You can't just change The Mud Sorcerer's Tomb. Is this a game to you?
+1
Options
webguy20I spend too much time on the InternetRegistered Userregular
Man it seems like this adventure fails on the basic premises. Even in their own 4th ed dungeon masters guide the stress the need to make sure there is always an alternate path in case the players fail to find the clue or they don't pass the skill check. To make sure that players know need to know info, and that fluff and extra info is whats hidden behind checks and skill challenges.
No it's really bad. Like this statue that you can rotate if you open a lock in a different place with a key hidden in another room. The statue doesn't do anything unless you rotate it a certain number of times, then you can lift it up. After that you can find a compartment under it that creates a permanent cloud of poison gas if you open it. There's some money inside though.
So would you have to specify that you rotate the statue and that you do it a certain number of times? Those seem like pretty unnatural actions unless some major clues are dropped.
0
Options
AnialosCollies are love, Collies are life!Shadowbrook ColliesRegistered Userregular
Yep, thus Xi's methodology of "Throw Portable Rogue and smash things".
0
Options
webguy20I spend too much time on the InternetRegistered Userregular
I've never played with serious stimulationist role players or a system and I hope I never do. The day I have to say "I rotate the statue 4.25 turns counter clockwise" is the day I stop playing D&D.
I've never played with serious stimulationist role players or a system and I hope I never do. The day I have to say "I rotate the statue 4.25 turns counter clockwise" is the day I stop playing D&D.
this isn't a problem of simulationism or bullshit buzzwords.
it's bad adventure design (only one solution) compounded by bad system design (only some classes have those solutions), pure and simple.
you can read my collected ravings at oxybesothertumbr.tumblr.com
Ahaha, so when can I shoot some stuff, or you know, uh...whatever my other skills are.
to quote denada " Rein: The nearly constant wailing is easy to hear, and you can tell it's coming from a chamber at the end of the passageway. Looking in that direction, you see that the walls of the chamber are covered with eyes of countless shapes, sizes, and descriptions. You don't see any creatures or doors in the chamber. Just walls of eyes. "
Just walls of eyes.
wall of eyes.
eyes.
targets.
when all you have is a hammer, everything is a nail. when all you have is a bow, everything is a target.
fire you handsome bastard. fire away.
you can read my collected ravings at oxybesothertumbr.tumblr.com
oxybeEntei is appaled and disappointed in youRegistered Userregular
Whelp, time to strut our stuff.
and by that i mean, walk strait on in, unless someone has a better idea. Xi has advantage on all saving throws VS spells, so as long as it's not con-based, i might survive, what with my +5 to dex and wis-based ones.
you can read my collected ravings at oxybesothertumbr.tumblr.com
oxybeEntei is appaled and disappointed in youRegistered Userregular
alright, but for the sake of "i have to know" when we do solve one of the puzzles that require a wiz we don't have, tell us the "real" solution.
also, Xi is going to attempt something if there is no movement or decisions done by the party before this afternoon, wherein Xi may or may not unleash a tactical moonwalk, because that is a thing.
you can read my collected ravings at oxybesothertumbr.tumblr.com
You know, Ox, I have no idea what your avatar is, but I do know I missed it for some reason.
Also, I would like to take this opportunity to point out how 5e is apparently just like World of Warcraft because there's always some nut that has to /dance every time he's bored. [trollface.jpg]
If my role play is hindered by rolling to play, then I'd prefer the rolls play right, instead of steam-rolling play-night.
0
Options
Der Waffle MousBlame this on the misfortune of your birth.New Yark, New Yark.Registered Userregular
So remember: there is no Passive Perception, and even a DC 5 Intelligence check is impossible for you to succeed at if you don't say you're looking in the right place.
but... but... Monte told us about his revolutionary new idea!
I've never played with serious stimulationist role players or a system and I hope I never do. The day I have to say "I rotate the statue 4.25 turns counter clockwise" is the day I stop playing D&D.
this isn't a problem of simulationism or bullshit buzzwords.
it's bad adventure design (only one solution) compounded by bad system design (only some classes have those solutions), pure and simple.
Disagree. The concept that their needs to be multiple solutions is a gamist one. The idea that some dick wizard would create an elaborate trap that would be simple for him to open is simulationist.....if you're simulating a world where beings of immense power putter around creating fiendish rube goldbergesque traps to kill people centuries after they're dead.
The more of this adventure I read, the more I see that I need to change. For starters, the obscure clues in a language that no one knows and can't learn are going to get a makeover. And then all the puzzles that can only be solved via wizard.
If there's one thing they're doing really well with Next, it's picking terrible adventures.
You are violating the spirit of your playtest and the NEXT! You think you know better than the mighty MEARLS?
