crosswiredmind's page

David Marks wrote:

WotC's Nightmare wrote:

What about the worst case I have seen? The paladin's divine challenge. Why should the paladin's deity shoot laser beams (radiant damage) from the sky to punish enemies for "not" attacking one of their followers? If they are going to smite someone, shouldn't they smite someone for "attacking" the paladin? This rule is so gamist it is laughable. There is no possible explanation for this that wouldn't sound completely ridiculous. It exists for one reason: To make enemies want to attack the palading so he can fulfil his role as a "defender".

Off the top of my head, the Paladin vows to protect his allies from one opponent, and his god gives him the backup.

Cheers! :)

I understand you like 4e, but there are some rules so ridiculous you can't possibly defend them. Just because you like the system (as do I) doesn't mean you need to defend every little thing about it. I personally think the marking is ridiculous as well.

It does not sound ridiculous to me. If a paladin is the protector then why wouldn't his god provide him the ability to keep an aggressor form attacking others?

crosswiredmind wrote:

Asgetrion wrote:

Yeah, well, maybe it would help if I actually would "get" how some of the powers (such as the rogue's 'Tricky Strike') actually work... I mean, try explaining how a gargantuan dragon or a mindless golem is shifted 15 feet when the rogue's dagger hits them.

Well, the description says it all - "Through a series of feints and lures, you maneuver your foe right where you want him."

The rouge does not physically move anything.

I don't know... I understand how a rogue maneuvers a goblin, but not, say, a hulking tarrasque.

Lure = bait.

Yeah, well, maybe it would help if I actually would "get" how some of the powers (such as the rogue's 'Tricky Strike') actually work... I mean, try explaining how a gargantuan dragon or a mindless golem is shifted 15 feet when the rogue's dagger hits them.

Well, the description says it all - "Through a series of feints and lures, you maneuver your foe right where you want him."

The rouge does not physically move anything.

Warhammer Fantasy Battles - Dwarfs (about 2500 to 3000 points worth) and High Elves (3000+ points).

I played 40K Rougue Trader way way back with Marines and Army mixed. It was ok and I lost interest. I much prefer Fantasy Battles.

crosswiredmind wrote:

Unlike Shadowrun, D&D does not really have any recon elements. Sure - there is divination but that's not the same.
I like planning as well but D&D just isn't the kind of game that lends itself to that particular play style.

I'd say this again depends on style of play. Use of rogues, clairvoyance spells, prying eyes, hit-and-run tactics, familiars (if the mage is bold enough)... I've seen plenty of such work that paid off substantially for players in the dungeon setting, across levels. I've had the more common experience that the BBEG was in fact not that hard of a battle, because by the time they got to it, the players had plenty of intel. As alleynbard noted, the planning for the end-battle was usually a lot of fun.

Sure - it can be done. My point is that Shadowrun excels in this department. D&D has always been the game you play with little or no intel besides listening at the door. I know the tools are there to do much more than that but they are seldom used.

crosswiredmind wrote:

Very cool. I like Iron Kingdoms and 4e should be an excellent fit for it.

As much as I hate to add fire to the edition wars - speaking as someone that is not currently playing either 3e or 4e - both editions are high fantasy and both can be altered to play in a lower tier. The whole argument that 4e embodies too high a level of fantasy for setting X, Y, or Z has no real merit.

That 4e cannot be used for X, Y, or Z, yes, that is a dubious argument. Any system can be used for any style of game.

Whether or not it should be, or as to how well it will actually run as a game with that style, though, those are valid arguments.

True. The same is true for any game system which is why the OGL and the proliferation of genres covered by it always bugged me.

You do realize that IK is NOT going to have anything to do with 4e right?

Oops - misread the thread title.

IronKingdoms is NOT high fantasy. We're not talking the Forgotten Realms here.

Sure its high fantasy. Are there wizards just like the ones in the PHB? Are there planes? Demon s? Dragons? Are there guns that use magic rather than gunpowder?

IK is gritty but that does not make it low fantasy. It is definitely HIGH fantasy. Just because it does not have the crack based wackiness of FR does not make it low fantasy.

Very cool. I like Iron Kingdoms and 4e should be an excellent fit for it.

