Simulation vs. Cinematic
- Thread starter Greg Tito
- Start date
Um... you guys do know you can have Cinematic Sandbox games and Railroaded Simulationist games right? That at the end of the day it mostly comes down to how much work the GM is willing to put into building a Sandboxy Open World?
Well I have to say in watching the 4th ed game podcast series done with the Robot Chicken gang, 4e definitely had a more video gamey sort of vibe to it. With Healing surges and the encounter powers and daily powers etc, it seemed weird to me. Keep in mind, the last edition of D&D I played was 3rd. I could still see the D&D mechanics at the core, but it definitely had a whole lot of new paint to it.
I will say for all the hours spent in various editions of D&D, it definitely suffered from an inherit sort of class progression gap. Where fighters/paladins/clerics/barbarians are viable right from the start, they sort of maintain a steady pace. Where as, once those casting classes hit 5th level and get those 3rd level spells (Fireball, Lightning Bolt etc) their capabilities make a HUGE jump. Rogues had sort of a average progression step until they could start bluffing people into being flat footed by feinting. Then you have the really late bloomers like Monks, who eventually can be just absolutelty fucking ridiculous to deal with at the higher levels. Finally, you had the stepchild, the single-class Bard. I hardly remember anyone ever playing a bard in any campaign.
As an aside, I was recently introduced to the true D20 fantasy system and that seems like it has some interesting twists on the traditional D20 D&D system.
I will say for all the hours spent in various editions of D&D, it definitely suffered from an inherit sort of class progression gap. Where fighters/paladins/clerics/barbarians are viable right from the start, they sort of maintain a steady pace. Where as, once those casting classes hit 5th level and get those 3rd level spells (Fireball, Lightning Bolt etc) their capabilities make a HUGE jump. Rogues had sort of a average progression step until they could start bluffing people into being flat footed by feinting. Then you have the really late bloomers like Monks, who eventually can be just absolutelty fucking ridiculous to deal with at the higher levels. Finally, you had the stepchild, the single-class Bard. I hardly remember anyone ever playing a bard in any campaign.
As an aside, I was recently introduced to the true D20 fantasy system and that seems like it has some interesting twists on the traditional D20 D&D system.
I don't know if I could ever hang with a group that dissallowed metatalk at the table. Whats DnD if not a great story with lots of little points where I can point and laugh at the guy across the table for failing one way or another.
Though to each their own and I can't say that I don't see the merits of hardcore focused gaming.
So yes to new players I have to agree, try it all. You never know will draw you in.
Though to each their own and I can't say that I don't see the merits of hardcore focused gaming.
So yes to new players I have to agree, try it all. You never know will draw you in.
in my group of friends, there was a similar vehement response when 3rd edition was released... I'm not sure why... I think it has to do with the investment people put into the game.. People who had all of the core rule books, and a plethora of extra books, were suddenly being told that those rules were null and void, and the world at large was moving on whether they liked it or not.
Honestly, I can sort of see where they're coming from in that respect.
Honestly, I can sort of see where they're coming from in that respect.
*sigh* Ilve always considered the violent and angry response to a new system as kinda dumb. Your books are not "null and void", it's not like Wizards or whoever is breaking into your house and burning all your books, it just means the system is done, complete, nothing new will be officially added to it and if you have that much of a problem with the "official" ruling on the system, I'm sure you'll find plenty of friends on the internet who think the same and are producing some great (and not so great) fan material.
I really can't get behind 4th edition. They made it only about the fighting. They give you no abilities that can be used outside of battle, and the effects of the abilities are a lot more rigid, everything is just "it deals is much damage to this many thing and may cause this status effect". Now 4th combat is better, but it only works in campains that are liner fight after fight types. It doesn't allow for creative solutions using more practical abilities. And my biggest problem is that it doesn't have to, why can't they give me non-combat abilities? I just cant see the the point of playing a slow paced video game with next to no visual elements replacing freedom of choices. If it is going to be that racially different, then why stop printing 3.5? That keeps us from even having the choice.
It is definitely a battle for the ages. Sometimes you just want a straightforward torrent of squishy enemies and shiny loot, and sometimes you want a Byzantine plot with memorable NPCs and shocking turns of events that may or may not lead to epic battles.
Some systems & GMs lean one way, some the other. I don't think both camps will ever be entirely pleased with something that tries to appeal to both. It'll just be too mediocre to please everybody.
