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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 5993389" data-attributes="member: 6696971">Just a couple of things right quick.  I do understand your position fully and I do understand that you (and a great many others, and understandably so) wish for DnD to pursue a "hybrid" agenda rather than a "purist" one or a "specialist" one so it can be drifted toward a wider variety of established playstyles.  To map to DnD;- a Fighter built specifically as a Defender makes for a more focused and elegant approach that knows what it wants to do, advertises it honestly and clearly, and then produces predictable results to that endbut - a F/M/T, while diluted in design aim and sometimes incoherent in practice, can bring to bear a wider variety of approaches to conflict resolution.I hold that DnD has been a F/M/T throughout its history.  I also absolutely affirm (reality bears it out) that there are "Fighters built specifically as a Defender" (games whose design aim and granularity are entirely premised upon Process Sim).  However, just because pure Fighters built as Defenders may not be as mainstream or games may not be as readily available due to exposure does not grant the logic that it then ceases to become a focused in design, comes as advertised product.  That is all CJ was saying in that quote (and everyone else has been tirelessly providing evidence for throughout the last few pages):- DnD is not, and has never been, remotely pure Process Sim.  In fact, throughout the meanderings of its iterations it has been, at stages, quite antagonistic toward pure Process Sim.- A rudimentary evaluation of its mechanical toolkit of "abstractions as conflict resolution" will reveal this clearly enough.- A wide breadth of play throughout the editions and intense analysis of the mechanics and implied setting will reveal this even more clearly.Therefore, the positions of - "I've always attempted to play DnD as pure Process Sim while ignoring or hand-waving the glaring incoherency, relative to my intent, within the mechanical toolkit and the implied setting.  I've added considerable sub-systems (some Dragon, some supplementary rules texts, some house rules) for granularity and in-fill purposes toward the effort of limiting or mitigating these incoherencies.  Therefore DnD is pure Process Sim."or- "DnD has an illustrious history of pure Process Sim which was only recently crushed by the Death March of the Sith Lord Fourth Edition."are both patently false.  And if you want "Pure, Granular Process Sim" there are systems out there designed for such and they produce it in spades.If someone wants to say - Fourth Edition did not allow me to play "DnD Process Sim" because it possessed a type of metagame toolset within its mechanical toolbox and - I refuse to exclude some of these specific tools/powers and/or don't understand how I can make them fit "DnD Process Sim" and - I don't want to do all of the sub-system/house-rule work that I did in prior editions or re-contrive new hand-waves, therefore- Fourth Edition excluded my style of play.Ok, caveat it like that, and I'll accept it gladly.  However, I will not accept that DnD has an illustrious history of Pure Process Sim and that, if you want that style, you cannot get it elsewhere.  Further, DnD Process Sim (DnD emulating DnD) is such a rickety, flailing, house of cards that drifting 4e, while ignoring the same old inconsistencies, is entirely doable.  I have hacked a one-off, single player game, of 4e as DnD Process Sim for a buddy of mine who loves Process Sim.  It was not difficult to pull off.</blockquote>

Verification