As much as I hate to add fire to the edition wars - speaking as someone that is not currently playing either 3e or 4e - both editions are high fantasy and both can be altered to play in a lower tier. The whole argument that 4e embodies too high a level of fantasy for setting X, Y, or Z has no real merit.

Some times the planning is part of the fun. I was one of those guys who enjoyed Shadowrun when a good part of the game was planning how to pull off the run.

Unlike Shadowrun, D&D does not really have any recon elements. Sure - there is divination but that's not the same.

The identity of the big bad guy in D&D is often kept hidden so that the final fight will be a big surprise. In addition the use of the dungeon as a common setting makes scouting out the enemy and fighting them a singular event. Add to that the vast array of bad guys and environments closed to scouting (how many bad guys come into the "world" through hidden portals to other planes?) and it gets even more complicated.

I like planning as well but D&D just isn't the kind of game that lends itself to that particular play style.

Same here. I can't remember the last time myself or one of my friends purchased a role-playing supplement from a FLGS. D&D is now stocked reliably at large book retailers like Barnes & Noble (I even saw a Pathfinder product last time I was there!), which are everywhere. And Amazon's prices are very difficult to beat, especially if you don't mind waiting a couple days (and if you pre-order, you don't even have to suffer through that!). The FLGS made sense in an era where role-playing games were "underground" and online shopping didn't exist, but nowadays there is almost no reason to have to resort to such places. RPGs - even tabletop ones - are cutting into mainstream culture once again.

I do not disagree. I would love to see a diversified and vibrant industry where the general public can name any other games when asked to name RPGs other than D&D. If the game industry were more like the airline industry then losing D&D would not be such a big deal - but they are the prime mover of this hobby. Like it or not the fortunes of this hobby are tied to WotC and it will take some time before that changes, if it ever does.

crosswiredmind wrote:

...If D&D were to go pop then this whole industry would be in deep trouble.

Agreed. But no matter how self-evident something is, you will never suffer from a lack of people willing to argue the point. And speaking of points, I hope to never see this one proven.

Indeed.

crosswiredmind wrote:

I have spent significant time in local game shops in PA, NY, NJ, DE,

Ever been to Days of Knights in Delaware?

Yep. They have an awesome selection of old used board games. Bought my father-in-law a copy of Stalingrad there many moons ago. Friends of mine have played LG there off and on.

veector wrote:

CourtFool wrote:

And they call me an agitator.

No... I call you a poodle!

We should be calling him a Llama! :P He just needs a more appropriate Avatar.

Kinda looks like a maniacal alpaca to me.

crosswiredmind wrote:

D&D makes up 70 to 80% of all RPG sales. If it disappeared then many game shops would be in trouble.

You mention anecdotal evidence (your FLGS) and make it here "many game shops". Your FLGS =/= Many game shops.

In fact, it's been a while since I've seen any game shop make most of its sales on RPGs. Since... the days before Magic: the Gathering, to be precise.

Usually, they are stores selling Mangas, Comics, TCGs, Board Games, Geek memorabilia, anime bigatures, trains and wargame decors, underground stuff etc etc... and happen to cover RPGs as well. Not the other way around.

I have spent significant time in local game shops in PA, NY, NJ, DE, MD, VA, NC, OR, CA, MA, ME, NM, FL, England, Scotland, Tokyo, Vancouver, Montreal, and even San Jose Costa Rica (though that was more of an Anime shop). I know that many shops are just card shops with a few RPG products. The context of this entire discussion is the RPG industry. I know that if D&D disappeared tomorrow the GW stores would still be there as would comic and card shops that also sell games. But there are a whole lot of shops that stock more than just a few RPGs and there are more of them than you may think. If D&D were to go pop then this whole industry would be in deep trouble.

But that is your opinion that try wrong about 4e. Most of the pro 4e post sounds like an attempt to talk people into ‘just giving this poor little game a try’. I have and it’s nothing more then a MMO or a tactical wargame, me. That’s my opinion.

So you didn't role play at all? You did not participate in building a story? The GM laid out a game without a plot or interesting NPCs?

Like I said if an FLGS is having to survive on the sales of D&D alone...then they probably deserve to go under.

This statement makes no sense at all. I said that D&D is a big enough part of my local's sales that if it were to disappear they would have trouble staying afloat because they would be cutting it too close to operating expenses. How on earth does that mean they deserve to go under? D&D makes up 70 to 80% of all RPG sales. If it disappeared then many game shops would be in trouble.

