Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="FireLance" data-source="post: 4738357" data-attributes="member: 3424">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.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.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.</blockquote>

Verification