I'm just morning my lost schadenfreude. Ignore me.
if you're simulating a world where beings of immense power putter around creating fiendish rube goldbergesque traps to kill people centuries after they're dead.
I'm sure this is going to come off as condescending or offensive to someone, but in what sense has the word "simulationist" ever really meant anything other than "not the mechanics I like because I'm used to them/I can exploit them/they punish others and make me feel smart?"
That is a genuine question. Every conversation I've ever had on the subject boiled down to "it's so 'real' because it [does a thing that is inherently unfair to others and also not realistic at all]" I get the divide between mechanical and abstract resolution (and all the shades of gray between) but every time I hear "simulationist" come up, it seems to be as justification for inherently punishing a player for not choosing some favored concept.
Leper on
If my role play is hindered by rolling to play, then I'd prefer the rolls play right, instead of steam-rolling play-night.
if you're simulating a world where beings of immense power putter around creating fiendish rube goldbergesque traps to kill people centuries after they're dead.
I'm sure this is going to come off as condescending or offensive to someone, but in what sense has the word "simulationist" ever really meant anything other than "not the mechanics I like because I'm used to them/I can exploit them/they punish others and make me feel smart?"
That is a genuine question. Every conversation I've ever had on the subject boiled down to "it's so 'real' because it [does a thing that is inherently unfair to others and also not realistic at all]" I get the divide between mechanical and abstract resolution (and all the shades of gray between) but every time I hear "simulationist" come up, it seems to be as justification for inherently punishing a player for not choosing some favored concept.
3rd edition had a simulationist magic item economy with PC's quite capable of creating, modifying or whatever-ing magic items. I rather liked the options it presented.
It was a disaster from a gamist POV, PC's traded in some XP and a feat (or more) and in exchange got a massive discount on magic items, a strong bias in their magic items towards personal utility and if they ever got far enough behind in XP.....they got bonus XP. Not a good idea in that sense.
You know, Ox, I have no idea what your avatar is, but I do know I missed it for some reason.
Also, I would like to take this opportunity to point out how 5e is apparently just like World of Warcraft because there's always some nut that has to /dance every time he's bored. [trollface.jpg]
Disagree. The concept that their needs to be multiple solutions is a gamist one. The idea that some dick wizard would create an elaborate trap that would be simple for him to open is simulationist.....if you're simulating a world where beings of immense power putter around creating fiendish rube goldbergesque traps to kill people centuries after they're dead.
lol
you can read my collected ravings at oxybesothertumbr.tumblr.com
Sorry if this is the wrong thread, but what's the deal with the 4E/5E switch? My girlfriend and I dabbled in 4E a bit in college and are looking to start a group, though we'll all be noobs pretty much.
Should we wait for 5th Edition? Or would it be better for us as players (and me as a fledgling DM) to go with a more mature 4E, with well-established guides/critiques/opinions on the internets?
0
Options
AntimatterDevo Was RightGates of SteelRegistered Userregular
edited December 2012
PERSONAL OPINION, NOT NECESSARILY REFLECTIVE OF EVERYONE
5th edition looks very half-baked and eliminates lots of things from 4e in favor of older material, "original" material which is typically underwhelming and optional 4e material that isnt identified as such, and new things that dont look like they work so hot.
We've gone through a couple of discussions about this, the undercurrent of discourse here is roughly that 4e is actually well-balanced for classes and 5e goes back to Wizard/caster superiority while Fighter goes back to "I hit things with my axe."
I'd say to look at the playtest thread by denada if you want to see what 5e/Next looks like in action, but I'd say to stick with 4e. shame that wizards is halting support for it day by day.
I guess my concern is that we'll be shooting ourselves in the foot by learning 4E and then having to re-learn for 5E...sounds like we (and many others) will just stick with 4E for the foreseeable future. Thanks!
I guess my concern is that we'll be shooting ourselves in the foot by learning 4E and then having to re-learn for 5E...sounds like we (and many others) will just stick with 4E for the foreseeable future. Thanks!
Yea.
1st-2nd-3rd are all iteritive changes that build on each other though 1st to 2nd is relatively minor compared to 2nd to 3rd. Most of the skills transfer but third has a whole bunch of stuff not in 1st/2nd and would require learning lots of new stuff.
4th is a pretty huge change and while a couple things are the same you're starting almost from scratch learning-wise.
5th wants to be more like 1st/2nd but is doing it in a different way so is almost like learning a brand new thing. But it's not "officially" coming out for like another year yet so whatever.
Opinion time: Run away from 5th like it's a bonfire and you've been doused in gasoline.
