D&D 4E Turning 4e into a simulationist game

[Wik]

So, I'm sure this question has been asked before, but I want to ask it again. Basically - what sort of house rules/changes would be necessary to turn 4e into a Simulation-based game, as opposed to the "gamist" game it currently is?

A bit of expansion on that thought...

In earlier editions of D&D, for better or for worse (that's not the topic, here), the game sought to mimic the world's "reality". So, if it made sense for an item to cost 10 gp, even if that made things too easy or too hard for the PCs, then so be it. In 4e, however, the prices have been set with adventuring in mind.

An example of this shift can be seen in the price of plate mail. In 3e, plate mail was pretty expensive - no 1st level PC could start with it, and usually had to wait a few levels before it was theirs. In 4e, where Plate Mail is almost assumed gear for Paladin characters (and maybe a few fighters), the price of plate mail is easily within the grasp of any starting PC.

(Yes, I know BECMI had cheap plate mail, too... you don't need to point that out).

Animals are another example - in a general sense, animals in 3e were based around some sort of economic scale, while in 4e, they scale according to their "level".

Neither approach is right or wrong, per se. I'm just interested in turning 4e from a gamist approach, to a simulationist approach, because that's a play style I'm more interested in. (For what it's worth, I'm thinking of converting DARK SUN into 4e, and I'm convinced 4e DS needs to be more simulation than Gamist).

So, how do you do it? A few of my thoughts:

1) Remove Treasure Packets. PCs get wealth according to what is realistic within the confines of the encounter. To keep balance, magical items will be factored into a PC's improvement, as Mike Mearls suggested pre 4e release. Other magical items (or magical weapons/armour with special effects) will be discovered only rarely, and not by following some preset scheme.

2) Completely re-write the costs of everything, keeping the world's economy in mind. If this means that a spear is MUCH cheaper than a sword, so be it. And if it means the paladin will have a hard time finding his plate mail, oh well.

3) Remove many of the items that overcome some common difficulties - say goodbye to Sunrods (as they remove the fun that can be had by moving only by torchlight), Journey Bread (carrying rations is FUN!), and Everburning Torches.

4) Scale Mounts up, so that as PCs level, their mounts do as well. This will allow PCs to go to the market and buy a horse, instead of having to trade in their animals every five levels to keep "in sync" with things. Gah.

 

[GnomeWorks]

You may want to do something about the HP system in 4e, as well, as the whole "regain all your hp" after a rest is somewhat ridiculous. Healing surges don't seem to break versimilitude all that badly, though, depending on how you interpret them and how they interact with the HP system; perhaps you could keep them and combine them with some kind of VP/WP system, wherein healing surges fix VP but not WP?

Some kind of recharge mechanic for powers, or otherwise treat powers known as both "powers known" and "powers/encounter and powers/day." Something to break the weirdness of only being able to use a power once per encounter or once per day.

 

[LostSoul]

I could say...

Remove the possibility of death. PCs are action heroes, they don't die. If their HP are reduced to 0, they gain HP as if they spent a healing surge and can use a daily power (even if they've spent it) as an immediate reaction.

Or we could say...

Combat is dangerous and infection an ever-present threat. If a PC is hit by an attack, and the attack roll is greater than the PC's Fort defense, he becomes infected. Treat it like a disease, level 10.
Initial effect: the target can no longer spend healing surges, and takes a -2 penalty to all rolls.
One step up: the target is cured.
One failed Endurance check: The target loses HP equal to its bloodied value and loses another 10 HP after each short rest.
Another failed check: The target dies from blood poisoning.

Both are simulationist rules (the second, less so), but I don't think that's what you're going for.


So what do you mean by "simulationist"?

 

[FireLance]

1) Remove Treasure Packets. PCs get wealth according to what is realistic within the confines of the encounter. To keep balance, magical items will be factored into a PC's improvement, as Mike Mearls suggested pre 4e release. Other magical items (or magical weapons/armour with special effects) will be discovered only rarely, and not by following some preset scheme.

I think you've got the gist of an idea here, but I think you're conflating a low-magic (or rare-magic) game with a simulationist game. Treasure distribution in a simulationist game would probably mean a return to treasure types or some other system that describes the typical treasure that each kind of monster will have. The treasures typically possessed by the monsters would then be another factor that the DM would have to take into account during monster selection. If he wants to run a low/rare wealth/magic game, then he would pick monsters that typically had low amounts of treasure. If he wants to run a game with more wealth or magic, then he would pick monsters that give out higher amounts of treasure.

In fact, I think it is possible to marry a simulationist approach with treasure parcels by defining the typical amounts of treasure possessed by each monster in terms of treasure parcels. For example, a 4th-level orc might possess treasure equal to one-fifth of a 4th-level treasure parcel (so five of such orcs would provide a 4th-level party with 10% of the XP required to gain a level, and one of the ten treasure parcels that the game assumes they will find). On the other hand, an animal might have little or no treasure, while a dragon might have two or three equal-level treasure parcels in its hoard. A DM who wants to keep the game close to its standard assumptions would then have one dragon encounter for every one or two animal encounters.

3) Remove many of the items that overcome some common difficulties - say goodbye to Sunrods (as they remove the fun that can be had by moving only by torchlight), Journey Bread (carrying rations is FUN!), and Everburning Torches.

