(i wish there was a "pm" feature here: kirth, the storm was a bit of a let down, huh?)
|
I think that's where the problem is. You define simulationist as stimulating a genre, while others, me included, mean simualting how something would happen in the real world. 3.5 is pretty internally consistant. Magic works basically the same for everyone, whether it is spell-like abilities or the magic of a spellcasting classs. Every creature follows the same rules for hit dice, skills, feats, saving throws, etc. There are a lot of exceptions, but there are reasonable explanations for them given the assumptions of the way the 3.5 D&D universe works. You can't say the same for 4th edition.
So you mean PCs of "short" races not being able to use big weapons is not trying to simulate reality?
There is no internal consistency with monsters having at-will and per encounter powers like PCs, albeit fewer of them?Creatures do not have "natural" roles, just like they would in a combined arms team?
I see just as much simulation of realism, and just as much failure of simulation of realism, in 4E as I do in 3E.
There is no internal consistency with monsters having at-will and per encounter powers like PCs, albeit fewer of them?
I wonder if this doesn't hit upon part of the important distinction, for me. To my mind, it's "gamist" to have different rules for PCs vs. monsters/NPCs; it emphasizes they're not really people, but rather game personas meant to "be the hero" on the one hand, or simply meant to be window dressing on the other. A "simulationist" game would use the same rules for both, so that by looking at a stats block, or simply following the narrative, you'd have no way of telling if it was a PC or an NPC.
You define simulationist as stimulating a genre, while others, me included, mean simualting how something would happen in the real world. 3.5 is pretty internally consistant.
I do not think 3.5 is anything like the real world. Classes, Hit Points, armor making you more difficult to hit, skill rank limit per level.
I also do not think 3.5 is all that internally consistent. Each spell requires a completely different write up despite many of the same type of effects. Same thing for Feats. No type of consistency with Class abilities. Armor Class vs. DR. Saving Throws vs. characteristic checks.
How is 4th any more inconsistent?
To my mind, it's "gamist" to have different rules for PCs vs. monsters/NPCs; it emphasizes they're not really people, but rather game personas meant to "be the hero" on the one hand, or simply meant to be window dressing on the other.
To my mind, Gamist would want consistent and balanced rules. Therefore, Gamist would want monsters and PCs to follow the same rules.
To my mind, it's "gamist" to have different rules for PCs vs. monsters/NPCs; it emphasizes they're not really people, but rather game personas meant to "be the hero" on the one hand, or simply meant to be window dressing on the other.To my mind, Gamist would want consistent and balanced rules. Therefore, Gamist would want monsters and PCs to follow the same rules.
Not necessarily. A good Gamist would want consistent and balanced rules, but that does not necessarily require that the monsters have to follow the same basic rules as PCs.
To my mind, Gamist would want consistent and balanced rules. Therefore, Gamist would want monsters and PCs to follow the same rules.
No; I think the gamist focuses on the game, the simulationist on the simulation. The game calls for the heroes to defeat the villains, and runs more smoothly if the villains have streamlined rules and fewer options. What's good for the game (the play) is good for the gamist. The simulationist calls for a world in which an orc is an orc, and two orc fighters encountered should have similar capabilities.
|
|
I wonder if this doesn't hit upon part of the important distinction, for me. To my mind, it's "gamist" to have different rules for PCs vs. monsters/NPCs; it emphasizes they're not really people, but rather game personas meant to "be the hero" on the one hand, or simply meant to be window dressing on the other. A "simulationist" game would use the same rules for both, so that by looking at a stats block, or simply following the narrative, you'd have no way of telling if it was a PC or an NPC.
And yet on a fundamental level 4E does not have such different rules, at least not any more than 3E did, for PCs vs. Monsters. It does for PCs vs. NPCs, and any NPC level advanced Monsters, but the essential design of Monsters is just as different from that of PCs in 3E as it is in 4E. Only the number of factors absolutely set by charts is different.
And while that may apply to a simulationist point of view, in a narrativist portrayal you will have very stark differences between those intended as protagonists, those intended as antagonists, and those intended as mere fluff. You will likewise have significant differences between those antagonists intended as complete "unheroes" (anti-hero is not really a proper term for them), and those intended as merely "big monsters".
This is where it is key to distinguish what you are simulating, and where 4E experiences a design failure. In service to a pure gamist approach they destroy a simulationist element that is key to narrativist immersion. Yes, it is super easy to make an NPC to be killed now. Said NPC has all the depth of any wandering monster, and thus loses a massive amount of the satisfaction defeating it should produce, something that appears regularly in 3E.