I guess my concern is that we'll be shooting ourselves in the foot by learning 4E and then having to re-learn for 5E...sounds like we (and many others) will just stick with 4E for the foreseeable future. Thanks!
i've never been the type to say learning a game is akin to shooting one self's foot. worst case scenario in learning a new game is that you find out it's not for you and you keep playing the game you like.
best case scenario you find a new game you like and can play as an alternative or occasional one-shot or at the very least it might have aspects you can import in a game you do like.
my personal recommendation is to keep playing what you like and look at what 5th ed has to offer... the playtest is open to anyone and totally free, plus no one's going to force you to play a game you don't want to... there are many groups out there still playing 1st edition AD&D and the original D&D because that's what they like. if you like 4th, play it!
personal recommendation on D&D 4vs5... stick with 4th ed. in the current playtest iteration 5th ed is a hodgepodge of elements that don't work together in a way to make a game i'd consider playing in anything other then a tongue-in-cheek manner. there's a dedicated 5th ed thread you can go on to ask for more information.
you can read my collected ravings at oxybesothertumbr.tumblr.com
3rd edition had a simulationist magic item economy with PC's quite capable of creating, modifying or whatever-ing magic items. I rather liked the options it presented.
It was a disaster from a gamist POV, PC's traded in some XP and a feat (or more) and in exchange got a massive discount on magic items, a strong bias in their magic items towards personal utility and if they ever got far enough behind in XP.....they got bonus XP. Not a good idea in that sense.
Okay, my question remains: How exactly is that simulationist? It's mechanical, rather than abstract, but what exactly are you simulating? How is the use of flawed mechanics a better simulation than (for example) a more accurate and/or balanced abstraction or even more balanced mechanics?
I'm not trying to be (overly) argumentative, but it still seems to me like "simulationist" is often used as a shorthand term for "mechanically involved, rather than abstract, and having no more parity with reality than abstraction or a well-designed ruleset, but too innately flawed in its construction to be called gamist."
If my role play is hindered by rolling to play, then I'd prefer the rolls play right, instead of steam-rolling play-night.
Also, @mr_mich, I'm going to second the opinions of AntiM and DevA, and add:
4th edition is not without its design flaws. However, if you have not noticed them, then I see no reason to spoil your fun by pulling back the curtain. I will say that it is one of the better designed table top games available, and it's far less effort to run in a manner that is fair and effective than much of its competition. The one thing not readily apparent from this playtest and the discussion of it is the amount of work going on behind the scenes from Denada's point of view--esp. the amount of work he'll be putting in on this particular run through.
Previous iterations were pretty much "by the book" and although people had fun it was usually in spite of the rules rather than because of them. Denada mentioned deviating a bit to make the game itself a bit more enjoyable for the players on this pass, rather than just the out-of-rules interactions. I'm sure if you asked nicely he'd be willing to share a bit more detailed insight on the differences in running a 4e game for fun and trying to cram fun into 5e.
If my role play is hindered by rolling to play, then I'd prefer the rolls play right, instead of steam-rolling play-night.
+1
Options
AntimatterDevo Was RightGates of SteelRegistered Userregular
yeah 4e does stuff that I won't say I enjoy, but on the whole I've gotta say it's my fav edition of D&D.
Ugh. The way the 5E dm'ing stuff has been described over the last few pages makes it sound like the most frustrating 'mother may I' style of problem/puzzle solving.
"What do you mean the key has always been in front of us?? We searched the whole room from top to bottom over the past hour!!!"
"Yes, but you searched all over, in front of, behind, above, and to the sides of the wall. You said nothing about the thin decorative railing I mentioned in the initial description".
Also, even the best of us forgets something, and putting the DM on an intentional mission to be as obtuse as possible about the player's actions seems ripe for massive bullshit where something similar to the above happens... but the DM forgot to mention the railing.
Granted, a good DM will not do this to people, particularly their friends/people they enjoy gaming with.
Unfortunately, not every DM is a good one, and I'm a bigger fan of building on the concept of everyone having fun, as opposed to the DM trying to outwit the players by following the exact letter of the law, rather than the spirit, as it were.
I deal with enough pedantic assholes in my daily life and wandering the forums, no need to intentionally add more of it to my day.
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
3rd edition had a simulationist magic item economy with PC's quite capable of creating, modifying or whatever-ing magic items. I rather liked the options it presented.
It was a disaster from a gamist POV, PC's traded in some XP and a feat (or more) and in exchange got a massive discount on magic items, a strong bias in their magic items towards personal utility and if they ever got far enough behind in XP.....they got bonus XP. Not a good idea in that sense.