Tell that to the folks at Amrican and GM that are losing their jobs right now.

non sequitur - what are you referring to?

How would your FLGS crash if D&D went away over night? Is that all they sell?

No, that is not all they sell. It is their top seller. If that went away then their ability to turn a profit would be dramatically decreased. Their margin will have decreased to such a degree that continued operation would be nigh impossible.

And frankly, were I working for Paizo, I would be a bit ticked at your idea that they will NEVER be able to grow their business beyond where it is. That it's impossible to become THE name in the RPG industry. They can't possibly be THAT successful.

There is a big difference between growth and taking the place of the industry leader. Apple is growing but they are still a bit player in the personal computer market compared to those aligned with Microsoft.

Hrmmmm...It's not not unheard of...How about the current state of the Auto Industry. The top car manufacturers (Chevy, Ford, etc...) aren't the top car manufacturers due to losses in sales, the economy, and missteps by the companies themselves. Smaller companies have gone toe to toe with them and have won (Toyota, Honda, etc...thanks to their smaller and more efficient cars).

No comparison. The auto industry has never had a single company dominate the entire market the way WotC has. The top car manufacturers have basically been in tight competition for many many decades.

Let's see...Oh how about the airline industry? They have been hit by losses in sales, the economy, missteps by the airlines themselves (safety being the most recent screw ups). The top airlines are in trouble yet a small airline took advantage of the other airlines mistakes, made good choices and Southwest airlines ended up on top.

Southwest is not the top carrier - that would be American. The airline industry is also a poor comparison - the top carriers share similarly sized slices of the market:

American 14.6%
Southwest 12.5%
United 11.2%
Delta 10.8%
Continental 7.8%
Northwest 6.6%
US Airways 6.5%
JetBlue 4.2%
AirTran Corporation 3.0%
Alaska 2.7%

Of course I'm sure you'll step up and educate us all with your PHD in how the Automobile and Airline industry are run.

That's what the interwebz is for.

I am off all of D&D for now but when I do play then I will play 4e. I can't even read 3e/OGL rules without the nervous ticks flaring up big time. Well not really but I do not enjoy 3e - so it will be 4e or no D&D at all.

BigDaddyG wrote:

realphilbo wrote:

I wonder how much it would cost to buy the IP and brand name of D&D?

I'm sure that Hasbro would probably not let that one go. For any price.

Oh, I'm sure they'd let it go for somewhere in the low nine figures ($100-200 million). That amount of cash would matter on the Hasbro bottom line.

Sounds plausible. Unfortunately the only "game" company in a position to pony up that kind of dough is Blizzard. The D&D would be the WoW roleplaying game.

crosswiredmind wrote:

Yeah, well ... by performance I do mean staying under 70 cause it doesn't like going any faster, and uh ... well ... it does corner pretty good - for a brick.

HEY - bad performance is still performance ... I REALLY want a Tesla.

Ah.

So indeed if you do go beyond those basic operating parameters the vehicle no longer really functions, as well as having a severe limit in a particular area.

4E - The Prius edition!

;)

Nah - its more like the Camry hybrid. It doesn't look as cool as the Prius, gets less milage than some compact non-hybrid cars even with the cool tech under the hood, and it comes in beige.

If they were selling as well as they hoped there would have been no reason to revise the GSL.

I do not see that connection at all. The creation of a third party publishing market has nothing to do with the sales of the core product. I think this is a real stretch.

Lord Fyre wrote:

P&P gaming - NEEDS - D&D.

This is conventional wisdom, because D&D has always been around and created the industry itself. But conventional wisdom is proven wrong time and time again.

The truth of the matter is, nobody knows what would happen if D&D was to crash once and for all.

Well that is not true. My FLGS would likely close if D&D crashed. My guess is that many game stores would loose a large percentage of their sales if D&D disappeared over night. I cannot see how the hobby would recover from the loss.

Brent wrote:

This is a great post. Paizo doesn't need 4e to fail to be successful. They don't need 4e to fail to make great products.

As you have said. P&P gaming - NEEDS - D&D.

So, not only does Paizo not need 4th Edition to fail, Paizo actually benefits from D&D 4E's success. (If for no other reason then it keeps most Local Fantasy Gaming Stores afloat.)

