What is missing from 4E

[thecasualoblivion]

B) Deciding not to use the Warlord class in his games.

No big deal. I've never used psionics anyway, and last time I checked I was still alive and breathing

At the tail end of my 3E days, I was forbidding the use of Wizard, Cleric and Druid.

 

[Gothmog]

So, someone hates the Warlord class, and thinks it's completely out of his idea of what D&D is. That person has two possible ways of dealing with it:

A) Posting message after message on a random D&D forum stating how infuriated he is that the Warlord class is ruining D&D to him.

B) Deciding not to use the Warlord class in his games.

No big deal. I've never used psionics anyway, and last time I checked I was still alive and breathing

You sir, are being too damned reasonable! This is not allowed on the internets!

 

[NilesB]

I agree, 4E sacrifices flavour and simulation for gamist needs. That's what I'm arguing.

I'd argue that people have trained themselves to be blind to the gaps in earlier editions simulations.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

I'd argue that people have trained themselves to be blind to the gaps in earlier editions simulations.

I think there is definite truth in this. The harsh edges of an edition get slowly rounded off as time and play experience add up.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Imaro]

I'd argue that people have trained themselves to be blind to the gaps in earlier editions simulations.

I would also say that some people have trained themselves to be blind to the difference in scope where the degrees of simulationism is concerned.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

I would also say that some people have trained themselves to be blind to the difference in scope where the degrees of simulationism is concerned.

Simulationism is equally unimportant to me regardless of scope. While there may be shades of grey differences in various editions of D&D, it is still something no edition of D&D has ever truly done well or prioritized. 3E may have added a pretense of simulationism(and not the genuine article), and OD&D/1E may have placed literary simulationism(simulationism through fluff descriptions) on top of game mechanics that were anything but, D&D has always been strongly in the gamist section of RPGS.

 

[Halivar]

Simulationism is equally unimportant to me regardless of scope. While there may be shades of grey differences in various editions of D&D, it is still something no edition of D&D has ever truly done well or prioritized. 3E may have added a pretense of simulationism(and not the genuine article), and OD&D/1E may have placed literary simulationism(simulationism through fluff descriptions) on top of game mechanics that were anything but, D&D has always been strongly in the gamist section of RPGS.

I think it may have something to do with it being a game, and not a simulation.

Just sayin'.

EDIT: Hey, wasn't one of the big brouhaha's over at the Forge a while back centered around whether or not D&D qualified as a real "game" and not just a "simulation?" I am morbidly fascinated by what they would think of this discussion.

 

[Imaro]

Simulationism is equally unimportant to me regardless of scope. While there may be shades of grey differences in various editions of D&D, it is still something no edition of D&D has ever truly done well or prioritized. 3E may have added a pretense of simulationism(and not the genuine article), and OD&D/1E may have placed literary simulationism(simulationism through fluff descriptions) on top of game mechanics that were anything but, D&D has always been strongly in the gamist section of RPGS.

Uhm... ok, since it's unimportant to you, I wouldn't expect you to be concerned with the gradations of it in different editions?? I don't know what I'm suppose to reply to this as you've stated how you feel and thus there is no need for me to try and convince you otherwise. for thos of us who are concerned with it though... well we probably have a keener feel for the difference in levels of different editions.

As far as D&D always being in the "gamist section of RPGS"... then why are so many fans trying to explain 4e's gamism away with narrativist explanations (and for the record I totally agree it's gamist.)

 

[Halivar]

As far as D&D always being in the "gamist section of RPGS"... then why are so many fans trying to explain 4e's gamism away with narrativist explanations (and for the record I totally agree it's gamist.)

Bah! The GNS triangle is hogwash. While I can see the argument that "gamism" and "simulationism" may be mutually exclusive, I don't see how "telling a story" is incompatible with either one. It's a game. And in the game, we tell stories.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Uhm... ok, since it's unimportant to you, I wouldn't expect you to be concerned with the gradations of it in different editions?? I don't know what I'm suppose to reply to this as you've stated how you feel and thus there is no need for me to try and convince you otherwise. for thos of us who are concerned with it though... well we probably have a keener feel for the difference in levels of different editions.

As far as D&D always being in the "gamist section of RPGS"... then why are so many fans trying to explain 4e's gamism away with narrativist explanations (and for the record I totally agree it's gamist.)

Simulationism and D&D became important to me when 3E's misguided attempt at pretending to be simulationist gummed up the works of playing the game with all its fiddly subsystems and rules for everything. I played 2E without simulationism, I played 3E, and I'm now happy D&D is back to where it should be. I have also played two years of Rolemaster, as the DM no less, so I'm no stranger to simulationism, and no enemy of it. It just doesn't really belong in D&D.

D&D is gamist. 4E has often used a narrativist justification for things where 3E used simulationist justification before. While I would call 2E the most narrativist of all editions of D&D, its still primarily gamist.