Okay, my question remains: How exactly is that simulationist? It's mechanical, rather than abstract, but what exactly are you simulating? How is the use of flawed mechanics a better simulation than (for example) a more accurate and/or balanced abstraction or even more balanced mechanics?
I'm not trying to be (overly) argumentative, but it still seems to me like "simulationist" is often used as a shorthand term for "mechanically involved, rather than abstract, and having no more parity with reality than abstraction or a well-designed ruleset, but too innately flawed in its construction to be called gamist."
For me it's intent. The idea behind 3e's magic item creation was to provide a "physics" for enchantment. It gave rules and costs and laid out how you go about doing this. It gave an explanation of where all those Longswords +1 came from. In previous editions you made a magic item by......well you didn't. If you did it would be entirely by the narrative you took part in, typically as part of an overarching plotline. What narrative demand creates Longswords +1? The one that wants you to have a magic sword at 5th level.
This sense of creating a system that logically builds these underpinnings, of asking "Well if I were an evil wizard building a complicated death trap how would I do it?" rather than "What would be a fun/good/exciting trap for my players to encounter?", and then letting the results fall where they may is the heart of simulationism to me.
Ugh. The way the 5E dm'ing stuff has been described over the last few pages makes it sound like the most frustrating 'mother may I' style of problem/puzzle solving.
"What do you mean the key has always been in front of us?? We searched the whole room from top to bottom over the past hour!!!"
"Yes, but you searched all over, in front of, behind, above, and to the sides of the wall. You said nothing about the thin decorative railing I mentioned in the initial description".
Also, even the best of us forgets something, and putting the DM on an intentional mission to be as obtuse as possible about the player's actions seems ripe for massive bullshit where something similar to the above happens... but the DM forgot to mention the railing.
Granted, a good DM will not do this to people, particularly their friends/people they enjoy gaming with.
Unfortunately, not every DM is a good one, and I'm a bigger fan of building on the concept of everyone having fun, as opposed to the DM trying to outwit the players by following the exact letter of the law, rather than the spirit, as it were.
I deal with enough pedantic assholes in my daily life and wandering the forums, no need to intentionally add more of it to my day.
5th edition's take on this reminds me of one of the worst experiences I had in Living Greyhawk.
Me and a couple friends are taking part in a high level (14ish) battle interactive. Interactive only ever run at the show they premier, are typically super packed, and are the best chance of your characters having meaningful impact on the overall plotline for the large campaign. They are quite often run by those who wrote/designed them. They are typically also real world time limited.
We are told we need to raid the underwater tomb of something or other. We break out the means of breathing underwater and sit down around a table with a lovely Dwarven Forge set up. It was gorgeous and a big change from the usual hasty sketches on a battlemat you normally got.
We work our way through this dungeon, being all tough and heroic. We get to the last chamber and find a dead end. We're running really low on time to finish this so we search, rack our brains, do whatever we can. We bust out all kinds of stuff, searching as we back through the dungeon but none of us find anything. We finally run out of time.
We ask the DM what we missed. "Oh, that door on the model right there, none of you said you wanted to go through it."
The door on the model that faced the DM.
The door, identical to other doors we were told weren't actually there.
The door in the middle of a random hallway that we had searched.
For me it's intent. The idea behind 3e's magic item creation was to provide a "physics" for enchantment. It gave rules and costs and laid out how you go about doing this. It gave an explanation of where all those Longswords +1 came from. In previous editions you made a magic item by......well you didn't. If you did it would be entirely by the narrative you took part in, typically as part of an overarching plotline. What narrative demand creates Longswords +1? The one that wants you to have a magic sword at 5th level.
This sense of creating a system that logically builds these underpinnings, of asking "Well if I were an evil wizard building a complicated death trap how would I do it?" rather than "What would be a fun/good/exciting trap for my players to encounter?", and then letting the results fall where they may is the heart of simulationism to me.
So if I intend to create rules for magic in a game that are internally consistent, and intend for those rules to also be functional, balanced, useful, and fair then it is gamist.
But, if I intend to create rules for magic in a game, but am willing to ignore design principles or actively seek to subvert them in favor of my own favored viewpoint, it is simulationist?
[snark]I think I have this down, and can run a quick simulationist game for us all.
You are faced with a wizard's tomb.
Reroll your character as (s)he has died.
You see, a genius with control over forces you cannot comprehend, time and space, and owner of a few glittery whatnots was smart enough to set up a trap along with all of his other traps that uses simple divination to detect if you might pass one of the other traps. It then casts a fireball back at your parents genitals shortly before you were conceived. Being horrifically burned, (even on a successful save) they don't much feel like getting it on that day, so you are never born. Since you never enter the tomb because you cease to exist, it never actually expends any of its stored charges killing you, and is thus a perpetual killing machine that requires no mechanical resolution.[/snark]
If my role play is hindered by rolling to play, then I'd prefer the rolls play right, instead of steam-rolling play-night.