Currently at my FLGS there are two things selling well in the RPG market WotC 4e and everything Paizo. All other 3e/OGL stuff is dead or dying.

Then we will have to agree to disagree. I don't think it is unrealistic. If Paizo plays their cards right it's possible.

You can disagree all you like but there is not one example where an industry leader with market share like WotC has been supplanted simply because a small competitor played their cards right. It takes a major failure from the leader to open up the market to robust competition. WotC does not look like a company poised to fail.

Scott Betts wrote:

Heck their own game isn't even D&D anymore...IN name only.

In your opinion. Given the continued high sales volume of the first set of 4th Edition books, that opinion appears to be in the minority.

Just curious, but, do you have any numbers to share which back your statement up?

I'm just wondering how you know the sales numbers are so high.

... because Amazon posts them and 4e was tops for a while. There is no question that sales of 4e have been very big indeed.

There is still a very rich market, though, for Paizo to take advantage of. (My personal guess is 1/6th or so of D&D's numbers, assuming the Internet scuttlebutt of 1/3rd of 3e players not going 4e, and then that about half of them won't go Pathfinder for one reason or another.)

Very very true. I do not mean to imply that Paizo will not succeed. In fact i believe they will do quite well and have great success.

And somehow the mentality that a company like Paizo or Necromancer or Mongoose or Palladium being able to compete toe to toe with WotC, and WIN, is unrealistic? It's not unheard of.

When a company is as dominant as WotC they need to fail so horribly for the competition to have any chance at all of taking their place. Apple and Microsoft have been going at it for decades and Apple is just now taking away a serious chunk of Microsoft's market share and they are still only down in the single digit percentages.

Paizo replacing WotC as the market leader is unrealistic.

You have to add simulationist mechanics in order to simulate a genre. So not all mechanics simulate genre. That's the difference between Gamist and Simulationist. You have to remember that all RPGs are a mix of all three types of mechanics. When that game is called Gamist or this one Simulationist, they are referering to the prevalent element, but all are still present.

I guess I just don't get it. Classification, ontology building, taxonomies, faceted classification, etc. are a part of what i do for a living. When I read stuff like the whole GSN Theory it makes me cringe - weak categories, ill defined criteria, mixed and overlapping descriptors.

The whole thing is a semantic mess and I should just stay out of it before I pull a thesauri muscle.

I get what you are saying but the lines are so freaking blurry that my eyes are starting to hurt.

however: i have driven a prius. please refrain from ever using the words "performance" and "prius" in the same sentence again ;)

Yeah, well ... by performance I do mean staying under 70 cause it doesn't like going any faster, and uh ... well ... it does corner pretty good - for a brick.

HEY - bad performance is still performance ... I REALLY want a Tesla.

*chuckle* thats what they said about a small company called Tactical Rules Studies back in 1975.....It would never challenge SPI or Avalon Hill for any dominence in the gaming industry...its a niche market ;)

... and it didn't. SPI and Avalon Hill were board game companies. TSR could not compete with them in that market just like SPI and Avalon Hill could not compete in the RPG market - anyone remember Powers & Perils or Lords of Creation?

TSR blazed a whole new trail all to itself.

Another thing that really get's me. Is WHY do the 3pps HAVE to bow to WotC? The first argument I hear is "WotC is THE name in the RPG Industry." Well why the heck can't publishers like Paizo or Necromancer take WotC place and become THE name in the RPG Industry. Why is it such a bad thing that Pathfinder NOT become THE recognized title BEFORE D&D? If Paizo plays their cards right they definitely could do this.

I just get tired of hearing how companies should get behind WotC and the GSL. Why not turn the tables and leave WotC in the dust!

Paizo is easily in position to do just this. I would love to see another company come along and knock WotC down a few pegs. they are NOT the be all end all of the RPG industry. Heck their own game isn't even D&D anymore...IN name only.

... and that name matters. D&D is bigger than the RPG world. D&D is a part of pop culture for better or worse. D&D is an icon and icons do not get replaced so easily. Paizo would need to move mountains inside and outside the RPG world to replace D&D as the iconic RPG.

Will you casually swap out the batteries for an off the shelf battery of random type?

