|
1 year ago ::
Dec 20, 2011 - 10:11AM
#51
|
|
|
I'm... pretty sure it's not trying to be a simulation and succeeding just fine. I have no idea where you get the idea that it's trying to simulate anything.
Well, you could have just read the examples they provided in the rest of their post.
D&D always had/has some things simulated to the Nth level of detail. Some things where it simulates to a moderate level of detail. But then (also always) other things where it doesn't try at all. The ratio between those lately has leaned more towards the latter, but it hasn't completely discarded every aspect of the former. 4e changed a lot for the sake of balance. 4e additionally changed some aspects that affected its level of integrity (like base stats effecting PC's and NPC's differently). And some things don't apply a sense of realism at all (like the method of losing a power to gain a new power).
Players are going to have greatly differing opinions about how much simulationism, in-context realism, Earth-based realism, and integrity a game should have and what, of that, is presented as the default rule to optionally remove or the optional rule to tack on. There is an actual give and take with balance that goes on, because realities tend not to be fair, tend to be harsh and unforgiviing, and tend to be exploitable by those that know how to do so.
But reality (whether Earth-like or context-dependent) is there to provide the sense of immersion, and it is necessary for D&D to provide that sense to a debatable point, or else you're really just playing Yahtzee. So yes, 4e is still simulationist in many aspects.
Somnia, the Evanescent Plane -- A 3-set Block
Show
Theora, A World of Modern Science
Show
Build Around This
Show
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Dec 20, 2011 - 10:14AM
#52
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2009
|
I don't think in the 'fluff follows function' world of 4e it is all that much a concern of the rules. Maybe presentation, but not mechanics.
Think so? The limited to make it realistic is rules... (see the nerf to CaGi).
So a 3e analog trip maneuver gets a series of limits on it including size and bipedal etc all in an attempt to make it realistic making sure the players dont offend somebodies sensibility - but my 4e knock down assault gets to be a dozen different things ... you cant trip a dragon but my knockdown assault where I catch its wing on my axe at the right moment and throw it off balance so the power of its own attempt to reposition itself hurls it to the ground - well that works fine.
And not because I reflavored it.. but because the rules said it could.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Dec 20, 2011 - 10:17AM
#53
|
|
|
You guys have missed the point on realism and simulationism arguments in 4E. I play simulations, abstracts and all sorts of games that I don't have a problem with. The problem with 4E is that it is actually trying to be a simulation but failing horribly. They have fine details like weapon quality giving +2 or +3, they have weapon proficiency, they have little details like that... then they give rogues a power where they can fling a single knife a dozen times in one round, suddenly busting out some Xena Warrior Princess impersonation I guess. And it's this horrible failure that people complain about. Had they actually made a reasonably consistent game, be it abstract or simulation, inevitable some people wouldn't have been happy but they'd have got on with things. The reason people are STILL hating on 4E is because they screwed it up and have at best a simulation of B grade action drama and at worst just an inconsistent mess that makes no sense.
Yeah, this is nonsense. It is a basically gamist system from start to finish. Sure, there are some weapons that have a +2 and others a +3 prof bonus. Big deal, that's still done on basically gamist lines. You are going to prove to me that people would 'hit more often' with a sword than a mace? There's some kind of realism involved? Especially when you're never going to really define what 'hit' means to start with given how abstract defenses and hit points and even attacks are.
This WAS an issue with pre-4e though. Somehow someone (Gygax I guess) decided it would be 'realistic' to have a weapon-vs-AC table. Did someone go out and research the effectiveness of bohemian ear-spoons vs fork-fauchards against mail and plate armor? Really? Horsepotatoes. Again, the concept of a hit and damage was just as much abstract in 1e (more so with 1 min rounds and such) as it is in 4e. To say there was any MEANINGFUL 'simulation of reality' in there is uttermost bunk. I could just as easily list 100 examples from any edition of D&D (maybe not Basic, they just mercifully ignored that kind of nonsense).
