Worried about a loss of creativity

In many modern RPGs the mechanics for spellcasting and swordslinging are very similar (if not the same). To make the two feel different players are allowed to use their imagination to creatively describe the actions they can perform as well as come up with the possible drawbacks and benefits based entirely on their flavor. This is a good thing and has lead to many a creative use of a spell or ability. One of my favorite systems, Savage Worlds, uses almost te same mechanic for spells and martial combat but I have never encountered players who do not feel the two are different. Even in games like Mutants and Masterminds and various dice pool games that do use the same mechanic for the two I have not experienced this phenomena.

Then come 4e, where the casters and non casters use the same mechanics, but still have vastly different abilities, people complain that they feel the same. At the same time 4e also opened up D&D to have the most flavorful spells and abilities of any edition due to mechanics and fluff being separate.

I think people were used to detailed unwavering spell descriptions that were clearly different than martial attacks. Those who enjoyed 4e were those who understood that creativity and imagination are what make a "character" not the mechanics. Those who felt 4e classes were too much the same are those who could not creatively imagine the flavor of their powers or what they represent to the story. Neither way of playing is wrong.

I am worried though that with the return of mechanics intertwined in fluff we will lose out on all this creativity that 4e gave us. No longer can you have the sorcerer/barbarian who wears armor and reflavors his powers as breathing fire all the time because he needs "jazz hands and jibber jabber" to cast spells (and of course bat guano). Some of my favorite characters came from extensive reflavoring based in the 4e structure. I am worried that we are returning to a game where it becomes almost impossible to do this. I am worried about a loss of creativity.

My 5e Homebrew Material

The Warblade: A Mythic Fighter

The Hero: A Modular Class

+1
It's just simulationism versus narrativism.  The game though until 4e was primarily simulationist.  Read the link below if you confuse simulationism with a desire for realism as it is in this world.  I understand the narrativists but don't prefer that style.  

I'm glad the spells sound like things wizards would talk about versuses pure game constructs.  It's why I don't like fighter powers.  Fighters talk about smashing things and not about the dancing lotus triple thrust.  Perhaps a monk might talk about such things.  

But to make it at least somewhat better for you.  They are going to reveal the math behind all their powers/spells/abilities etc...   So if you know that fundamental math you can easily produce something that is reflavored.  It may take a minute instead of five seconds but it will still be very doable.  I think this is a nice compromise.  

Mike Mearls, if you are reading this, don't forget that you promised this at Origins.  I'm holding you to it.  Smile


Those of us in my camp just want the game stuff to have correlation with the campaign world.


 

My Blog which includes my Hobby Award Winning articles.

It's not about simulationism. There is no simulationism in DnD and never has been. Even in AD&D, the rule books directly state that you should never confuse the rules of the game with "science". It's about attachment to forms vs. commitment to ideals.

Fighters talk about smashing things and not about the dancing lotus triple thrust.



...And you would control MY character's personality and functionality with your simplistic and ignorant notion of how martial arts work? Every physical activity names its forms and techniques. A fighter who lacks defined techniques is simply an untrained brute with a sword, and defined techniques will be named so that they can be taught. If it's realism you're concerned about, it is more realistic that Fighters' moves have names than otherwise!

Out of curiosity, what was stopping you from refluffing spells and maneuvers (when you had them...) in the previous editions of D&D? My players always have reflavored existing spells and have even created their own spells using existing spells as their base. I don't understand how symmetric classes and similar mechanics makes this easier.

It's just simulationism versus narrativism.  The game though until 4e was primarily simulationist.  Read the link below if you confuse simulationism with a desire for realism as it is in this world.  I understand the narrativists but don't prefer that style.  

I'm glad the spells sound like things wizards would talk about versuses pure game constructs.  It's why I don't like fighter powers.  Fighters talk about smashing things and not about the dancing lotus triple thrust.  Perhaps a monk might talk about such things.  

But to make it at least somewhat better for you.  They are going to reveal the math behind all their powers/spells/abilities etc...   So if you know that fundamental math you can easily produce something that is reflavored.  It may take a minute instead of five seconds but it will still be very doable.  I think this is a nice compromise.  

Mike Mearls, if you are reading this, don't forget that you promised this at Origins.  I'm holding you to it.  Smile


Those of us in my camp just want the game stuff to have correlation with the campaign world.


 



Thank you for being a voice of reason.
I'm glad the spells sound like things wizards would talk about versuses pure game constructs.  It's why I don't like fighter powers.  Fighters talk about smashing things and not about the dancing lotus triple thrust.  Perhaps a monk might talk about such things.