Or, without the jargon:
If it is just another monster, what is the big deal about killing it? How do I make a really special villain in 4E?
You cannot. And that is the problem.
To my mind, Gamist would want consistent and balanced rules. Therefore, Gamist would want monsters and PCs to follow the same rules.No; I think the gamist focuses on the game, the simulationist on the simulation. The game calls for the heroes to defeat the villains, and runs more smoothly if the villains have streamlined rules and fewer options. What's good for the game (the play) is good for the gamist. The simulationist calls for a world in which an orc is an orc, and two orc fighters encountered should have similar capabilities.
Or, a Gamist would want an Orc to be an orc and have similar capabilities.
A simulationist would want a world where Orcs are the product of their tribal culture, so each orc tribe may have slightly different abilities.
A narativist would want to tell a story where the heroes ultimately defeat the villians. (edited for clarity)
|
|
The game calls for the heroes to defeat the villains
That is another key example of how a pure gamist approach will ultimately fail. The outcome is already implicitly decided with such a premise, destroying any real reason to play the game.
Player: We go to the dungeon.
DM: You win.
Player: We track down the villain.
DM: You win.
Player: We strive against the undefeatable dragon!
DM: You win.
Player: We run naked in the snow, beating our fists against the frozen stone of the ultimate fortress.
DM: You win.
Player: We grab another game where there is some relevance to our actions, and where we actually have to make an effort to achieve anything.
DM: Now you really win!
Yes, there should always be an underlying assumption that you are playing a game (well, most games), with a goal that the players are ultimately victorious. The challenge is finding a way to present the possibility of failure, to make the players believe that every single action their characters ever take is the absolute critical factor in whether they win or lose the entire campaign. Too much commitment in the rules to "running smoothly" leads to the destruction of that facade, and the loss of player interest to the ennui of guaranteed success I parody above.
The game calls for the heroes to defeat the villains, and runs more smoothly if the villains have streamlined rules and fewer options. The simulationist calls for a world in which an orc is an orc, and two orc fighters encountered should have similar capabilities.
More rules seems Gamist to me. I guess I will have to agree to disagree again.
Good debate.
Wouldn’t two orc fighters having similar capabilities necessitate fewer options?
|
|
Or, a Gamist would want an Orc to be an orc and have similar capabilities.
A simulationist would want a world where Orcs are the product of their tribal culture, so each orc tribe may have slightly different abilities.
A narativist would want to tell a story where the heroes defeat the villians.
I would modify the first to:
A gamist would any term to have a consistent meaning. That includes the terms for individual monsters such as orcs.I would modify the last to:
A narrativist wants to tell a story where the definitions are consistent with the simulations so he can interact with both coherently in telling the specific type of story. (Typically one where the heroes defeat the villains.)
Or, a Gamist would want an Orc to be an orc and have similar capabilities.
A simulationist would want a world where Orcs are the product of their tribal culture, so each orc tribe may have slightly different abilities.
A narativist would want to tell a story where the heroes defeat the villians.
I would modify the first to:
A gamist would any term to have a consistent meaning. That includes the terms for individual monsters such as orcs.I would modify the last to:
A narrativist wants to tell a story where the definitions are consistent with the simulations so he can interact with both coherently in telling the specific type of story. (Typically one where the heroes defeat the villains.)
True and true. That is what I was trying to get at, but you have stated much more clearly. :)
|
You define simulationist as stimulating a genre, while others, me included, mean simualting how something would happen in the real world. 3.5 is pretty internally consistant.I do not think 3.5 is anything like the real world. Classes, Hit Points, armor making you more difficult to hit, skill rank limit per level.
I also do not think 3.5 is all that internally consistent. Each spell requires a completely different write up despite many of the same type of effects. Same thing for Feats. No type of consistency with Class abilities. Armor Class vs. DR. Saving Throws vs. characteristic checks.
How is 4th any more inconsistent?
In 3.5, everyone plays by the same rules. That doesn't mean that everyone is the same with the same abilities, but a 12th level orc fighter has the same capabilities regardless of whether he is a PC or an NPC. In 4th edition the same orc fighter would be very different depending on if he was a PC or an NPC. Even with the same equipment, and ability scores, he would have wildly different abilities depending on which side of the DM screen he falls on.
Wouldn’t two orc fighters having similar capabilities necessitate fewer options?