Here, I think you are conflating accounting or possibly simulating a low-convenience environment with simulation in general. I don't think 3e or previous editions stopped being simulationist simply because the PCs gained access to spells such as continual light or magic items such as Murlynd's spoon that mostly did away with the need to keep track of torches, food and water.

Scale Mounts up, so that as PCs level, their mounts do as well. This will allow PCs to go to the market and buy a horse, instead of having to trade in their animals every five levels to keep "in sync" with things.

This is a suggestion that I think most simulationists would disagree with. From the simulationist perspective, a normal horse that is caught in the area of a high level spell, the breath of an ancient dragon, or which is hit by a powerful monster should probably just die. The idea of "trading in" mounts for increasingly powerful creatures that are better able to survive the rigors of high-level adventuring seems quite simulationist to me.

 

[Intense_Interest]

I think what you are trying to create is a solely a simulationist Economy- Plate mail costs what it would cost to make in comparison to a sword, which would cost as much as it would cost in comparison to creating a spear, etc.

First of all, you have to assume that Gods or their equivalents do not exist and/or do not have any unlimited ability to create items specifically crafted towards adventuring.

Then you have to assume magic does not exist in the scale in which it would be control-able by intelligent beings well enough to be put forth in an infinite energy contraption or machine, up to and including lighting a candle.

Then you have to assume that beasts with powers able to at least light a candle and could possibly be harnessed by intelligent beings do not exist.

So when you create a D&D-like system that does not have any Gods, Magic, or Monsters that can't be described in terms that aren't already extant in real dynamics could you create an economic system that is in any way something other than an inductive fallacy in the making.

Me, I'll be playing the rules-as-written for 4E, using my imagination to create a believable world economy that Wants Adventurers and Needs Heroes.

 

[steenan]

This is a suggestion that I think most simulationists would disagree with. From the simulationist perspective, a normal horse that is caught in the area of a high level spell, the breath of an ancient dragon, or which is hit by a powerful monster should probably just die. The idea of "trading in" mounts for increasingly powerful creatures that are better able to survive the rigors of high-level adventuring seems quite simulationist to me.

That is something I cannot agree with.
It all depends on what we are simulating. If we are sticking to real-world physics and biology, a horse shouldn't be able to survive an equivalent of grenade blast. But the rider shouldn't survive it either.
In a world where the heroes may take multiple fireball blasts and still fight, I see no reason why their mounts should be weaker. If the spell does not damage your clothes or your backpack, why should it damage your horse? The animal you ride on is a part of the character at least in the same degree as the weapon you fight with. That is how it works in many examples of heroic fiction - and it is as good (if not better) thing to simulate as "real world" realism.

As for the economy - it is perfectly valid to simulate a world that needs and uses adventurers, a worlds in which they play an important role. On the other hand, to be called "simulationist" it needs to be consistent. If you can't answer why something in the game world is the way it is, or how two parts of it fit together - you can't say it is simulation.

 

[Intense_Interest]

As for the economy - it is perfectly valid to simulate a world that needs and uses adventurers, a worlds in which they play an important role. On the other hand, to be called "simulationist" it needs to be consistent. If you can't answer why something in the game world is the way it is, or how two parts of it fit together - you can't say it is simulation.

"A Wizard Did It" is all the explanation you need for ANYTHING in a magic-based game.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Aaaand, chaos reigned.

What's your goal with this, Wik? I mean, in system terms (because that's what's 'at stake', so to speak, the setting being what it is regardless). Do you want to replicate (or approximate) the 1e version? 2e? athas.org's 3e? Dragon & Dungeon magazine's 3e? Something else in particular?

Because, as evidenced so far (and on many other threads, I might add), 'simulationist' means various things to various folks, and nothing (or less) to others.

I mean, if you want to continue the way you started, I won't try and get in your way - if I'm out of line here, just say so, and I'm good to leave it be. Just a thought though, right or wrong.

 

[S'mon]

What sort of house rules/changes would be necessary to turn 4e into a Simulation-based game, as opposed to the "gamist" game it currently is?

My thinking is that you do this quite easily by returning to the Old Ways - by restoring randomness, and by letting the players choose how much risk to undertake. The megadungeon with threat & reward level linked to depth. The sandbox wilderness environment where the biggest threats & biggest treasures are at the edges of the map.

1) Remove Treasure Packets.

Standard gear/wealth by level is what typical PCs should acquire, but if they get less or more, no need to worry - if more, they can delve faster, quicker. If less, they'll just have to stay longer on the upper levels, and advance more slowly.

2) Completely re-write the costs of everything, keeping the world's economy in mind - (eg) the price of plate mail

PCs who need (eg) plate can simply begin play with it (for the standard cost, a "small donation"), gifted it by their Church, Liege-Lord, or Family. For other PCs it's very expensive or unavailable. Do the same with other necessary goods. But don't sweat the small stuff.

3) Remove many of the items that overcome some common difficulties:


No, no reason to do this unless you want a grim n gritty game-world. For a world of heroic fantasy, everburning torches are fine.

4) Scale Mounts up:


Agreed, no reason not to have them advance along with the rider. You can have bonded/legacy magic items that scale up with the PCs, likewise. For D&D I prefer that to simply adding the bonuses to the PC's character.

 

[GnomeWorks]

"A Wizard Did It" is all the explanation you need for ANYTHING in a magic-based game.

If that works for you, fine.

For some of us, we require more explanation than that.