As Alraune said, this just shows how little you know about real world fighting. A brawler just swings his weapon. A really skilled fighter practices techniques. Did you know that there were European martial arts invented by the landesknects to disarm and disable foes when unarmed? If you hunt it up, you find that those techniques were based on the techniques used with weapons. Did you know who can't just swing a sword? This is one I found out while working on combat gigs in Renaissance Faires. If you let you body do what it wants, about mid-swing, you twist your wrist, which would snap your sword if you hit and embedded it without passing through the body, or wrench your arm badly if the sword doesn't break. Have you ever watched Olympic Fencing? Lots of talk about technique. Weapon style martial arts, like Kendo? Lots of talk about the proper technique.

This is what the "fighters have spells" people don't get: Fighters should never be just sword swinging thugs, but should be using techniques that tire them and might only trick an opponent once in a fight. Maybe this wouldn't have seemed so alien to the Old Skewlers if it had been presented as such instead of "exploits."

Thank you for being a voice of reason.



Depends on what you consider "reason." Is it unreasonable for me to see how the Fighter's techniques could exist in the real world of the game, especially when I've just given you at least four different example of how they do exist in the real world? Or is it more unreasonable to stick to outmoded ideas because "that's the way it's always been done"?

If thinking that a Fighter can't have techniques is unreasonable or unrealistic, well then I'll happily be those things. 
It's just simulationism versus narrativism.  The game though until 4e was primarily simulationist.  Read the link below if you confuse simulationism with a desire for realism as it is in this world.  I understand the narrativists but don't prefer that style.  

I'm glad the spells sound like things wizards would talk about versuses pure game constructs.  It's why I don't like fighter powers.  Fighters talk about smashing things and not about the dancing lotus triple thrust.  Perhaps a monk might talk about such things.


You always make a circular argument here.

"D&D used to be about simulation!"

"Then what did it simulate?"

"D&D is its own genre. It simulates D&D."

Because any other response is going to be self-defeating. Real-world martial artists have names for stances, maneuvers, weapons, ways of holding weapons, and so on. Fencers, boxers, grapplers, archers, and weapons masters of all culturess (not just the Asian ones you subtly insult) have techniques and terminologies. Fantasy over the years has reflected this reality.

Really your argument is about tradition, not simulation. This GNS stuff sounds more sophisticated and reasonable, but it's irrelevant. Simulation only makes sense when you look ***outside*** of the thing you're simulating. It's possible to argue about which game best simulates a particular source, like LotR movies or Lone Wolf and Cub manga, or Star Wars movies, or cyberpunk novels, or Diablo II. It doesn't make sense for a game to be its own source material, however.

When you say that D&D was simulationist until 4E and you use this circular definition, you're really saying that 4E discarded some traditional elements. And this is true, but then again every edition has done so. Really you're just saying that those traditional elements were game-defining for you. But they aren't simulationist rules elements unless there is a source outside of D&D that they were simulating!

truth/humor
Ed_Warlord, on what it takes to make a thread work: I think for it to be really constructive, everyone would have to be honest with each other, and with themselves.

 

iserith: The game doesn't profess to be "just like our world." What it is just like is the world of Dungeons & Dragons. Any semblance to reality is purely coincidental.

 

Areleth: How does this help the problems we have with Fighters? Do you think that every time I thought I was playing D&D what I was actually doing was slamming my head in a car door and that if you just explain how to play without doing that then I'll finally enjoy the game?

 

TD: That's why they put me on the front of every book. This is the dungeon, and I am the dragon. A word of warning though: I'm totally not a level appropriate encounter.

It's not about simulationism. There is no simulationism in DnD and never has been. Even in AD&D, the rule books directly state that you should never confuse the rules of the game with "science". It's about attachment to forms vs. commitment to ideals.

Fighters talk about smashing things and not about the dancing lotus triple thrust.



...And you would control MY character's personality and functionality with your simplistic and ignorant notion of how martial arts work? Every physical activity names its forms and techniques. A fighter who lacks defined techniques is simply an untrained brute with a sword, and defined techniques will be named so that they can be taught. If it's realism you're concerned about, it is more realistic that Fighters' moves have names than otherwise!



I find it amusing that Alraune fell right into what I specifically asked people not to do.

This thread is about reaching some compromise.  I am certain you nor anyone else is going to convince me that a game full of fighter powers with weird names and especially daily ones are going to be part of a game I'm interested in playing.  So let's get past that.   They are addressing a big group of people that left the game for the same reasons I did.   I just couldn't buy that 4e represented anything close to an imaginary world that I wanted to play D&D in.

They will no doubt produce some modules so that all styles can play.  They will also include DM empowered stuff because again a lot of people who left want that but they will reveal all the underlying math so that more narratively minded DMs can reflavor it.   Seems like a win win to me.