I mean, like, here's one orc, and he can Cleave, and Power Attack, and use Wang Chung Jade Tiger Strike or whatever, and he requires 86 blows in the face to kill; and then there's this other orc, supposedly a warrior with the same training and experience as the first, but all he can do is use the Neutered Limp Paw Tiger Strike once per day, and he dies after one hit. That would be a simulationist's nightmare. For a gamist, it would be great, because there are clear, well-defined rules for each, and those rules contriubute directly towards game play -- as opposed to applying towards a coherent game world.
The game calls for the heroes to defeat the villainsThat is another key example of how a pure gamist approach will ultimately fail. The outcome is already implicitly decided with such a premise, destroying any real reason to play the game.
I am obviously way off in left field because I thought that was the Narativist approach.
|
|
Wouldn’t two orc fighters having similar capabilities necessitate fewer options?
It depends on the simulation.
Thinking to Advanced Squad Leader, I can look at the number of pieces marked "PzKfw IV" and find a dozen different varieties, from armor to cannon to machine guns. All have "similar capabilities" - armor, a cannon, and machine guns, yet there are a dizzying array of options.Extend that to "main battle tanks", and the number of options can fill several dozen counter trays.
Then extend it to "armored vehicles".
Then "all military vehicles".
"Orc" should indicate a particular subset of abilities.
"Fighter" should indicate another particular range of abilities.
"Orc fighter" should indicate a likely intersection of those two, with a reasonable range of variation.
Add in "level", and more variation within those concepts should appear.
In 3.5, everyone plays by the same rules.
You should give Hero a try then. PCs and monsters are created with the exact same rules. And you do not even have to worry about balancing Level Adjustments.
Now, we realize that there is - despite the title of the thread - no inherent conflict between the three?
- The Gamist wants the game to be fun.
- The Simulationist wants the setting to be interresting.
- The Narativist wants the story to be entertaining.
Ultimately each of the three wants elements of the others.
Let me make sure I am on the same page with everyone else now.
Gamist = fewer rules
Naratavist = All RPS are equally Naratavist and therefore this is not applicaple
Simulationist = reality
Let me make sure I am on the same page with everyone else now.
Gamist = fewer rules
Naratavist = All RPS are equally Naratavist and therefore this is not applicaple
Simulationist = reality
Not necessarily. :)
- Gamist = wants the rules to be fair and balanced.
- Narativist = All role-players are Narativist to some degree, but not all to the same degree.
- Simulationist = internally consistent setting & rules.
|
|
I mean, like, here's one orc, and he can Cleave, and Power Attack, and use Wang Chung Jade Tiger Strike or whatever, and he requires 86 blows in the face to kill; and then there's this other orc, supposedly a warrior with the same training and experience as the first, but all he can do is use the Neutered Limp Paw Tiger Strike once per day, and he dies after one hit. That would be a simulationist's nightmare. For a gamist, it would be great, because there are clear, well-defined rules for each, and those rules contriubute directly towards game play -- as opposed to applying towards a coherent game world.
Actually that becomes a gamist's nightmare as well, as he now has a massive disconnect in interacting with those orcs.
How does he distinguish between them?Can he distinguish between them?
If not, how will he know when to use his Death Touch of the Funky Chicken on the first type of orc and his Xena Dance of Doom on the second type?
Conversely if he can, the then faces a regular problem of terminology.
How many qualifiers will he have to learn and attach to creatures in order to distinguish between them?
Will the game become a battle between who can learn buzzwords better?
That is certainly a game, but is it a particularly fun one?
|
|
I think part of the confusion is that the two phenomena probably ultimately exist to some extent in most every game.
For a really oversimplified model, capitalism vs. socialism...we're pretty much a capitalist society, but the government ultimately controls roadbuilding. So,...there it is, socialism, sneaking in there to some small extent.
And yet,....they contract that out too, so in a sense there's a little bit of capitalism going on--whoever (generally) can do the job for the lowest bid gets the contract.
Let me make sure I am on the same page with everyone else now.
Gamist = fewer rules
Simulationist = reality
Not at all.
Gamist = focus on game mechanics and play. More or fewer rules is irrelevant, as long as the rules work well and promote smooth play.Simulationst = cohesive setting; rules promote internal consistency of fluff.
Narrativist = story predominates over rules or setting.
Again, all games have elements of the three; it's just a matter of what proportions go into the mix.
Actually that becomes a gamist's nightmare as well, as he now has a massive disconnect in interacting with those orcs.
How does he distinguish between them?
Can he distinguish between them?
If not, how will he know when to use his Death Touch of the Funky Chicken on the first type of orc and his Xena Dance of Doom on the second type?
