Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6353777" data-attributes="member: 42582">Ron Edwards, John Kim and others didn't invent the word "simulationism" used to describe RPGing. Gyagx discussed it in his DMG. Lewis Pulsipher talked about it in the pages of White Dwarf over 30 years ago (<a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?357086-More-DMing-analysis-from-Lewis-Pulsipher" target="_blank">thread here</a>).The absence of simulationist mechanics in D&D was noted almost from the get-go. This is especially true of its combat mechanics, which relied upon an abstract action economy, a to hit mechanic that combines armour and dodging into a single AC and that builds both the combatant's attack skill and the defender's parrying skill into a single d20 roll, and hit points that include aspects of dodging plus "meta" factors like luck while eschewing actual wounds or injuries. Games like Chivalry & Sorcery, Runequest and Rolemaster were all about replacing these abstract and fortune-in-the-middle mechanics with mechanics that could be treated as process simulations. These games also change the non-sim feature of D&D PC-building (classes, levels, XP) and replace them with skill systems, PC improvement based on training (typically in-the-field training - so adventuring makes you better at adventuring), etc. (Rolemaster still has classes and levels, but these are just the vehicle for a point-buy skill system. AD&D 2nd ed went somewhat more simulationist in its XP system, especially dropping XP-for-gold, but still kept the non-sim class and level structure.)If you look at post 31 upthread you'll see pretty straightforward characterisations of the two main types of sim that GNS/Forge-ites are interested in: purist-for-system sim (RQ is the poster child) and high concept sim (CoC, Ars Magic and Pendragon are all exemplars).Their reasons for grouping these two styles together as sim are somewhat idiosyncratic to their broader analytical concerns; on ENworld, I think most posters would see the two styles as pretty different. This thread is mostly about purist-for-system sim, which you might also call "process sim", and that is what I am focusing on in this post.The point of all this, in Gygax's game, is to create challenges for the players: can you optimise your load? Can you win in the minigame of your ship vs the pirates' ship? Can you optimise your expenditure on masons, sages, etc?This is all "gamist" in the Forge sense, in that it is about winning the game. ("Gamism" in the typical ENworld sense is something completely different - it is used to describe a game that uses lots of metagame mechanics"). In AD&D the game you are trying to win, on many occasions, is a game of logistical optimisation. You can see this in Gygax's discussion of "skilled play" in the closing (but pre-Appendix) pages of his PHB; and in the example of the wizard and fighter packing their gear in Appendix O of his DMG.Hussar is correct here. You can't identify a game, or an episode of play, as "simulationist" or "gamist" based on a recount of the fiction.So from the fact that a player can declare as an action "I hide behind the pillar" or "I try to bring the roof down on the dragon by toppling the pillar" tells us nothing about whether the game is, or is being played as, simulationist, gamist or narrativist.What makes 4e a non-sim game is the fact that when a player declares such an action the GM will ascertain the DC from a DC-by-level chart, and then narrate in the appropriate fictional details; and if the attempt to push over the pillar succeeds, will determine the consequences for the dragon from a damage-by-level chart, and similarly narrate in the matching fiction al details.Whereas what makes RQ or RM a purist-for-system sim game is the fact that the GM will ascertain the DC by first establishing the nature of the pillar in the fiction, and then reading a DC off an appropriate chart; and if the attempt to push over the pillar succeeds, the damage dealt will be determined by reference to some general principles governing the injuries inflicted by falling heavy objects.AD&D handles pillar-pushing via STR checks or bend bars rolls. These are closer to the 4e than RQ/RM style of resolution; the chance of success is appropriate to the character (based on stat, whereas in 4e level is more important). 3E, on the other hand, handles this closer to RQ/RM, as it at least purports to set a DC based on the fiction. What differentiates 3E from RQ/RM, in my view at least, is that at a certain point the DCs and associated numbers (eg natural armour bonuses for high-CR creatures) become completely disconnected from any conception of what they correspond to in the fiction. So we have locks with DCs of 20, 30 and 40 but no real sense of what these varying difficulties correspond to in the fiction. This is why I don't regard even the skill system in 3E as genuinely satisfying purist-for-system design constraints.How so? I think 4e is perfectly well suited to light narrativist play out of the box. It is obviously a much heavier system than the others you mention, and probably lacks the capacity for depth of HeroWars/Quest (but I wouldn't say that MHRP is all that thematically profound!), but I think it goes without saying that if you are playing 4e then you enjoy a heavy system.The 3E skill system at low-to-mid levels (where my points about the disconnect between numbers and fiction don't really bite) is probably equally suited to purist-for-system play. But that still leaves you with the action economy, hit points etc in combat. Plus classes and levels in PC building. And many other elements not very well suited to those sim considerations. And AD&D doesn't even have the skill system.</blockquote>

Verification