Instead of disparaging my playstyle and that of thousands of others, why not just accept that we all just don't agree on what is fun.   If that surprises you then consider that not everyone who plays tennis likes golf and not everyone who prefers chess also prefers checkers.   Different strokes for different folks.  I recognize that at minimum a sizable group of people are really into fighter powers.  So if I were designing a game I'd do what WOTC is doing and try to make each of the camps happy.   Others though with less inclusive instincts might decide to just target one audience and in doing so lose a lot of business.   Thankfully WOTC wants to make money.


The bolded stuff is really what this thread is about.   It might be wise to just agree to disagree on the rest because we have argued it over and over on other threads.

 

My Blog which includes my Hobby Award Winning articles.

You cannot say your concern is realism and then call foul when people point out that your position is unrealistic. It doesn't work that way.
You cannot say your concern is realism and then call foul when people point out that your position is unrealistic. It doesn't work that way.

Actually, he said "simulationism", not "realism", and there is an important difference.

In the editions in which simulationism reigns supreme, a fighter's "I attack it" action did not equate to using one specific technique.  Instead, it was a collection of techniques and tactics used over a space of time to ensure that they manage to injure the enemy.

The shift in 3e to every attack action being equivalent to a single attack with a weapon is where we start to run into trouble with conflation of the two.  From the perspective of a primarily 3e or 4e player, I can understand using "technique names" as flavor for martial powers making sense (from a simulationist viewpoint), but from the perspective of a player of any earlier editions (where most simulationists like to hang out, apparently) it just doesn't match up.
Again, you're misusing the term simulationism. But this argument is, as always, completely frivolous. Nobody's claiming that an attack power has to be a single action. Actions interpret at the round level. Emerikol simply can't stand anything but untalented brutes for fighters whose only options are "I hit it" and "I hit it and get lucky".

Fighting skills "match up" just fine in AD&D. Possibly better, even. To the point that they were used in AD&D. They even had weapon and non-weapon proficiencies that were At-Will and Encounter stances. (Wild Fighting, "Running", and the weapon style specializations, for instance.)

Knife Throwing Maid, Class: Wizard, multiclass Ranger.

Show
Magic Missile was refluffed into me throwing whatever I had in my hand. Ail mugs, torches, copper pieces, rocks, I could throw any of it and would always hit my target. The rest of my spells were reflufed into throwing multiple knives at once. Like color spray which used particularly dull knives strait to the temple to daze foes.

I then grabbed rituals that keeps things clean, cooked meals and prepared campsites and such. It wasn't magic, I was just that good. Arcane components was refluffed to bleach.


Reporter, Class: Warlord/shaman hybrid.
Show
I wasn't actually an adventure, I was just a reporter looking for a good story. And although I never bend the truth, I might bend the events that "truth" is based on. This character didn't have any attacks other than a fus-ro-dah I got from a theme. It was pure lazy warlord. I even grabbed the wild talent feat that lets me get a few powers, grabbed the ones that let me see/hear as if I was in a space 10 squares away.


Undead insect lord, Class: Swarm druid/runepriest hybrid with vampire multiclass.
Show
Swarm Druids kind of had this idea mostly in the bag. I added vampire though so I could say locusts were devouring my enemy then reforming into me to get the extra healing surges. I tried asking my friends if I could have a healing surge by holding out my hands covered in centipedes and scarabs and saying, "hugs? :3" They said no.

I also grabbed Dead Rat Deserter(?) theme and refluffed the rat transforming power as diving on the ground and splashing into a pile of spiders that can crawl under doors and stuff.


I think it's safe to say that I don't have a problem with refluffing to create imaginative characters in 4e. Given that, I still want my fluffy detailed spells back! There are so many characters that I came up with while digging around 3.5 rules, all my 4e characters are from outside inspiration that I work into the system somewhere. Raw numbers are good for refluffing, but not for inspiration.

Fluff mixed with text may make it a little more complicated to refluff, but it doesn't stop it. I had an idea in 3.5 to refluff bloodstorm blade + artificer into a blind gunslinger. (Throw weapons as melee attacks = sunder, disarm, and trip with "guns." Range limit didn't matter cuz blindfold of blindsight gave me very limited "sight" anyways. Yea, no refluff echolocation crap, legit blind character will do a "Velma without glasses" impersonation if hit with dispel.) Note that none of those characters above are single classed, I use mechanics as a form of character expression just as much as refluffing.


However, we might not have to deal with that anyways. As I've said in that spell format thread around here, if you have to look up the full spell text in the book during the game, then something has gone wrong. There NEEDS to be be a quick format for in game use. Rather that format is 1-4 lines of text on a character sheet or power cards doesn't matter for this thread. (I think both should be available though.) Since some kind of quick reference needs to be made, might as well design them to play nicely with refluffing.