Conversely if he can, the then faces a regular problem of terminology.
How many qualifiers will he have to learn and attach to creatures in order to distinguish between them?
Will the game become a battle between who can learn buzzwords better?
That is certainly a game, but is it a particularly fun one?
I have a feeling that we are moving towards the same thing from different directions. :)
(. . . and that you may be closer to the target then me. :) )
Actually that becomes a gamist's nightmare as well, as he now has a massive disconnect in interacting with those orcs. How does he distinguish between them?
He's playing the first one, and he's about to kill the second one. All the ones he kills or interacts with once are like the second one. He and one or two long-term friends are like the first one.
|
|
He's playing the first one, and he's about to kill the second one. All the ones he kills or interacts with once are like the second one. He and one or two long-term friends are like the first one.
Not in 4E.
Check the differences between solo, elite, regular, and minion monsters.He is actually a significant cut above the first one, while the second one is a perfect description of a minion.
|
|
I have a feeling that we are moving towards the same thing from different directions. :)
(. . . and that you may be closer to the target then me. :) )
I am pretty sure we are both speaking to the exact same end point, though as you note from different direction.
Like your prior three point set up. Exactly. :)As for being closer, I have had to consider way too many related concepts. It helps in cross-expression.
Can fair and balanced rules be internally inconsistent?
Can rules that promote internal consistency of fluff disrupt play?
Heathensson is probably right. All three are probably inexorably mixed.
Not in 4E. Check the differences between solo, elite, regular, and minion monsters.
I'm talking theoretical "gamist" here, not contrasting published D&D editions. I haven't read the 4e rules and don't own any of the 4e books. Any similarities or differences, I'm happy to take your word for.
|
|
I think part of the confusion is that the two phenomena probably ultimately exist to some extent in most every game.
Indeed.
As I said in my first post, the distinction is not an either/or, but a range of amounts of each, filtered through the perception of narrativism. That is why I find trying to distinguish the two so absolutely a waste.I do not want a pure gamist game.
I do not want a pure simulationist game.
I do not want a pure narrativist game. (If such is really a structure.)
I want a "simulation game" that I can "narrate" with my players.
And despite claims otherwise, that wheel has long since been invented. Rather than trying to reinvent a new one, the focus should be on improving the old one.
For a really oversimplified model, capitalism vs. socialism...we're pretty much a capitalist society, but the government ultimately controls roadbuilding. So,...there it is, socialism, sneaking in there to some small extent.
And yet,....they contract that out too, so in a sense there's a little bit of capitalism going on--whoever (generally) can do the job for the lowest bid gets the contract.
Actually socialism is capitalism. It just has a different owner of the capital. :)
According to Lord Fyre, I classify myself as 10% Gamist and 90% Simulationist. I will have to take his Naratavist test separately.
According to Kirth Gersen, I classify myself as 10% Gamist, 40% Simulationist and 50% Narratavist.
Thanks guys. Now if someone would be so kind as to help me classify my sexuality.
I do not want a pure narrativist game. (If such is really a structure.)
Check out the Amber Diceless RPG. They claim to have "rules," but they're really just storytelling hints.
And despite claims otherwise, that wheel has long since been invented. Rather than trying to reinvent a new one, the focus should be on improving the old one.
Can it be 'improved' when people obviously want to take it in different directions?
An assertion which could easily start a discussion between two people saying the exact same thing.
Actually socialism is capitalism. It just has a different owner of the capital. :)
...but from different directions.
CourtFool's rating, very subjective, likely to change
Game (G%/N%S%)
BESM (20/30/50)
D&D 3.5 (50/25/25)
D&D 4e (40/20/40)
G.U.R.P.S. (40/20/40)
Hero (40/20/40)
M&M (40/20/40)
PDQ (10/60/30)
Spirit of the Century (20/40/40)
I don't think it's a matter of percentages: a game doesn't have to be less gamist if it wants to be more simulationist, IMO. In theory, although that'd be too difficult to pull off in practice, a game could be 100% all three. Even if perhaps not 100%, at the very least I think the three different aspects don't (have to) hedge each other out absolutely.
If it is just another monster, what is the big deal about killing it? How do I make a really special villain in 4E?
You cannot. And that is the problem.
I don't get it. What about being based on similar mechanics as the PCs makes a monster not "just another monster", and what about not being based on the same mechanics as the PCs makes a villain not "really special"?