For me it's intent. The idea behind 3e's magic item creation was to provide a "physics" for enchantment. It gave rules and costs and laid out how you go about doing this. It gave an explanation of where all those Longswords +1 came from. In previous editions you made a magic item by......well you didn't. If you did it would be entirely by the narrative you took part in, typically as part of an overarching plotline. What narrative demand creates Longswords +1? The one that wants you to have a magic sword at 5th level.
This sense of creating a system that logically builds these underpinnings, of asking "Well if I were an evil wizard building a complicated death trap how would I do it?" rather than "What would be a fun/good/exciting trap for my players to encounter?", and then letting the results fall where they may is the heart of simulationism to me.
So if I intend to create rules for magic in a game that are internally consistent, and intend for those rules to also be functional, balanced, useful, and fair then it is gamist.
But, if I intend to create rules for magic in a game, but am willing to ignore design principles or actively seek to subvert them in favor of my own favored viewpoint, it is simulationist?
You need to question your own assumptions in there.
What is balance? What is fair? The concern over the "balance" or "fairness" of a scenario is a gamist desire.
What design principles? Until you lay these out they are meaningless in context of a discussion.
You want to paint me with this hatred of simulation elements but I have repeatedly been annoyed to the extent that 4e dropped D&D's simulationist elements. I find it rather annoying that if you know a goblin's job title you know all his stats in 4e. In 3e it was expected they'd have a class and could easily kick your ass if they had enough of it.
oxybeEntei is appaled and disappointed in youRegistered Userregular
it doesn't simulate much though as there is no description of the creation process.
hell, making my own computer is more complicated then the 3rd ed magic item creation. when i last made my PC the steps were "go to specialty store, look at catalog, buy correct parts + pay shipping, wait a week for delivery, insert part A in slot B, install software, have computer" D&D skips the whole actual making of the item... it doesn't simulate the how it would work in the magical D&D land at all.
and yes, while i may snark about realism and bat-poop fireballs at times, you can simulate how magic works, but that requires the dev or gm to have a consistent magic system and world.
the entire 3rd ed process is "get feat, buy masterwork sword, spend gold, wait X days, have item" but doesn't tell you how the character actually makes the +1 sword or what his options are.
it gives rules and costs but those were not grounded in any in-game logic that i can remember/find and it definitely feels more like a game element for the sake of a game element in it's presentation. if it was truly simulating the crafting process as seen in a fantasy world, the rules would reflect that: there would need to be certain steps taken, most likely, to craft these items. the old edition "ask your gm" might be horribly narrativistic when it comes to the creation process itself, but that's because different universes treat magic differently.
the magic of harry potter is treated quite differently then that of eberron.
in eberron it might be as easy as going shopping "bread, eggs, milk, magic powder" followed by "mix powder and water in magic stirring bowl and bake in mold for 5 days", but for the sake of quicker gameplay, it simply doesn't describe much.
whereas in the HP universe many magic items require special ingredients, the wands for example need to be made of certain wood with a "core": potter's is made of holly and a phoenix feather whereas ron's wand is made of willow and unicorn hair. you can't just grab any old stick and go "abracadabra". in addition, the various woods & cores seem to have their own special properties that influence their useage.
requiring certain items to be present at the time of crafting or certain rituals be done during the process might be a hassle (which is why i believe that rule was dropped from core in the 2nd > 3rd) but it definitely adds a bit more to the simulation aspect (to make a flaming sword, you need to bind a fire elemental to a sword) if the game world supports it (wild elementals can possess items and cause mischief).
to me a simulationist game does it's best to simulate how the game-world works through inter-connecting the various elements presented.
to quote myself from the 5th ed thread when we were talking about weapons & combat styles:
"so instead of having power attack be a feat, have it be part of a weapon a "momentum" property you can choose for heavy weapons: lower your accuracy for more damage. if you want to make damage type matter a bit more then for just resistances, then for bludgeoning weapons you can choose a property like "battering" where you can still deal some damage on a miss as your blows batter their defenses.
this could go quite a ways to making the choice of weapon matter. a Maul being a heavy 2-handed momentum weapon that still batters at an enemy's defenses on a block makes sense, is flavourful, and could be done in a GW/Legend piecemeal system pretty easily: pick one quality for category (heavy/finesse), one for type (piercing/bludgeoning/slashing) and if you really want to, one for size (1-handed, 2-handed, etc...). "
is that gamist because it focuses directly on the rules to determine the outcome, narrativist because it allows you to make a weapon that fits perfectly with your vision or simulationist because it gives a list of choices tied to a persistent & consistent in-world effect?