Another thing to note is vancian spells are kind of hard to refluff do to their limited use anyways. Maybe there will be at-will / encounter options for wizard with a more general setup good for refluffing. There will most likely be refluffing resources available somewhere, let the people who want their fluffy spells have them.
Again, you're misusing the term simulationism. But this argument is, as always, completely frivolous. Nobody's claiming that an attack power has to be a single action. Actions interpret at the round level. Emerikol simply can't stand anything but untalented brutes for fighters whose only options are "I hit it" and "I hit it and get lucky".

Fighting skills "match up" just fine in AD&D. Possibly better, even. To the point that they were used in AD&D. They even had weapon and non-weapon proficiencies that were At-Will and Encounter stances. (Wild Fighting, "Running", and the weapon style specializations, for instance.)



I am using the term as a gameplay preference along the GNS model.   You may mistakely be thinking that I am using it in the same way a chemist might simulate a chemical reaction.  If so then I was unclear but so many of us are using these terms a lot I take for granted sometimes others may not get the reference.  I have a link to theMormegil's explanation in my sig.   He is decidedly pro-narrativist and I am pro-simulationist but I still found is blog useful.   Again I might have phrased my own position a bit more sympathetically if I wrote the blog. (and perhaps his a bit less Smile)

I want myself and my players sitting around the table to be able to take the game seriously and feel immersed in an fantasy adventure.  I want them to imagine being in a world that has depth like a good novel or a good movie.   With 4e, I felt like the system fought me achieving this as DM.  My players rolled their eyes a lot.  When that starts happening you've lost them.   Now your own experiences may vary.  I am here though advocating for things that I can use in my games to make my players and myself happy and the game enjoyable.  Just like the rest of you I suppose.  In prior editions of D&D I didn't find this to be nearly as much of an issue.

I agree that some of this is perception and experience.  Fortunately my own group is pretty much in agreement on what we like so it's not really an issue.  I'm sure if Alraune were in my group there would be more conflict over this and ultimately in the end we'd probably suggest she find a game that suits her tastes more.  We wouldn't hate her or even wish her ill.  Since it's a game you play what you like.  I've often wandered into a game store saw a bunch of my friends playing game X and just not played.  So while we agree on D&D there are wargames and board games that we don't agree on.  We just agree to disagree.  





 

My Blog which includes my Hobby Award Winning articles.

Emerikol simply can't stand anything but untalented brutes for fighters whose only options are "I hit it" and "I hit it and get lucky".



It almost feels like you're not looking for common ground, or for areas where you might be able to understand his positions, just caricaturing them in order to feel superior.

Count me among the folks who think that daily or encounter style powers for warriors don't make much sense.  In my mind, the main distinction between caster classes and martial classes is that caster classes have individually stronger abilities (resources) that are finite in supply, while martial characters have individually weaker abilities (resources) that are essentially infinite in supply (i.e. they can keep being used as long as the fighter is around).

That said, this paradigm doesn't reduce the fighter to a simple "I hit it or I miss it or I get lucky" schlub.  Even if all the fighter has in addition to RAW basic attack (and reaper, in 5e, let's say) is improvisation in combat, the fighter DOES have many tools that make in-combat more advantageous for him or her than other classes. 

-The fighter is more durable and can move into positions where improvised actions will be more effective, even while under fire from the enemy.

-The fighter is generally stronger and tougher and many times more agile than his or her opponent, thus making things like grapples, shield bashes, trips, etc. more likely to succeed than for other character types.  Can other characters improvise these actions?  Sure they can--but they're severely disadvantaged with them.  Thus the claim that "improvising < improvising + caster tools" is fallacious because you've conveniently forgotten that fighters have tools too.  They're more static and don't need to be expended, but that only makes them better in my opinion.
It's not about simulationism. There is no simulationism in DnD and never has been. Even in AD&D, the rule books directly state that you should never confuse the rules of the game with "science". It's about attachment to forms vs. commitment to ideals.

Fighters talk about smashing things and not about the dancing lotus triple thrust.



...And you would control MY character's personality and functionality with your simplistic and ignorant notion of how martial arts work? Every physical activity names its forms and techniques. A fighter who lacks defined techniques is simply an untrained brute with a sword, and defined techniques will be named so that they can be taught. If it's realism you're concerned about, it is more realistic that Fighters' moves have names than otherwise!



Umm....

How come when someone hits me with a club it hurts, and when someone hits me with a really big club it hurts really bad.

How come when I fall it hurts and when I fall further it hurts more.

How come when I'm conflagurated in fire, it burns, and when it's a really big powerful fire it burns really bad.

In all seriousness, how can anyone possibly think that there is not some level of simulation in D&D?  I can't even think of a roleplaying game that exists that does not have some level of simulation in it.  How do you explain the above 3 if it's not simulating reality in some minimal manner?







Bigger creatures tend to have more hit dice.  Rations exist to be eatin.  When something walks it leaves tracks which can then be followed.  If you hide it's hard to see you. 

