D&D 5E With Respect to the Door and Expectations....The REAL Reason 5e Can't Unite the Base

[pemerton]

I would agree to that with the note that I find it curious you define both G and N in terms of not-S. (Can/would you define S and N in terms of not-G, and G and S in terms of not-N?)

No, I wouldn't. My Forge-ism is orthodox enough that I regard Simulationism as the key pole against which non-simulationist approaches to RPGing have to be defined.

This is partly historical - I agree with the Forge that simulationism-by-habit is very common in RPGing. But I also think it's inherent - because exploration of a shared fiction is pretty essential to RPGing, there is always the possibility that this exploration becomes the end in itself. Hence, the possibility of a simulationist takeover is inherent in RPGing, I think, unless steps are taken (by designers, first, by GMs, next, and by players, last) to push the game in other directions.

(I know my hierarchy of steps presupposes GMs. Once you're into GM-less games, I think you've successfully transcended my hierarchy!)

 

[Tony Vargas]

I was playing a wizard who had the power Mirror Sphere. In that case it was even better for me to try to get eaten. One encounter ended with the creature we were fighting swallowing itself.

Now if that's not making magic feel magical, I don't know what would be....

 

[Tony Vargas]

I would agree to that with the note that I find it curious you define both G and N in terms of not-S. (Can/would you define S and N in terms of not-G, and G and S in terms of not-N?).

I may be shading away from GNS useage, here, but I find it useful to think of simulation and game as two ends of a continuum. A game is more concerned with being a game - an exercise with rules that are fair and workable that has some potential to be 'fun' - while a simulation is more concerned with modeling something /else/. Some games are wholly or almost wholly abstract, simulating nothing, or giving only the slightest vestigial nod to whatever they originally simulated (Chess is an exceedingly sketchy simulation of a battle, for instance, but an excellent game). On this continuum, the more an RPG sacrifices the things that make a good game in the name of 'realism' or 'verisimilitude' or 'genre faithfulness' the more it's a simulation, and, conversely, the more it sacrifices faithful modeling of it's source material for 'balance,' 'playability,' 'fairness,' or highly-subjective 'fun,' the more it's a game. Perhaps ironically, a 'narrative' game fits on the simulation side of that continuum, since it attempts to simulate a story.

So, yes, you could have G in terms of not N or not S or S or N in terms of not G. But S and N are both modeling something, the difference is just in what they're modeling.

At least, that's how it seems to me.

 

[Argyle King]

Now if that's not making magic feel magical, I don't know what would be....

It was actually a pretty magical moment.

 

[Argyle King]

I think @Johnny3D3D 's point - with which I agree - if that the game wants the player to take that viewpoint in character, then its mechanics should be consistent with that viewpoint - it should actually be worse to be chowed down on, not mechanically preferable!

Exactly

I'm not suggesting the game necessarily needs to be a perfect model of reality. While I do lean more toward preferring games which have more than a nod toward 'realism' (whatever that means in a rpg), I also understand that not all games are built the same way, and sometimes sacrifices need to be made in the name of playability.

Though, even considering that, it should still generally be a bad thing to be chewed upon by a monster. When I was first attacked, I did worry. Afterwards, there was a realization of "hmm, this really isn't that bad."

 

[Hussar]

I have to agree with Ahnehnois. Those factors are not sufficient to make the game go kablooie or BMX Bandit/Angel Summoner. That sort of result comes out because of the attitude of the players and how they use a full palette of options in front of them. They don't need to redline the system simply because the option is there. Nothing in the mechanics forces a player to optimize/non-optimize.

No one is talking about redlining options though. That's the point. I'm talking about basic options that are available right out of the chute. No cross pollinating options from five different splat books. Again, how is choosing color spray over burning hands abusing the rules? How is choosing web or glitterdust over, say, Scorching Ray abusing the rules?

It's a fallacy that you have to "redline" the system to break it. I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about basic, generic options.

Or is it if I pick anything other than evocation spells I'm "redlining" the system?

As a devouted Sanbox style DM this is a total fallacy.
1. Sandbox style DMing places no such strictures on adventures having time limits this is totally on you.

Agreed. But, if I want the results for 3e that people tell me are the best results, then every adventure MUST have a time component.

2. Sandbox style dictates players choose which adventures to pursue not what the pacing is beyond the players walking away from it.

