Why use D&D for a Simulationist style Game?

[Imaro]

[MENTION=1879]Andor[/MENTION] ... Just wanted to say great post contrasting of RQ's "sim" vs. D&D's "sim". It really does appear to be some invisible line [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] has drawn in the sand of granularity where some abstractions becomes sim vs. others being non-sim... I alluded to this in my previous post.

 

[pemerton]

Well one way in which those games do narrativist play better than 4e is in the allocation of meta-game resources to affect the narrative... 4e has no balance when it comes to any one particular character's ability to affect the narrative vs. another character's...

I'm not sure what you think powers are then, and skills. And rituals, for those PCs who had them.

"Lack of balance" isn't a criticism I normally see levelled at 4e's PC building system.

 

[Imaro]

I'm not sure what you think powers are then, and skills. And rituals, for those PCs who had them.

"Lack of balance" isn't a criticism I normally see levelled at 4e's PC building system.

Are number of skills balanced between classes? What about Utility powers? Rituals? I see this criticism leveled against 4e alot. Different strokes I guess...

 

[pemerton]

Are number of skills balanced between classes? What about Utility powers? Rituals? I see this criticism leveled against 4e alot.

If that's the level of detail at which you're juding a game as a narrativist framework, then what about the fact that, in the example campaign in the Fate Core book, the player of the wizard is given access to the spellcasting stunt without having to spend a refresh for it, because it's genre appropriate? Does that suddenly mean that Fate is somehow inferior as a narrativist vehicle?

 

[Imaro]

If that's the level of detail at which you're juding a game as a narrativist framework, then what about the fact that, in the example campaign in the Fate Core book, the player of the wizard is given access to the spellcasting stunt without having to spend a refresh for it, because it's genre appropriate? Does that suddenly mean that Fate is somehow inferior as a narrativist vehicle?

If you want me to comment on this you're going to have to be more specific as far as where this is located in the rulebook, haven't read FATE core in awhile, and I'm not going to spend time searching through it for a vague reference.

EDIT: Ah, I found it... is the below what you are speaking of... because if so it's a houserule that is specifically called out as going against the normal rules. Not sure how that in anyway reflects on the actual rules in 4e creating an imbalance.

Normally, you’d probably also charge points of refresh, because you’re adding new actions to a skill, but Amanda’s group is lazy and is handwaving it in favor of group consensus.)

 

[pemerton]

I see this criticism leveled against 4e alot.

If I was going to point out the deficiencies of 4e for narrativist play, I wouldn't look at the mechanics of the PC build rules at all. The two main things I would point to are:

(1) That it is possible, within the rules, to build a PC who has no significant thematic hooks. A halfling archer-ranger of Avandra or Melora is in danger of being such a character. For the designers, I think the fact that some options are thematically more vanilla than others (eg dragonborn, tiefling, dwarves, warlocks at the strong theme end; rangers, halflings, wizards towards the other end) was probably a feature. But for narrativist play it is a bug.

(2) That it is possible, within the rules, for the GM to frame encounters that have no significant thematic bite. Kruthiks and ankhegs are in danger of being such encounters. The rules have good advice on ensuring tactically engaging encounters, but are pretty weak on the thematic side of things.​

Happily, both these issues can be avoided by making judicious choices from the list of options open to players and GMs.

A third criticism that might be run is that the actual thematic span of the game is not very wide, but then the same could be said of MHRP. This doesn't make it poor for narrativist play, it just means that you don't pick it up for that purpose unless the thematic stuff you want to engage with is stereotypical heroic fantasy.

If you want me to comment on this you're going to have to be more specific as far as where this is located in the rulebook, haven't read FATE core in awhile, and I'm not going to spend time searching through it for a vague reference.

It's in the final chapter, about extras.

 

[Imaro]

It's in the final chapter, about extras.

Yeah called out specifically as a houserule Amanda's group is using that goes against the normal rules. In other words it's the group creating an imbalance not the rules...

 

[Imaro]

If I was going to point out the deficiencies of 4e for narrativist play, I wouldn't look at the mechanics of the PC build rules at all. The two main things I would point to are:

(1) That it is possible, within the rules, to build a PC who has no significant thematic hooks. A halfling archer-ranger of Avandra or Melora is in danger of being such a character. For the designers, I think the fact that some options are thematically more vanilla than others (eg dragonborn, tiefling, dwarves, warlocks at the strong theme end; rangers, halflings, wizards towards the other end) was probably a feature. But for narrativist play it is a bug.

(2) That it is possible, within the rules, for the GM to frame encounters that have no significant thematic bite. Kruthiks and ankhegs are in danger of being such encounters. The rules have good advice on ensuring tactically engaging encounters, but are pretty weak on the thematic side of things.​

Happily, both these issues can be avoided by making judicious choices from the list of options open to players and GMs.

A third criticism that might be run is that the actual thematic span of the game is not very wide, but then the same could be said of MHRP. This doesn't make it poor for narrativist play, it just means that you don't pick it up for that purpose unless the thematic stuff you want to engage with is stereotypical heroic fantasy.

Great just add em to the list. I wasn't trying to give an exhaustive rundown of why 4e strikes me as less optimal for narrativist play then the other games I listed... Just giving one example, but I still don't see how this as well as the imbalance in resources I noted doesn't strengthen my own assertion.

 

[Sadras]

I've read what they wrote a few times and I'm not sure those words really go together coherently. To me it just means "gamist". But I'm sitting firmaly across the table from you on this issue.

I'm not following or perhaps I'm not interpreting 'gamist' in the same way as you or at all. Let me give you an example. In the DMG there might be an example of how tough it is to bust-open a door made of various wood (hollow or solid) and steel..etc
Based on that guidance, I can as DM determine a DC for a set of doors the PCs want to break open. I know anything equal to or above the DC is a success and anything below the DC is a failure. With 1 and 20 being on the d20 being obvious extremes of either result. This provides the DM to freely narrate the degree of success/failure on the action.

With RM I would perhaps look at a table with x results (guessing here), and based on the roll read off the table. In D&D the results are equal to x multiplied by 'infinity'. Is this considered 'gamist', because the DM is allowed to interpret the DC and results due to it not being codified in a table? I'm confused.

 

[Hussar]

You literally just said that if you ignore the resolution mechanic there is no chance for failure. In what game exactly is that not true? A craft skill in D&D in a binary resolution system, although you could always make it a skill challange sort of affair. I know a lot of games and I can't think of a single one where a non-magical craft system works any differently.

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...Simulationist-style-Game/page14#ixzz39iF0ofsT

Reread the skills in question. There is absolutely no failure condition in either Craft or Profession. You always succeed. The only variable in Craft is time. In Profession, you absolutely cannot fail a Profession check. You gain your skill check/2 in gp per week when using this skill. That's the only random element in this skill.

A person with a single rank in a Profession skill cannot fail to make money every single week.