you can read my collected ravings at oxybesothertumbr.tumblr.com
it doesn't simulate much though as there is no description of the creation process.
hell, making my own computer is more complicated then the 3rd ed magic item creation. when i last made my PC the steps were "go to specialty store, look at catalog, buy correct parts + pay shipping, wait a week for delivery, insert part A in slot B, install software, have computer" D&D skips the whole actual making of the item... it doesn't simulate the how it would work in the magical D&D land at all.
and yes, while i may snark about realism and bat-poop fireballs at times, you can simulate how magic works, but that requires the dev or gm to have a consistent magic system and world.
the entire 3rd ed process is "get feat, buy masterwork sword, spend gold, wait X days, have item" but doesn't tell you how the character actually makes the +1 sword or what his options are.
His options are detailed here. This gives you the rules for putting any spell effect you want into anything as well as rules for adding whatever bonus type you'd like into whatever.
This framework, based upon the in game spell level system rather than it's actual impact on the game, is what I describe as simulationist.
Posts
It just boggles my mind.
Origin ID: Discgolfer27
Untappd ID: Discgolfer1981
Origin ID: Discgolfer27
Untappd ID: Discgolfer1981
it's bad adventure design (only one solution) compounded by bad system design (only some classes have those solutions), pure and simple.
Just walls of eyes.
wall of eyes.
eyes.
targets.
when all you have is a hammer, everything is a nail. when all you have is a bow, everything is a target.
fire you handsome bastard. fire away.
So, what, we curse at them for a while?
and by that i mean, walk strait on in, unless someone has a better idea. Xi has advantage on all saving throws VS spells, so as long as it's not con-based, i might survive, what with my +5 to dex and wis-based ones.
But in the game thread there will be other ways that I'll make up because you guys don't have a wizard.
also, Xi is going to attempt something if there is no movement or decisions done by the party before this afternoon, wherein Xi may or may not unleash a tactical moonwalk, because that is a thing.
Also, I would like to take this opportunity to point out how 5e is apparently just like World of Warcraft because there's always some nut that has to /dance every time he's bored. [trollface.jpg]
but... but... Monte told us about his revolutionary new idea!
Disagree. The concept that their needs to be multiple solutions is a gamist one. The idea that some dick wizard would create an elaborate trap that would be simple for him to open is simulationist.....if you're simulating a world where beings of immense power putter around creating fiendish rube goldbergesque traps to kill people centuries after they're dead.
You are violating the spirit of your playtest and the NEXT! You think you know better than the mighty MEARLS?
How else will they protect their Mr. T cereal?
I'm sure this is going to come off as condescending or offensive to someone, but in what sense has the word "simulationist" ever really meant anything other than "not the mechanics I like because I'm used to them/I can exploit them/they punish others and make me feel smart?"
That is a genuine question. Every conversation I've ever had on the subject boiled down to "it's so 'real' because it [does a thing that is inherently unfair to others and also not realistic at all]" I get the divide between mechanical and abstract resolution (and all the shades of gray between) but every time I hear "simulationist" come up, it seems to be as justification for inherently punishing a player for not choosing some favored concept.
3rd edition had a simulationist magic item economy with PC's quite capable of creating, modifying or whatever-ing magic items. I rather liked the options it presented.
It was a disaster from a gamist POV, PC's traded in some XP and a feat (or more) and in exchange got a massive discount on magic items, a strong bias in their magic items towards personal utility and if they ever got far enough behind in XP.....they got bonus XP. Not a good idea in that sense.
my avatar is entei, the legendary pokemon.
it's from this hejibits comic. lol
Should we wait for 5th Edition? Or would it be better for us as players (and me as a fledgling DM) to go with a more mature 4E, with well-established guides/critiques/opinions on the internets?
5th edition looks very half-baked and eliminates lots of things from 4e in favor of older material, "original" material which is typically underwhelming and optional 4e material that isnt identified as such, and new things that dont look like they work so hot.
We've gone through a couple of discussions about this, the undercurrent of discourse here is roughly that 4e is actually well-balanced for classes and 5e goes back to Wizard/caster superiority while Fighter goes back to "I hit things with my axe."
I'd say to look at the playtest thread by denada if you want to see what 5e/Next looks like in action, but I'd say to stick with 4e. shame that wizards is halting support for it day by day.
Yea.
1st-2nd-3rd are all iteritive changes that build on each other though 1st to 2nd is relatively minor compared to 2nd to 3rd. Most of the skills transfer but third has a whole bunch of stuff not in 1st/2nd and would require learning lots of new stuff.