Yes and no. If the player wants to find the local thieves guild to help plan a robbery of the local jewelry merchant, pacing is pretty much entirely in the hands of the players. The players decide when they are going to commit this heist after all.

3.Options being available are all about what you and your group agreed upon prior to the start of the campaign and not in any way tied to sandbox style play.

Agreed. Thus, the whole "qualified" for part of my line. But, in 3e, I'm being told that if I choose certain baseline options, I'm "redlining" the game. In a sandbox game, so long as what I choose is not outside of the sandbox, I should be allowed to choose it shouldn't I?

Nothing in your list really has anything to do with sandbox style play specifically at least not in any way that I've ever heard of.

I think you misunderstood what I was saying somewhat.

 

[Libramarian]

I may be shading away from GNS useage, here, but I find it useful to think of simulation and game as two ends of a continuum. A game is more concerned with being a game - an exercise with rules that are fair and workable that has some potential to be 'fun' - while a simulation is more concerned with modeling something /else/. Some games are wholly or almost wholly abstract, simulating nothing, or giving only the slightest vestigial nod to whatever they originally simulated (Chess is an exceedingly sketchy simulation of a battle, for instance, but an excellent game). On this continuum, the more an RPG sacrifices the things that make a good game in the name of 'realism' or 'verisimilitude' or 'genre faithfulness' the more it's a simulation, and, conversely, the more it sacrifices faithful modeling of it's source material for 'balance,' 'playability,' 'fairness,' or highly-subjective 'fun,' the more it's a game. Perhaps ironically, a 'narrative' game fits on the simulation side of that continuum, since it attempts to simulate a story.

So, yes, you could have G in terms of not N or not S or S or N in terms of not G. But S and N are both modeling something, the difference is just in what they're modeling.

At least, that's how it seems to me.

I hear what you're saying. But I see it as a field, where moving away from simulationism doesn't necessarily bring you closer to gamism, and vice versa. It's easy to imagine some terrible rules that don't do anything for either priority, right? I basically look at the contentious features of 4e and see an abandoning of simulationism for no real purpose. E.g. the homogenization of classes with the AEDU framework -- I find that offensive to both my simulationist sense AND my gamist sense. I've never needed or wanted that level of class balance from a game point of view, so for me it's simultaneously more gamey and less fun, because they nerfed some of the awesome out of the spells, and there's just less variety in that portion of the game in general.

What do you think that reason is? And how does it explain the bizarre thing that MU level gain accelerates (and overtakes illusionists) just at the point where they start to become overpowered; and that druids have virtually broken advancement at mid-levels?

I think the idea was to accentuate rather than counteract the different power curves amongst the classes, because they thought it was fun.

 

[pemerton]

No one is talking about redlining options though. That's the point. I'm talking about basic options that are available right out of the chute. No cross pollinating options from five different splat books. Again, how is choosing color spray over burning hands abusing the rules? How is choosing web or glitterdust over, say, Scorching Ray abusing the rules?

It's a fallacy that you have to "redline" the system to break it. I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about basic, generic options.

Agreed. I made the same point on another thread but got no reply.

 

[billd91]

No one is talking about redlining options though. That's the point. I'm talking about basic options that are available right out of the chute. No cross pollinating options from five different splat books. Again, how is choosing color spray over burning hands abusing the rules? How is choosing web or glitterdust over, say, Scorching Ray abusing the rules?

It's a fallacy that you have to "redline" the system to break it. I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about basic, generic options.

Or is it if I pick anything other than evocation spells I'm "redlining" the system?

But none of those options do break the game unless you're also pushing at the margins. Color spray isn't terribly out of control. It's powerful but it's tolerable. Same with web and glitterdust. With a caster stat value of 16, they have saves of 14 or 15 and that's within most targets' abilities to reach (even if they don't most of the time). Push at the margins with a wizard who's bumped to Int 26+ and that's when things are getting ridiculous.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I hear what you're saying. But I see it as a field, where moving away from simulationism doesn't necessarily bring you closer to gamism, and vice versa. It's easy to imagine some terrible rules that don't do anything for either priority, right?

It is.

I basically look at the contentious features of 4e and see an abandoning of simulationism for no real purpose. E.g. the homogenization of classes with the AEDU framework -- I find that offensive to both my simulationist sense AND my gamist sense.