Random? Nope. Well researched alternative - maybe.

Will you operate the vehicle outside of the recommended parameters?

Yep. There are folks out there called hyper-milers that have figured out way to tweak the operation of the car to get like 75 to 100 MPG. They are not following the driving advice from the owners manual.

Are there tables showing just how the vehicle can perform?

Actually there are. The Prius has energy consumption and flow screens that show you how well the car performs. In the owners manual are charts that show how much gas is consumed when the car is in different states. By understanding these I can tweak the way I drive to get the right balance of performance and mileage.

If the answer is yes then you have another example of how putting things in a table makes them a straight jacket that cannot be altered or ignored.

... or not. The only constant is the speed of light in a vacuum - everything else can be tweaked, altered, changed, or modified.

crosswiredmind wrote:

Pretty amazing that by configuring content into the form of a table it suddenly becomes so authoritative that it cannot be altered or ignored :)

As I said previously, barring the Game Police suddenly manifesting, you can do whatever you like.

As I also noted previously, when the commentary on those rules by the designers assures of us a precise mathematical balance to the entire rules system, altering or ignoring the material causes direct and immediate upset to that balance.

If you have a house of cards, indeed, nothing prevents you from pulling a card out at random, or tossing another one on in any old place. Said house of cards will still collapse into a heap if you do despite the lack of said prohibition.

I agree Sam. That sentence I quoted just sounded funny, hence the :) at the end of my post.

This is not too little to late. They made a tactical error and are correcting it. That is a good thing. 4e is still new. Two years from now (if WotC produces a solid license) there will be plenty of third party support.

This strikes me funny when I hear it. The post from crosswiredmind above mine suggests a similar tactic, that if I don't care for the rules mechanical changes, I should just not use them. (Same logic I would get from diehard Realms fans when I would state that some of the uberNPCs bugged me. 'Don't use them!')

This logic, to me, leads to an inescapable conclusion;

If I'm not supposed to use it, why should I pay for it?

I love my Prius except for the stereo which only holds one disc and has no native iPod support. Should I not drive my car? Of course I will keep it - it gets 48MPG average per tank of gas.

So the question is this - does D&D or any other game provide enough of a benefit to look past the few things that you do not like? If the answer is no, then don't buy it. If the answer is yes then buy it and change/ignore the parts that bother you.

Unfortunately in the 4E rules, the vast majority of that advice is locked into set tables making it a straightjacket instead of advice.

Pretty amazing that by configuring content into the form of a table it suddenly becomes so authoritative that it cannot be altered or ignored :)

D20 is used in D&D which is fantasy, Mutants & Masterminds which is super-heroes, Star Wars which is space opera, T20 which is sci-fi, etc, etc, etc. There are very few mechanics in D20 which simulate any particular genre.

In each of those cases the core mechanic may be the same or similar but each is a unique instance of the d20 SRD. Each is tailored to simulate a particular genre. There isn't a game out there that uses just the barebones core of d20.

Narration in and of itself is not a narrativist mechanic. Having the DM describing the kings reaction to your social faux pas, does NOT make the game narrativist. The rules saying that the DM narrates a scene, the player reacts and rolls dice and then the DM narrates the result is a narrativist mechanic.

In D&D the narration is more than just the description between rolls. The players can roleplay right through a challenge without a die ever being touched. There is no rule that all situations must play out as you have described.

In games which tend towards narrativism, the dice (if dice are used) do not determine if your character succeeds at a task, they determine who gets to narrate. Lets say I, the player, roll and win narration rights; I may now choose whether my character succeeds at what he was doing or if he fails. I choose the path I feel will lead to a better story and more interesting conflicts.

Narration is not the mechanic. Success or failure at a task are simply assumed based on the dramatic context of the story. In fact what you are describing is not a game at all - it is simply collaborative story telling. I would not even classify it as a role playing game.

Neither of those make sense to me. The base mechanics of any game can be reduced to generic mechanisms then built into specifically purposed mechanisms. This distinction seems very arbitrary.

Actually its not opinion. Classification is objective, not subjective. If the categories of GNS breakdown under examination then they are meaningless.

As I understand it, GNS Theory refers to a games mechanics. So with that in mind,

crosswiredmind wrote:

All RPGs attempt to simulate some kind of genre.