The GREAT ADVANCE of 4e was simply someone sitting down and acknowledging that you can't do meaningful simulation beyond a VERY abstract level in ANY RPG, so the cost of trying to do so and failing was making a lousier game for no net benefit. Of course then we come to the turn of phrase that Monte used "nod to simulation", which I'm sure he chose rather carefully. Clearly he gets all this, and clearly he also understands that like 95% of the audience DOESN'T and some of them clearly hanker for a worse game that lets them pretend it is more realistic. Its a preference, and people are welcome to it. It can help set a specific tone to the game, so it isn't like it is a worthless concept. You just have to understand that there was no 'failure' in 4e. It is VERY DELIBERATELY designed exactly the way it is for highly gamist reasons, and is a much better game as a result, even if you don't like it.
That is not dead which may eternal lie
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Dec 20, 2011 - 10:20AM
#54
|
|
|
Um, yeah - what pluisjen said. those +2/+3 differences are so that weapon choice is an interesting trade-off, not so that there is any sort of "realism". You might get some sort of warm fuzzy feeling from that specific difference, but it doesn't really have any significant "reality basis".
Sure just like a Greataxe being high crit has no basis in trying to mechanically describe a weapon with greater momentum, it's just a trade-off. Like how an extended rest has no basis in circadian rhythms, it's only there for pacing. Those +2/+3 proficiency bonuses aren't trying to mechanically represent in any low-detail way the difference between weapons that tend to have differences in precision when wielded by novice combatants. You're right, NO aspect of D&D has grounds in being simulationist. Sorry.
Somnia, the Evanescent Plane -- A 3-set Block
Show
Theora, A World of Modern Science
Show
Build Around This
Show
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Dec 20, 2011 - 10:22AM
#55
|
Date Joined:
Dec 10, 2008
|
"Realism" is usually just an excuse to bash on and limit marshal characters and at the same time let other sources get away with anything.
That quote ... I think I'm in love.
OD&D, 1E and 2E challenged the player.
3E challenged the character, not the player.
Now 4E takes it a step further by challenging a GROUP OF PLAYERS to work together as a TEAM.
That's why I love 4E.
"Your ability to summon a horde of celestial superbeings at will is making my ... BMX skills look a bit redundant."
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Dec 20, 2011 - 10:24AM
#56
|
Date Joined:
Aug 17, 2009
|
Like how an extended rest has no basis in circadian rhythms, it's only there for pacing.
I don't know about you, but I stay up for longer than eight hours before going to bed.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Dec 20, 2011 - 10:39AM
#57
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2002
|
The big trick to the "simulation" conversation is that there is a disagreement between some players and the designers as to what is being simulated. This is especially an issue because many people do not work within the tier system.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Dec 20, 2011 - 10:52AM
#58
|
- Forum Guide
- Hero Craftsman Gold Medalist
- Master Dungeon Master
Date Joined:
Jun 23, 2005
|
Um, yeah - what pluisjen said. those +2/+3 differences are so that weapon choice is an interesting trade-off, not so that there is any sort of "realism". You might get some sort of warm fuzzy feeling from that specific difference, but it doesn't really have any significant "reality basis".
Sure just like a Greataxe being high crit has no basis in trying to mechanically describe a weapon with greater momentum, it's just a trade-off. Like how an extended rest has no basis in circadian rhythms, it's only there for pacing. Those +2/+3 proficiency bonuses aren't trying to mechanically represent in any low-detail way the difference between weapons that tend to have differences in precision when wielded by novice combatants. You're right, NO aspect of D&D has grounds in being simulationist. Sorry.
I know you wrote this sarcastically, but I agree with the unsarcastic reading.
- A Greataxe being high crit has no basis in trying to mechanically describe a weapon with greater momentum, it's just a trade-off. Which is why garrottes and punching daggers have the high crit qualty, and the greatclub does not.
- An extended rest has no basis in circadian rhythms, it's only there for pacing. An extended rest is 6 hours long and, once completed, cannot be taken for 12 hours, making it an 18-hour cycle. A circadian rhythym is roughly 24 hours. So the extended rest has nothign to do with circadian rhythms, and it does have everything to do with story pacing.
- +2/+3 proficiency bonuses aren't trying to mechanically represent in any low-detail way the difference between weapons that tend to have differences in precision when wielded by novice combatants. Complicated weapons, like the double axe, are +2. The measure of the proficiency isn't trying to "simulate" anything. The extra +1 for proficiency bonus is just a way to make some weapons fmore attractive than others mechanically.