As an aside, Alex's OD&D game sounds like a fantastic time to my old-school ears.
Some systems & GMs lean one way, some the other. I don't think both camps will ever be entirely pleased with something that tries to appeal to both. It'll just be too mediocre to please everybody.
As an aside, Alex's OD&D game sounds like a fantastic time to my old-school ears.
Wow! Saying D&D sucks at simulation is fighting words around here.Friv said:
What do you mean "attitude towards balance"? Are you referring to D&D 3.5's challenge ratings? Because OD&D's attitude towards balance is pretty agnostic and I haven't had any issues with it. What's an example of a game that you think does a GOOD job at simulating a fantasy world? Maybe we're simulating different things...
I've played D&D since 1974. I've moved forward, sometimes grumbling and foot dragging, with each new edition. Until 4E. There was too great a difference between 3.5 and 4E. Little to no "backwards compatibility" and I've run the same campaign world since 1974. Simulation of a world is what I've been doing for 35 years. So, it's Paizo's Pathfinder RPG for me. 3.5 with some improvements. New material that can be integrated without too much dislocation. I don't have a problem with 4E as a game, but it's not a game I'd enjoy running or playing.
The thing is... even in the splashiest action movie, if it's worth its salt, the action will make a kind of sense. It may stretch credulity (to put it mildly) that every police officer and criminal seems to have the parkour skills of a master, or that the hero survives being that close to the shockwave of a massive explosion, or that someone comes back to win a fight after injuries that realistically would add up to multiple broken ribs and a concussion... but as long as it's consistent with the world itself and entertaining, it's remarkable what we'll let by.
What it sounds like is the abilities of 4E aren't consistent with the world that's created. And that's a problem. It increases the risk that the rules will get in the way of immersion, rather than aiding it. And something that jerks the audience out of its suspension of disbelief can't accurately be described as "cinematic".
Now I'll be the first to recognize that many "old timers" (a class in which I must grudgingly place myself, I guess) may spite 4th Edition out of the sense that the young punks are getting to do the fun stuff without having to do any of the hard work of slow levelling and calculating THAC0 and so forth. There's nothing wrong with a game that plays smoothly and quickly and lets players just roll the dice and have fun with it.
But that is a distinctly different experience from what the earlier players were working with, and I wouldn't leap to say it's a superior one. Different, certainly. Shallower? Maybe- though a lot will of course depend on the particular gaming group.
There's also a somewhat disturbing sense that WotC, more than earlier possessors of the franchise, treats D&D as a product, for better or worse- that the changes aren't necessarily tied to making a better game, but one that they can sell to more people, having filled the coffers as much as it was possible to do with the proceeds of the previous generation.
If nothing else, it will be amusing to watch the players of this generation bitching about 5th and 6th Edition.
Because I'd bet my right arm that there will be a fifth and sixth edition.
What it sounds like is the abilities of 4E aren't consistent with the world that's created. And that's a problem. It increases the risk that the rules will get in the way of immersion, rather than aiding it. And something that jerks the audience out of its suspension of disbelief can't accurately be described as "cinematic".
Now I'll be the first to recognize that many "old timers" (a class in which I must grudgingly place myself, I guess) may spite 4th Edition out of the sense that the young punks are getting to do the fun stuff without having to do any of the hard work of slow levelling and calculating THAC0 and so forth. There's nothing wrong with a game that plays smoothly and quickly and lets players just roll the dice and have fun with it.
But that is a distinctly different experience from what the earlier players were working with, and I wouldn't leap to say it's a superior one. Different, certainly. Shallower? Maybe- though a lot will of course depend on the particular gaming group.
There's also a somewhat disturbing sense that WotC, more than earlier possessors of the franchise, treats D&D as a product, for better or worse- that the changes aren't necessarily tied to making a better game, but one that they can sell to more people, having filled the coffers as much as it was possible to do with the proceeds of the previous generation.
If nothing else, it will be amusing to watch the players of this generation bitching about 5th and 6th Edition.
Because I'd bet my right arm that there will be a fifth and sixth edition.