The game is FULL of simulation.  People just mistake simulation/realism with iron clad reality.  The former doesn't equal the latter.
It's not about simulationism. There is no simulationism in DnD and never has been. Even in AD&D, the rule books directly state that you should never confuse the rules of the game with "science". It's about attachment to forms vs. commitment to ideals.

Fighters talk about smashing things and not about the dancing lotus triple thrust.



...And you would control MY character's personality and functionality with your simplistic and ignorant notion of how martial arts work? Every physical activity names its forms and techniques. A fighter who lacks defined techniques is simply an untrained brute with a sword, and defined techniques will be named so that they can be taught. If it's realism you're concerned about, it is more realistic that Fighters' moves have names than otherwise!



Umm....

How come when someone hits me with a club it hurts, and when someone hits me with a really big club it hurts really bad.

How come when I fall it hurts and when I fall further it hurts more.

How come when I'm conflagurated in fire, it burns, and when it's a really big powerful fire it burns really bad.

In all seriousness, how can anyone possibly think that there is not some level of simulation in D&D?  I can't even think of a roleplaying game that exists that does not have some level of simulation in it.  How do you explain the above 3 if it's not simulating reality in some minimal manner?







Bigger creatures tend to have more hit dice.  Rations exist to be eatin.  When something walks it leaves tracks which can then be followed.  If you hide it's hard to see you. 

The game is FULL of simulation.  People just mistake simulation/realism with iron clad reality.  The former doesn't equal the latter.

Unfortunately it often feels like it's the opponents of simulationism who try to conflate it with iron clad reality. :/
It almost feels like you're not looking for common ground, or for areas where you might be able to understand his positions



You'd be correct up to there: I'm not looking for common ground between positions, I'm refuting a bad justification. You cannot claim you dislike having martial powers because "named techniques are unrealistic", because that is factually wrong. You cannot claim you dislike having martial powers because "they didn't do that back in the day", because that is also factually wrong. By stripping away these false justifications, I intend to force Emerikol to actually think about what he believes, or admit that he has no reason for his beliefs.
It almost feels like you're not looking for common ground, or for areas where you might be able to understand his positions



You'd be correct up to there: I'm not looking for common ground between positions, I'm refuting a bad justification. You cannot claim you dislike having martial powers because "named techniques are unrealistic", because that is factually wrong. You cannot claim you dislike having martial powers because "they didn't do that back in the day", because that is also factually wrong. By stripping away these false justifications, I intend to force Emerikol to actually think about what he believes, or admit that he has no reason for his beliefs.


Then it would behoove you to understand his position before you start in with the smug attacking.  i don't agree with Emerikol a lot.  In fact it's somewhere south of cold and north of hell.    But even I recognize that your attacks so far have been inaccurate, and it appears to be because you have zero interest in hearing why he believes what he believes and total interest in yelling at him until he goes away.

Protip: I've seen Emerikol post enough to know that ain't going to work.
It almost feels like you're not looking for common ground, or for areas where you might be able to understand his positions



You'd be correct up to there: I'm not looking for common ground between positions, I'm refuting a bad justification. You cannot claim you dislike having martial powers because "named techniques are unrealistic", because that is factually wrong. You cannot claim you dislike having martial powers because "they didn't do that back in the day", because that is also factually wrong. By stripping away these false justifications, I intend to force Emerikol to actually think about what he believes, or admit that he has no reason for his beliefs.

Except for the fact that you're completely misrepresenting his positions (and mine) by this manner of arguing on the subject.

He explicitly avoided the term "realism" (which you insist on using, and claiming that he and I somehow don't understand what simulationism is) in making his arguments, and your points are totally valid if "realism" is the goal, but it's not.

Simulationism is about making mechanical effect consonant with in-game explanation.  And by one way of understanding combat mechanics (that generally prevalent in earlier editions of the game, and carried over to some extent in 3e), martial abilities aren't "one-off" powers, because they can be used again and again and again, and the level of abstraction of the combat round makes "I perform the Floret Feint Four against his left side" an unnecessary and inappropriate level of detail to provide.

In later editions, a simulationist could very well make the claim that this level of detail is appropriate both mechanically and in-game (and I would support it), but what you're doing is not seeing either side of that argument.  Instead you're making up an argument for Emerikol and claiming that it's stupid (and that he's somehow to be faulted for having the opinions you ascribe to him).  It's weird, honestly.
It almost feels like you're not looking for common ground, or for areas where you might be able to understand his positions



You'd be correct up to there: I'm not looking for common ground between positions, I'm refuting a bad justification. You cannot claim you dislike having martial powers because "named techniques are unrealistic", because that is factually wrong. You cannot claim you dislike having martial powers because "they didn't do that back in the day", because that is also factually wrong. By stripping away these false justifications, I intend to force Emerikol to actually think about what he believes, or admit that he has no reason for his beliefs.