But not all of them have mechanics for it. A setting is not mechanics.

... and a setting is not a game. All RPGs have mechanics, and all mechanics attempt to create the framework to simulate some kind of genre.

crosswiredmind wrote:

BTW - I think every RPG can be narrative, in fact every RPG must be narrative, so I don't really see that as a category.

Narrating the outcome of a roll, stating your characters action or talking as your character in the first person are not narrativist mechanics.

Roleplaying is narration. GM descriptions of the world, the situation, and the NPCs is narration. RPGs are all narrative as they all describe the ebbs and flows of a story in an imaginary world.

Gamist mechanics tend to be more generic in nature. They could be used for any type of genre or setting. D20 or Savage Worlds are good examples, IMO, of systems with a high percentage of gamist mechanics.

Simulationist mechanics try to simulate popular thropes of a given genre. Unknown Armies madness meters as well as 2ed Ravenlofts Horror & Madness check rules are all examples of fear/horror simulationist mechanics.

Neither of those make sense to me. The base mechanics of any game can be reduced to generic mechanisms then built into specifically purposed mechanisms. This distinction seems very arbitrary.

Narrativist mechanics is when narration rights are taken away from the GM or there isn't a GM in the first place. In Inspectres who gets to narrate the outcome of a characters action (between the player rolling and GM), depends on how well or poorly the player rolls. In Spirit of the Century, players can spend there fate tokens to make a declaration and introduce something to the story. In GM-less games narration passes around the table based on the rules.

When the narration takes place and who narrates the game have little impact on my original contention that all RPGs are narrative games. The presence or absence of a GM makes no real difference.

Since the DM, RAW, always keeps narration rights, D&D has very few narrativist elements in it. White Wolf games as well for that matter, which is why I'm always baffled by the fact that people pick Vampire as an example of a "narrativist" game (in quotes since games usually include elements of all three- GNS)

Roleplaying and setting the scene are narratives. Every RPG without exception contains the same narrative elements so the distinction you are making is lost on me.

Roleplaying: 1 to 10 where 1 = "Everyone is themselves" and 10 = "Borderline live-action roleplaying, we roll dice once in a long while"

Action: 1 to 10 where 1 = "We fight monsters once or twice between levels" and 10 = "Every game session is mostly all combat"

Story: 1 to 10 where 1 = "We only go on adventures we find on the tavern bulletin board" and 10 = "The characters are the center of a web of political and cross-campaign world intrigue where gods and the very fabric of existence depends on them!"

For my latest Warhammer game ...

Roleplaying: 5
Action: 6
Story: 6

Hmmmm. Kinda middle of the road on everything.

The last Call of Cthulhu game I ran ...

Roleplaying:7
Action:2
Story:8

Much more immersive.

Last D&D campaign (3.5) ...

Roleplaying: 3
Action:8
Story:6

BM wrote:

It is but, far as I know, it wasn't so much meant to define types of games, but rather types of play. At some point, people started to define games as such, and where we are are now. The splitting of hair is due to everyone expanding on the definitions of the terms to make them more precise, but with everyone coming up with their own definition.

I was just thinking something along these lines. That weren't these terms really meant for types of game play and not types of games, for the most part.

Thank you both - this makes more sense.

Simulationism

The Right to Dream focuses on the elements of exploration as things unto themselves. This creative agenda emphasizes appreciation for nuanced development of character, setting, and color to no other end than creating a holistically consistent experience. While one simulationist creative agenda may emphasize realism, another may attempt to emulate "four-color" superhero action. Whatever the target, the goal is to create an experience that neatly fits its parameters.

Gamism

By contrast, Step on Up considers the elements of exploration as an arena for proving the abilities of the players. This creative agenda emphasizes clever use of tactics, resource management, and character victory.

Narrativism

Lastly, Story Now attempts to use the elements of exploration to create an engaging story that addresses a "premise" to produce theme. Premise here is defined in accordance with Lajos Egri's The Art of Dramatic Writing and is usually framed as a statement (Friends are worth dying for) or a question (Are friends worth dying for?). In narrativist play, most or all of the decisions made by the players will reflect on the premise, proposing answers to the question.

This seems kinda weak. You can take just about any game and play it in all three modes.

I love this thread. I had no idea people had such divergent perceptions of GNS. I can see why I butted heads with people before.