For the record, I find 4e classes to be a lot less homogenous than 3.X classes. 3.X only starts coming close to the versatility of 4e character concepts when you include the alternate casting systems such as in the Bo9S, the incredible range of poorly balanced monster PC options, and the rest of the bloat.

Almost all pre-Bo9S martial PCs are one trick ponies, stacking feats and class features to make for it being a better trick. Now to me that's homogenous. All wizards are effectively almost interchangeable (barring specialist/banned schools). They just need to swap equipment - i.e. spellbooks. Literally the only difference in casting between clerics is their domain spells. And with druids, not even that. This, to me, is a snoozefest of homogeneity.

In 4e even within the same class a wizard specialising in pyromancy with a minor in evocation is not going to resemble a wizard specialising in illusion with a minor in enchantment in any way except training in arcana and being squishy. The only overlapping spell is probably going to be Prestadigitatation (and there's a possibility neither's going to take it). This makes our two wizards almost as different as a 3.5 wizard is from a cleric.

As for our melee classes in 4e being homogenous, I've built a barbarian beserker who wasn't even homogenous with himself. He had three daily powers - and each one fundamentally changed the way he played in combat. One expanded his defender aura. With his greatspear he owned the ground around himself. One made him act like his normal violent self but moreso, lashing out hard against anyone who hurt his friends. And with the third he'd pick a single foe and tear into them, stabbing ferociously before continuing to the next target. In all three cases he was awesome - in different ways.

And then there's homogeneity between the skill users. In 3.X your skill level in a given skill is just about it. There are about three feats that open up how you can use a given skill. Rogues get tricks from level 10. The number differs slightly, but the impact doesn't. About the only thing to significantly change the way skills can be used is Complete Scoundrel. 4e has utility powers. And Utility powers can fundamentally change the uses of skills. Stealth isn't just stealth - some characters are qualitatively better at hiding than others, able to hide where others couldn't even where others are quantitatively better.

So no, I don't find 4e classes more homogenous than 3.X classes. I find them significantly less so.

And AEDU is neither simulationist nor gamist. It significantly helps narrativist play. It's a pacing mechanic. Default, 1/scene, limit break.

I've never needed or wanted that level of class balance from a game point of view, so for me it's simultaneously more gamey and less fun, because they nerfed some of the awesome out of the spells, and there's just less variety in that portion of the game in general.

Well, yes. When literally all the awesome in 3.X is concentrated into one small mechanic (the spells) - to the point that an attempt to give non-casters some awesome is dismissed by many as 'Weaboo Fitan Magic' it needs to be shared around.

I think the idea was to accentuate rather than counteract the different power curves amongst the classes, because they thought it was fun.

Indeed. There were two parts to that tradeoff however. The first is that 1st level Magic Users were crap, having only one random spell, no armour, and terrible hit points. It was a reward to make up for the first four levels sucking. The second is that the game more or less stopped at 9th/10th level. The highest level PC in Greyhawk was 14th level. So the wizard dominance lasted only a couple of levels before the fighter was given an army and both were expected to more or less retire.

Literally every single one of these balancing factors except armour (Mithral Twilight Chain Shirt anyone?) had gone by 3.X. Which made playing a wizard at low levels much more fun. A first level 3.X wizard starts off with not one random spell, but his intelligence modifier level in spells he selected, and the ability to cast three spells plus a handful of cantrips per day. Which meant a first level wizard wasn't an excercise in frustration that it often was in oD&D. This was in many ways a good design decision - it increased the fun. On the downside it meant that the wizard was no longer behind at 1st level, and he scaled better than ever. Different power curves can be fun - if there's a reward for taking a handicap. But the handicap had been eliminated by the 3.0 rules. Which gave the 4e designers two choices. Either they could revert to the oD&D design decision and nerf the low level wizard into suckitude again or they could keep the 3.X design decision but follow it through by starting the wizard at the same level as everyone else - and then having them level with everyone else. They chose 3.X.
[MENTION=3400]billd91[/MENTION], starting with an Int of 16 is all very well. But that means by level 8 they should probably have an Int of 18 and certainly a +2 headband of intellect and possibly a +4 (especially if they spent a feat on crafting wondrous items - a very good investment, and they can make even the +6 version at level 8). Also assume spell focus if they are conjuring a lot. That's a total Int of 22 (with the +4 version) with spell focus, for a +7. Or Glitterdust DC 19. And I'm not particularly redlining here.