In no D&D session I played prior to 4e were their martial powers.  I don't doubt that the book of nine sword existed or that in second edition there may have been some player option books.   None of those things were in the core book and I don't know of a group in my area that used any of them.  (thats 3e.  2e was too long ago to even say what they used.)  So yes I played many many sessions without martial powers.   If by power you mean a resource that is used up for some period of time like an encounter or a day.   I'm sure I saw some feats used like cleave but I don't implicitly have a problem with those things.

Well I did say that some martial disciplines like monk would likely have their names for various manuevers.  I just think the common traditional fantasy (think at least somewhat medieval) fighter sitting around at the bar after a great battle drinking his flagon of ale is going to be telling his fellow fighters he used this or that manuever to kill the big bad evil guy.   He is going to say "I ran him through" or "I cut his head off".   I'm sure if the rogue says he used Sly Flourish that he's going to be pointed to another tavern across town that caters to his type.   The rogue in my group hated that name so bad he came up with another.

The wizard on the other hand in the same bar is more than likely going to say "I used my lightning bolt spell and burned a hold right through his chest."   

I agree with others and I have suggested on these board before that the fighter have some non-daily non-encounter approach to manuevers.  They'd all be at-will or triggered reactions if it were me.









 

My Blog which includes my Hobby Award Winning articles.

I was giving him the benefit of the doubt, Satyr: If "simulationism" is used to mean anything but "realism but with magic in it", then it isn't just an error but an orwellian attempt at redefining the argument so that you cannot be questioned.

Simulationism cannot be a justification for anything when it only "simulates" itself, as you're claiming. That's a tautology.
I was giving him the benefit of the doubt, Satyr: If "simulationism" is used to mean anything but "realism but with magic in it", then it isn't just an error but an orwellian attempt at redefining the argument so that you cannot be questioned.


"Simulationism" has been a specialized term in game design circles since 2001, when Ron Edwards first published his "GNS and Other Matters of Role-playing Theory" article.  And emerikol explained that he didn't mean "realism" when he first used the term.  So there wasn't any duplicity involved.  If you were unfamiliar with the term, ask him what he means.  Or better yet, go straight to the source.

It's perfectly understandable that you didn't know the term.  Nobody expects everyone on these forums to be hobbyist or professional game designers.  But when someone specifically says they use a term to not mean "realism", it would make sense to ask him what he does mean, instead of telling him that, despite what he says, he does mean "realism" and then attacking him on that basis.
When faced with common sense, humans will use logic to prove their point. When faced with logic, humans will use common sense to prove their point.
holydoom.weebly.com: Holydoom! A lighthearted RPG in progress. Loosely based on 3.5. 4, and GURPS. Very, Very, Very loosely. Seriously, visit it now. http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/29086701/I_HIT_IT_WITH_MA_SWORD!_(like_this!):_A_Slayers_Handbook An attempt at CharOp
To anyone who thinks Pathfinder is outselling D&D
While one report may say that FLGS report a greater amount of book sales, one cannot forget the fact that the 71000 DDI subscribers paying 6-10 dollars a month don't count as "Book Sales."
"see sig" redirects here
Oblivious troll is Oblivious
PbP supporter!
General thoughts, feelings, and info on DDN!
Stuff I Heard Mike Say (subject to change): Multiclassing will be different than in 3.5! That's important. There is no level cap; classes advance ala 3.5 epic levels after a set level. Mundane (AKA fighter and co) encounter and daily powers will probably not be in the PHB (for the lack of space), but nor will they be in some obscure book released halfway through the edition.
You can't please everyone, but you can please me. I DO NOT WANT A FREAKING 4E REPEAT. I DO NOT WANT A MODULE THAT MIMICS MY FAVORITE EDITION. I WANT MODULES THAT MIMIC A PLAYSTYLE AND CAN BE INTERCHANGED TO COMPLETELY CHANGE THE FEEL, BUT NOT THE THEME, OF D&D. A perfect example would be an espionage module, or desert survival. A BAD EXAMPLE IS HEALING SURGES. WE HAVE 4E FOR THOSE! A good example is a way to combine a mundane and self healing module, a high-survival-rate module, and a separate pool of healing resource module.
I'm aware of the term, I know the theory, and it's less than useless. Simulationism as the originator defines it is either a synonym for realism (it's simulationist because it reflects some external standard) or a tautological self-justification (it's simulationist because it's shaped like itself).

The dispute here is between attachment to forms and goals. Emerikol is preoccupied with forms, he wants a martial character that is "shaped like itself". I don't care how the martial character is shaped, I care what it can do.
But when someone specifically says they use a term to not mean "realism", it would make sense to ask him what he does mean, instead of telling him that, despite what he says, he does mean "realism" and then attacking him on that basis.