Furthermore, how are NPCs and monsters based on the same mechanics as the PCs in 3E given the existence of NPC classes and monstrous abilities? Cut to the bone, it's all numbers. How you get to these numbers may affect the qualification of a game as discussed in this thread, but from a player's POV that's irrelevant.
In 3.5, everyone plays by the same rules. That doesn't mean that everyone is the same with the same abilities, but a 12th level orc fighter has the same capabilities regardless of whether he is a PC or an NPC. In 4th edition the same orc fighter would be very different depending on if he was a PC or an NPC. Even with the same equipment, and ability scores, he would have wildly different abilities depending on which side of the DM screen he falls on.
Except that most 3E NPC Orc Fighters will actually be Warriors using a different stat generation method (if you follow WotC's lead anyway), and that it's perfectly permissible to create special 4E NPCs using the standard rules for PCs. The latter is even encouraged for NPCs that are meant to be around for more than one or two encounters, especially for NPCs that might team up with the party.
Let me make sure I am on the same page with everyone else now.
Gamist = fewer rules
Simulationist = realityNot at all.
Gamist = focus on game mechanics and play. More or fewer rules is irrelevant, as long as the rules work well and promote smooth play.
Simulationst = cohesive setting; rules promote internal consistency of fluff.
Narrativist = story predominates over rules or setting.Again, all games have elements of the three; it's just a matter of what proportions go into the mix.
Not proportions, but rather how much effort goes to each aspect. There doesn't have to be a compromise, unless the developers limit the amount of trouble they're willing to go to.
Thanks guys. Now if someone would be so kind as to help me classify my sexuality.
You are a poodle (not a Llama), so you appear to have been "fixed."
Llama!
Llama!
Poodle!
This is exactly why we can not have an intelligent discussion on these boards.
|
Then on what basis do you distinguish the changes between 4th and 3rd. Is one more "gamist"? I don't imply that that's bad.
I think DMcCoy hit the nail on the head - 3e seems to be about fantasy literature and 4e is about fantasy cinema. They both have gamist abstractions that emulate heroic fantasy but they look towards different media for inspiration. Geyhawk is a great 3e setting. Eberron, though released for 3e is a far better setting for 4e.
I gravitate to 4e because I love cinematic/anime/comic book/video game pace and action. Among my favorite games are 7th Sea, d6 Star Wars, and Paranoia. They all stress fast paced, rules lite role playing.
I also enjoy Traveller, RuneQuest, and Twilight 2000 because there are times when I want gritty gaming where the rules try to simulate reality but add elements of the fantastic in a consistent manner.
Life long D&D players have told me that it is a simulationist game. I see it as a gamist system that tries be a simulation, but it never lives up to that goal. I think 4e is the first edition to say - D&D is a gamist rules system and darn proud of it!
|
|
Or Phoenix Command/Living Steel ;)If speeding up combat was done to simulate reality, then yes, 4e moved away from Simulationist. If speeding up combat was done to simulate cinematics, then 4e moved toward Simulationist.
If you want a more 'realistic' game, may I suggest G.U.R.P.S. or Role Master?
Talk about slow but fun. A friend and I ran a little skirmish using Phoenix Command way way back. I ran half a squad of Israeli Paratroopers and he ran a small group of Palestinian gunman. It took us 3 hours to get through like 30 seconds of combat. In the end we abandoned the game after I had 2 KIA and 3 wounded but operative and he had 1 KIA, 2 out of action, and 4 wounded but operative.
Our games did get faster but man oh man that is a truly simulationist game and can slow to a crawl when things get hairy.
|
|
All RPGs attempt to simulate some kind of genre. By your definition BESM is an anime simulator.Yes, exactly.
If this distinction is to be meaningful then objective criteria are required for "simulationist" and "gamist".How is the distinction not meaningful? You were able to provide an example of my definition.
It is not meaningful because it is far too subjective and make the term "gamist" meaningless, or worse a simple pejorative. Any game that simulates its genre well will never be called gamist using your criteria. We would be left with simulations and games that try to be simulations but end up too gamist to be considered as such.
I gravitate to 4e because I love cinematic/anime/comic book/video game pace and action.
Wow! You've sold me on NOT buying the 4e books... I personally can't stand any of that kind of stuff. Looks like Pathfinder it will be, for me! I owe you one, CWM; you've saved me a small fortune with one small post.
I gravitate to 4e because I love cinematic/anime/comic book/video game pace and action.
Actually, put that way, I think I should give 4th Edition another look. :)
(I'm still not happy about the way they set up the Player's book(s) though. :( )
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. :)