Which is not to say there is no simulation in 4e. But it's really minor, and it's usually added onto the mechanics, rather than the mechanics being driven by the simulation.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Dec 20, 2011 - 11:05AM
#59
|
Date Joined:
Sep 10, 2005
|
The big trick to the "simulation" conversation is that there is a disagreement between some players and the designers as to what is being simulated. This is especially an issue because many people do not work within the tier system.
This.
Is the real world as we know it being simulated with magic and dragons and fantasy added?
Is a fantasy world with it's on internally consistant physical and metaphysical laws what is being simulated?
Is a tactical conflict with necessary finite limits what is being modelled?
Or is a narrative of swords and sorcery adventure what is being modelled?
Some level of each apply but their relative importance is HUGELY important to approaching the rules set from both the side of design and the side of playing the game.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Dec 20, 2011 - 11:14AM
#60
|
|
|
Um, yeah - what pluisjen said. those +2/+3 differences are so that weapon choice is an interesting trade-off, not so that there is any sort of "realism". You might get some sort of warm fuzzy feeling from that specific difference, but it doesn't really have any significant "reality basis".
Sure just like a Greataxe being high crit has no basis in trying to mechanically describe a weapon with greater momentum, it's just a trade-off. Like how an extended rest has no basis in circadian rhythms, it's only there for pacing. Those +2/+3 proficiency bonuses aren't trying to mechanically represent in any low-detail way the difference between weapons that tend to have differences in precision when wielded by novice combatants. You're right, NO aspect of D&D has grounds in being simulationist. Sorry.
I know you wrote this sarcastically, but I agree with the unsarcastic reading.
- A Greataxe being high crit has no basis in trying to mechanically describe a weapon with greater momentum, it's just a trade-off. Which is why garrottes and punching daggers have the high crit qualty, and the greatclub does not.
- An extended rest has no basis in circadian rhythms, it's only there for pacing. An extended rest is 6 hours long and, once completed, cannot be taken for 12 hours, making it an 18-hour cycle. A circadian rhythym is roughly 24 hours. So the extended rest has nothign to do with circadian rhythms, and it does have everything to do with story pacing.
- +2/+3 proficiency bonuses aren't trying to mechanically represent in any low-detail way the difference between weapons that tend to have differences in precision when wielded by novice combatants. Complicated weapons, like the double axe, are +2. The measure of the proficiency isn't trying to "simulate" anything. The extra +1 for proficiency bonus is just a way to make some weapons fmore attractive than others mechanically.
Which is not to say there is no simulation in 4e. But it's really minor, and it's usually added onto the mechanics, rather than the mechanics being driven by the simulation.
My way of putting it is just that it is a secondary consideration. If the game can represent a big axe and an agile rapier within the boundaries of its variation of properties such that you get the impression that the rapier is a rapier and the axe is an axe then 4e is more than happy to do that. However there's NO consideration of whether that is REALISTIC or not, just whether or not it happens to please a greater or lesser number of players than doing it a different and equally arbitrary way would. If people would have been happier with the names "greataxe" and "rapier" swapped, then that's what 4e would have done (and you're really quite free to fluff them that way if you desire for whatever reason).
And just to put the stake in the heart of anyone thinking that D&D started out with any MORE degree of simulation intended than it has now, go read the Intro to the 1e DMG where Gygax plainly states in no uncertain terms that his design criteria are PURELY gamist and that any resemblance between the mechanics of the game and reality is purely secondary to making a good game. Nothing has changed between then and now, 4e and 1e are on exactly the same page there, incontrovertibly.
Now, 3.x, well, that's a different beast and clearly there was at least some urge being exercised there to make simulation of some sort or other a higher priority (but still rather low if you ask me). I think it would be most accurate to say 3.x 'failed' (if you will) in a certain sense in that the designers couldn't seem to get their priorities straight. They'd try to make one part of the rules reflect 'reality' and another part would be completely abstract and arbitrary game mechanics for the sake of mechanics. It was both jarring and put real annoying limits on what you were able to refluff without half the players going "WTF is that??!!!".
That is not dead which may eternal lie
|
|
|