Now that's just crazy talk.
I'm aware of the term, I know the theory, and it's less than useless.


If you're not going to accept his premises then that's the tactic you should take.  Don't tell him what he really means and then attack that.
I'm aware of the term, I know the theory, and it's less than useless. Simulationism as the originator defines it is either a synonym for realism (it's simulationist because it reflects some external standard) or a tautological self-justification (it's simulationist because it's shaped like itself).

The dispute here is between attachment to forms and goals. Emerikol is preoccupied with forms, he wants a martial character that is "shaped like itself". I don't care how the martial character is shaped, I care what it can do.

So why do you ignore every post that indicates for you what a "martial character shaped like itself" can do?
Finally a topic I hate more than alignment: GNS.

Anyone want to discuss religion or politics instead?
Because his reliance on tautological self-justification makes any substantive discussion worthless. Until he drops it, there's nothing else to talk about.
I found the terms eye opening and helpful.  I realize that no one though is 100% one way or the other.  

If you read my blog post on meta game dissonance you can also see some of the things I dislike about martial daily and encounter powers specifically.   Thats in my sig as well.  

A narrativist has no problem with a player determining when a chance event occurs even though a character could not in truth make such a determination.  If you are familiar with FATE, Fate points for example are this way.   A character doesn't even know about fate points.   The player knows about them and uses them to help his character at a crucial junction in the game.   Such things bother simulationists.  We want the rules to have a tighter correlation to the world.  A martial daily works the same way a fate point does.   It's impossible to defend the notion that a fighter can only do a manuever once per day because of endurance etc...   It has to be explained using the fate point method.   The player determines that at this crucial moment the character gets the opportunity to pull of the daily manuever.  The player also agrees that he only gets this particular fate point once per day.

I realize that games have fate points (also called hero points in other games).  I don't like them.  I like a lot about Fate though and I think it's skill challenge system is better in most ways than 4e's.  So one bad thing does not make everything bad.

On the flip side.  Most (not all) fighter daily powers are not over the top for me intrinsically.  I wouldn't mind it if a fighter had a taunt that he could do at will that attacked some monster defense and if they failed they'd go after the fighter.   I might circumstantially adjust the DC but overall I'm not against it.   I wouldn't be against some kind of tumbling ability for characters with acrobatics.   I'm not against everything in the universe except "I hit".   I am though against what I'm against.   I am not against you having fun though.  I am against anything that will prevent me from having fun.  Rules modules I can ignore won't be a problem.  I've been ignoring and adding rules for over thirty years.

My Blog which includes my Hobby Award Winning articles.

Because his reliance on tautological self-justification makes any substantive discussion worthless. Until he drops it, there's nothing else to talk about.



I think the problem most 4e advocates have is the belief that with enough argument they can convince someone they are having fun when they are not.   I think such things are futile.  I am under no illusion that I can convince a vancian hater that in fact vancian is fun.

I think a more fruitful discussion would be how to influence the game in a direction that makes both sides happy with what they got.   I don't think this is impossible in most cases.   Maybe there is something but there is a lot of good that could be accomplished.  

Instead I get barraged constantly by people vainly trying to change my opinion about fun.   Fun is not an intellectual exercise.  It is an experience.  It's not easily changed.  I've never met a person that had real experience of a game and hated it that I later convinced was fun.   YMMV.

 

My Blog which includes my Hobby Award Winning articles.

Accused of using tautological arguments, Emerikol responds, "I'm against what I'm against."

I almost fell off my chair.
Because his reliance on tautological self-justification makes any substantive discussion worthless. Until he drops it, there's nothing else to talk about.



I think the problem most 4e advocates have is the belief that with enough argument they can convince someone they are having fun when they are not.   I think such things are futile.  I am under no illusion that I can convince a vancian hater that in fact vancian is fun.

I think a more fruitful discussion would be how to influence the game in a direction that makes both sides happy with what they got.   I don't think this is impossible in most cases.   Maybe there is something but there is a lot of good that could be accomplished.  

Instead I get barraged constantly by people vainly trying to change my opinion about fun.   Fun is not an intellectual exercise.  It is an experience.  It's not easily changed.  I've never met a person that had real experience of a game and hated it that I later convinced was fun.   YMMV.

 

But your mileage CAN'T vary!  It's not allowed.


Umm....

How come when someone hits me with a club it hurts, and when someone hits me with a really big club it hurts really bad.

How come when I fall it hurts and when I fall further it hurts more.

How come when I'm conflagurated in fire, it burns, and when it's a really big powerful fire it burns really bad.

In all seriousness, how can anyone possibly think that there is not some level of simulation in D&D?  I can't even think of a roleplaying game that exists that does not have some level of simulation in it.  How do you explain the above 3 if it's not simulating reality in some minimal manner?