4th is a pretty huge change and while a couple things are the same you're starting almost from scratch learning-wise.
5th wants to be more like 1st/2nd but is doing it in a different way so is almost like learning a brand new thing. But it's not "officially" coming out for like another year yet so whatever.
Opinion time: Run away from 5th like it's a bonfire and you've been doused in gasoline.
i've never been the type to say learning a game is akin to shooting one self's foot. worst case scenario in learning a new game is that you find out it's not for you and you keep playing the game you like.
best case scenario you find a new game you like and can play as an alternative or occasional one-shot or at the very least it might have aspects you can import in a game you do like.
my personal recommendation is to keep playing what you like and look at what 5th ed has to offer... the playtest is open to anyone and totally free, plus no one's going to force you to play a game you don't want to... there are many groups out there still playing 1st edition AD&D and the original D&D because that's what they like. if you like 4th, play it!
personal recommendation on D&D 4vs5... stick with 4th ed. in the current playtest iteration 5th ed is a hodgepodge of elements that don't work together in a way to make a game i'd consider playing in anything other then a tongue-in-cheek manner. there's a dedicated 5th ed thread you can go on to ask for more information.
I'm not trying to be (overly) argumentative, but it still seems to me like "simulationist" is often used as a shorthand term for "mechanically involved, rather than abstract, and having no more parity with reality than abstraction or a well-designed ruleset, but too innately flawed in its construction to be called gamist."
4th edition is not without its design flaws. However, if you have not noticed them, then I see no reason to spoil your fun by pulling back the curtain. I will say that it is one of the better designed table top games available, and it's far less effort to run in a manner that is fair and effective than much of its competition. The one thing not readily apparent from this playtest and the discussion of it is the amount of work going on behind the scenes from Denada's point of view--esp. the amount of work he'll be putting in on this particular run through.
Previous iterations were pretty much "by the book" and although people had fun it was usually in spite of the rules rather than because of them. Denada mentioned deviating a bit to make the game itself a bit more enjoyable for the players on this pass, rather than just the out-of-rules interactions. I'm sure if you asked nicely he'd be willing to share a bit more detailed insight on the differences in running a 4e game for fun and trying to cram fun into 5e.
"What do you mean the key has always been in front of us?? We searched the whole room from top to bottom over the past hour!!!"
"Yes, but you searched all over, in front of, behind, above, and to the sides of the wall. You said nothing about the thin decorative railing I mentioned in the initial description".
Also, even the best of us forgets something, and putting the DM on an intentional mission to be as obtuse as possible about the player's actions seems ripe for massive bullshit where something similar to the above happens... but the DM forgot to mention the railing.
Granted, a good DM will not do this to people, particularly their friends/people they enjoy gaming with.
Unfortunately, not every DM is a good one, and I'm a bigger fan of building on the concept of everyone having fun, as opposed to the DM trying to outwit the players by following the exact letter of the law, rather than the spirit, as it were.
I deal with enough pedantic assholes in my daily life and wandering the forums, no need to intentionally add more of it to my day.
For me it's intent. The idea behind 3e's magic item creation was to provide a "physics" for enchantment. It gave rules and costs and laid out how you go about doing this. It gave an explanation of where all those Longswords +1 came from. In previous editions you made a magic item by......well you didn't. If you did it would be entirely by the narrative you took part in, typically as part of an overarching plotline. What narrative demand creates Longswords +1? The one that wants you to have a magic sword at 5th level.
This sense of creating a system that logically builds these underpinnings, of asking "Well if I were an evil wizard building a complicated death trap how would I do it?" rather than "What would be a fun/good/exciting trap for my players to encounter?", and then letting the results fall where they may is the heart of simulationism to me.
5th edition's take on this reminds me of one of the worst experiences I had in Living Greyhawk.
Me and a couple friends are taking part in a high level (14ish) battle interactive. Interactive only ever run at the show they premier, are typically super packed, and are the best chance of your characters having meaningful impact on the overall plotline for the large campaign. They are quite often run by those who wrote/designed them. They are typically also real world time limited.
We are told we need to raid the underwater tomb of something or other. We break out the means of breathing underwater and sit down around a table with a lovely Dwarven Forge set up. It was gorgeous and a big change from the usual hasty sketches on a battlemat you normally got.
We work our way through this dungeon, being all tough and heroic. We get to the last chamber and find a dead end. We're running really low on time to finish this so we search, rack our brains, do whatever we can. We bust out all kinds of stuff, searching as we back through the dungeon but none of us find anything. We finally run out of time.
We ask the DM what we missed. "Oh, that door on the model right there, none of you said you wanted to go through it."
The door on the model that faced the DM.
The door, identical to other doors we were told weren't actually there.
