also be only limited by DM fiat/description).