Bigger creatures tend to have more hit dice.  Rations exist to be eatin.  When something walks it leaves tracks which can then be followed.  If you hide it's hard to see you. 

The game is FULL of simulation.  People just mistake simulation/realism with iron clad reality.  The former doesn't equal the latter.


Really, guys?  The game is just FULL of simulation because fire burns things and hiding makes you hard to see?  If that's all it takes, then Katamri Damacy is an incredibly realistic simulation of modern-day Japan.  After all, Earth really is full of things.
Seriously, though, you should check out the PbP Haven. You might also like Real Adventures, IF you're cool.
Knights of W.T.F.- Silver Spur Winner
4enclave, a place where 4e fans can talk 4e in peace.


Umm....

How come when someone hits me with a club it hurts, and when someone hits me with a really big club it hurts really bad.

How come when I fall it hurts and when I fall further it hurts more.

How come when I'm conflagurated in fire, it burns, and when it's a really big powerful fire it burns really bad.

In all seriousness, how can anyone possibly think that there is not some level of simulation in D&D?  I can't even think of a roleplaying game that exists that does not have some level of simulation in it.  How do you explain the above 3 if it's not simulating reality in some minimal manner?



Bigger creatures tend to have more hit dice.  Rations exist to be eatin.  When something walks it leaves tracks which can then be followed.  If you hide it's hard to see you. 

The game is FULL of simulation.  People just mistake simulation/realism with iron clad reality.  The former doesn't equal the latter.


Really, guys?  The game is just FULL of simulation because fire burns things and hiding makes you hard to see?  If that's all it takes, then Katamri Damacy is an incredibly realistic simulation of modern-day Japan.  After all, Earth really is full of things.



Again, simulation doesn't have to be real world perfect in order for it to be a simulation.  It just has to make the attempt to simulate real world activity.  Falling when a character jumps off a cliff or falls into a trap SIMULATES gravity and impact.
Dragons! Unicorns! It's a fantasy game. Fantasy martial characters shouldnt be barred from having and using fantastic powers.

Does this really not make sense in a fantastic world? In a world with fireballs and warforged, we can't have a guy use "come and get it" once per day? Why must that break the verisimilitude?

It seems like such an artificial limitation.
I think the problem most 4e advocates have is the belief that with enough argument they can convince someone they are having fun when they are not.   I think such things are futile.  I am under no illusion that I can convince a vancian hater that in fact vancian is fun.



Expanding your tastes takes effort, but is both possible and dutiful. You have instead taken the opposite approach, and chosen to pedantically obsess over details of things you instinctively disliked.

If you aren't going to attempt to change them, however, you should at least stop trying to dress them up with pseudo-intellectualism in a vain attempt to disguise them as something more than your irrational personal opinions. That's my argument: you need to stop claiming that catering to your irrational dislikes is equivalid to the duty of balancing the game.
@bawylie
I get that you don't get it.  As a first step please read my meta game dissonance blog that is linked to in my sig.  That will aid you in understanding why X is okay but not Y.  There are distinctions and it really has nothing to do with fighter power level but how he accesses those powers.  

That is why if all else fails I want to resort to magic in some way to help the fighter.  Obviously Paladins are easy because they are magical.  The pure mundanes though are a challenge but I still hope. 

My Blog which includes my Hobby Award Winning articles.

Daily powers for fighters are something that just doesn't "feel" right to a good chunk of players.  If it's really some form of well-practiced, signature maneuver, why can't the character just do it again?  The wizard/cleric explanations work for explaining why spells are limited, but limited maneuvers really don't have a viable translation into the character's game world.  The chips are really down, but I somehow forgot how to execute my Hidden Lotus Strike because I used it this morning?  You can try to explain it away and say that people who don't like it are dumb dumbs, but it just doesn't sit well with a good chunk of players, and never really will.

The Book of Nine Swords and 4e really didn't do a good job dressing the abilities up either.  The names for special warrior attacks/abilities were often quite ridiculous and sounded like something out of a badly dubbed Lord of the Wu Tang movie.  Face my Great Solar Stance!  Silly.  Sure you can try to come up with a cooler name for it, but obviously the designers failed to do so, and everyone in the party still knows that you're still really using Great Solar Stance.

To get back to the OPs original point, for me the real creativity in D&D comes not from describing in detail my exact actions for a combat round (haha, the stuffy book says it's magic missile but I am really throwing butter knives!), but in jointly creating social dynamics and dialog between characters that is satisfying and convincing.  The mechanics are just there to simulate events that become more exciting by introducing some risk and randomness.
There is an obvious solution to that problem, Kalroc, and it's to discard the "daily" timer as a clunky legacy mechanic that causes more problems than it solves. "You can use 1 power from tier A and 3 from tier B per fight. Knock yourself out."
Sign In to post comments