The door in the middle of a random hallway that we had searched.
But, if I intend to create rules for magic in a game, but am willing to ignore design principles or actively seek to subvert them in favor of my own favored viewpoint, it is simulationist?
[snark]I think I have this down, and can run a quick simulationist game for us all.
You are faced with a wizard's tomb.
Reroll your character as (s)he has died.
You see, a genius with control over forces you cannot comprehend, time and space, and owner of a few glittery whatnots was smart enough to set up a trap along with all of his other traps that uses simple divination to detect if you might pass one of the other traps. It then casts a fireball back at your parents genitals shortly before you were conceived. Being horrifically burned, (even on a successful save) they don't much feel like getting it on that day, so you are never born. Since you never enter the tomb because you cease to exist, it never actually expends any of its stored charges killing you, and is thus a perpetual killing machine that requires no mechanical resolution.[/snark]
You need to question your own assumptions in there.
What is balance? What is fair? The concern over the "balance" or "fairness" of a scenario is a gamist desire.
What design principles? Until you lay these out they are meaningless in context of a discussion.
You want to paint me with this hatred of simulation elements but I have repeatedly been annoyed to the extent that 4e dropped D&D's simulationist elements. I find it rather annoying that if you know a goblin's job title you know all his stats in 4e. In 3e it was expected they'd have a class and could easily kick your ass if they had enough of it.
hell, making my own computer is more complicated then the 3rd ed magic item creation. when i last made my PC the steps were "go to specialty store, look at catalog, buy correct parts + pay shipping, wait a week for delivery, insert part A in slot B, install software, have computer" D&D skips the whole actual making of the item... it doesn't simulate the how it would work in the magical D&D land at all.
and yes, while i may snark about realism and bat-poop fireballs at times, you can simulate how magic works, but that requires the dev or gm to have a consistent magic system and world.
the entire 3rd ed process is "get feat, buy masterwork sword, spend gold, wait X days, have item" but doesn't tell you how the character actually makes the +1 sword or what his options are.
it gives rules and costs but those were not grounded in any in-game logic that i can remember/find and it definitely feels more like a game element for the sake of a game element in it's presentation. if it was truly simulating the crafting process as seen in a fantasy world, the rules would reflect that: there would need to be certain steps taken, most likely, to craft these items. the old edition "ask your gm" might be horribly narrativistic when it comes to the creation process itself, but that's because different universes treat magic differently.
the magic of harry potter is treated quite differently then that of eberron.
in eberron it might be as easy as going shopping "bread, eggs, milk, magic powder" followed by "mix powder and water in magic stirring bowl and bake in mold for 5 days", but for the sake of quicker gameplay, it simply doesn't describe much.
whereas in the HP universe many magic items require special ingredients, the wands for example need to be made of certain wood with a "core": potter's is made of holly and a phoenix feather whereas ron's wand is made of willow and unicorn hair. you can't just grab any old stick and go "abracadabra". in addition, the various woods & cores seem to have their own special properties that influence their useage.
requiring certain items to be present at the time of crafting or certain rituals be done during the process might be a hassle (which is why i believe that rule was dropped from core in the 2nd > 3rd) but it definitely adds a bit more to the simulation aspect (to make a flaming sword, you need to bind a fire elemental to a sword) if the game world supports it (wild elementals can possess items and cause mischief).
to me a simulationist game does it's best to simulate how the game-world works through inter-connecting the various elements presented.
to quote myself from the 5th ed thread when we were talking about weapons & combat styles:
"so instead of having power attack be a feat, have it be part of a weapon a "momentum" property you can choose for heavy weapons: lower your accuracy for more damage. if you want to make damage type matter a bit more then for just resistances, then for bludgeoning weapons you can choose a property like "battering" where you can still deal some damage on a miss as your blows batter their defenses.
this could go quite a ways to making the choice of weapon matter. a Maul being a heavy 2-handed momentum weapon that still batters at an enemy's defenses on a block makes sense, is flavourful, and could be done in a GW/Legend piecemeal system pretty easily: pick one quality for category (heavy/finesse), one for type (piercing/bludgeoning/slashing) and if you really want to, one for size (1-handed, 2-handed, etc...). "
is that gamist because it focuses directly on the rules to determine the outcome, narrativist because it allows you to make a weapon that fits perfectly with your vision or simulationist because it gives a list of choices tied to a persistent & consistent in-world effect?
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/creatingMagicItems.htm#
His options are detailed here. This gives you the rules for putting any spell effect you want into anything as well as rules for adding whatever bonus type you'd like into whatever.
This framework, based upon the in game spell level system rather than it's actual impact on the game, is what I describe as simulationist.