GNS?

By your argument, the TOON rpg is gamist, but that's regularly lauded as a prime example of a simulationist RPG.

Then we are back to simulationist and gamist being completely useless terms.

I think the term confusion comes from simulation. A simulation tends to be closely related to the recreation of reality used to test or model an interaction or system. To say that TOON is a cartoon simulator starts us off in an impossible bind - how can you set up rules to simulate something which has none.

I think the actual continuum is not simulatist < -- > gamist. I think the real continuum is simulation < -- > emulation. Emulation is more about setting up a system to replecate the experience of a different system. Toon tries to emulate the feel of Saturday morning cartoon action. D&D tries to emulate heroic combat. RuneQuest tries to simulate medieval combat. Phoenix Command tries to simulate a modern firefight.

It all comes down to the level of abstraction. Toon does not need detailed rules. It embraces abstraction in order to emulate a system where the rules are very loose to begin with. I cannot see abstraction and simulation working well together.

No one is saying that D&D doesn't have a lot of gamist elements to it, but they've been around long enough for us to be comfortable with.

Well, there is the rub. When I read the reviews of 4e from folks that have not played much D&D they do not seem to be bothered by any of the elements you mentioned. They see the current definition of HP as being equally as odd as the old system for HP. 4e is no more gamist than 3e but the gamist elements of 3e do not distract you from the immersive nature of the game. For me - I can accept the new "gamism" of 4e because I see it as allowing for immersion in the kind of play style that suits my tastes.

A simulation is the taste, the flavour, the emotion of the situation. When the players imagination can feel the sand around their feet, or respond with real emotion to a story event - it's something like a simulation. For me that's more of a simulation than being able to calculate the exact effect of a shotgun wound to a knee.

I like that. However, my experience has been that players get pulled out of the immersion of the game when the mechanics get wonky. The first time the rules create a situation that breaks the willing suspension of disbelief then the simulation (using your definition) crashes and the game drops back into rule play. Sure, you can ignore the rules or house rule the situation but some of these kinds of problems are systemic and cannot simply be waved off.

The most immersive role playing I have ever experienced occurred while using simulationist rules. By simulationist I mean rules that made every effort to have the mechanics reflect reality. There were very few moments where the "simulation", in the immersive sense, broke down to reveal the rules behind the curtain.

I think gamist rules systems can also provide for immersive play so long as the rules themselves work smoothly and the fantastical elements can be accepted. As long as the rules do not force the players to pause and question them then the immersion can continue. I just do not see that as a simulation.

In Warhammer, your experience character could die from fighting a bunch of goblins as a lot of ennemies vs a single hero have real impact on a fight - one critical and splash! you just lose you left arm and you bleed to death...

To me this is one of the hallmarks of a simulationist game. In Warhammer if you are out-numbered 3:1 each of your opponents gets +20% to hit. Suddenly those skaven with a weapon skill of 40% are up to 60% while you can only parry one of them with your paltry 50%.

RuneQuest is similar in that even the most powerful character is one critical to the head away from dropping dead. Suddenly the dozen Trollkin with slings looks like a real challenge.

Simulationist games need to be played smart because the realistic combat can get you dead quick.

Heathansson wrote:

Eberron, and BO9S promised the same intense action movie rollercoaster ride, IIRC. Where's dead horse?

But, I think that was crosswiredmind's point about Eberron. D&D 4th Edition will allow the setting to make good on its "intense action movie rollercoaster ride" promise. :)

I have not tried Eberron with 4e rules. I am waiting til the official books hit the shelves. While reading through 4e that setting came to mind over and over. When they previewed the artificer i knew that Eberron was ahead of its time. I make no promises but i think 4e will fit Eberron better that 3e.

etrigan wrote:

In Warhammer, your experience character could die from fighting a bunch of goblins as a lot of ennemies vs a single hero have real impact on a fight - one critical and splash! you just lose you left arm and you bleed to death... That`s not something that could ever happen in DnD.

To me, it sounds like a much more enjoyable game. Unfortunately, though, Nick Logue and Rich Pett don't write adventures to support Warhammer. They do for 3.X. So 3.X it is, despite its obvious shortcomings!

Personally I think Warhammer has some of the best adventures out there. The Paths of the Dammed series is awesome.