Well I could point to Burning Wheel/Mouseguard or REIGN as presenting a good fantasy world AND a set of rules that aids in conveying the fantasy of said world.Burning Wheel has it's lifepaths, it's gritty "FIGHT!" system, it's duels of wits, it's BITS system and it's extremely realistic "Advancement" system all of which are simplified but impoved upon by Mouseguard and REIGN's every element is tied into its extremely interesting fantasy world.Archon said:
But honestly the BEST Simulationist game I've ever seen is "Aces and Eights" a Western RPG that presents a picture perfect Wild West Setting in all its gun fighting, horse trading, bar brawling, cattle rustling, prospecting, gold mining, plague catching, impromptu trial running, pick something you'd want to show up in a wild west game glory. It's so realistic it's both awesome and painful, presenting some seriously intense, deep and fun rules/minigames to add a playable facet to almost every aspect of Western Life. Now what it ISN'T is easy, but it has a modular rules system that allows you to add or drop sections at will, so you could play a simple game of Gun Fighters, or an extremely complex game that nearly accurately simulates life in a Wild West Town.
It's surprising just how simplified a lot of things were in 4E. I loved playing rogues/thieves, but some of the simplifications seemed a bit.. weird when trying to picture what was going on with a character.
I haven't played D&D for awhile though, mind you (do own a full set of 2E and 4E [as well as 1E AD&D] books) I did read a bit of 'em recently. One of the things I understood was that "move silently" and hiding in shadows were combined.
Bah, I don't know where I stand. If someone likes playing on the 4E ruleset, all good for them. Maybe I'd like it too if I could actually find people to play with. However, my best memories will still be with 2E.
I haven't played D&D for awhile though, mind you (do own a full set of 2E and 4E [as well as 1E AD&D] books) I did read a bit of 'em recently. One of the things I understood was that "move silently" and hiding in shadows were combined.
Bah, I don't know where I stand. If someone likes playing on the 4E ruleset, all good for them. Maybe I'd like it too if I could actually find people to play with. However, my best memories will still be with 2E.
PedroSteckecilo is right, D&D has never been a simulationist type game its always been on the gamest side. The world of D&D is pretty clean compared to what a fantasy world would look like. You don't get a gouge in your arm that gets infected and goes septic causing you to lose the arm which may in itself kill you. You tend to lack the factors that make medieval fantasy medieval which tends to make the whole setting fall down under scruitiny.
People tend to be tolerant of random groups of strangers from different races walking into their town instead of instantly suspicious of such a group and likely racist towards those not sharing a species. People who live in medieval type towns would much more likely have medieval type attitudes.
I've recently seen Aces and Eights as a friend has got it and that game looks to simulate. Combat goes down to fractions of seconds to allow people to do quick draw shoot outs, locations include groin and neck to name a few. D&D does a hit and a wound, no other effects, you are either fine, incapacitaded or dead. Going from incapacitated back to fine has nothing in the way of perminant effect, actually same goes from going from dead to fine.
I play WFRP 2nd Ed and that has an altogether more honest Fantasy setting (I would consider 3rd ed but the game just has too many holes at the moment), racism is rampant, class is everything, disease is prominent. In WFRP you are as likely to die from getting stabbed in a drunken bar brawl as you are to die fighting a monster. Wizards are treated with suspicion, anyone that raises people from the dead is hunted down, elves are treated with conempt and fighting the monsters will probably lead you to become corrupt and insane.
Even that isn't really a simulation of a fantasy setting, it doesn't attempt to treat weapons as accutate representations of their capabilities or do use mechanics that would support simlulationist play.
D&D is fun if you like the gamist type of rules set it gives you but it most certainly is not a simulation unless the DM makes a large number of changes to the game. For those who want to know about the difference between gameist, simulationist and narrativist games they should look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNS_Theory.
Kaihlik
People tend to be tolerant of random groups of strangers from different races walking into their town instead of instantly suspicious of such a group and likely racist towards those not sharing a species. People who live in medieval type towns would much more likely have medieval type attitudes.
I've recently seen Aces and Eights as a friend has got it and that game looks to simulate. Combat goes down to fractions of seconds to allow people to do quick draw shoot outs, locations include groin and neck to name a few. D&D does a hit and a wound, no other effects, you are either fine, incapacitaded or dead. Going from incapacitated back to fine has nothing in the way of perminant effect, actually same goes from going from dead to fine.
I play WFRP 2nd Ed and that has an altogether more honest Fantasy setting (I would consider 3rd ed but the game just has too many holes at the moment), racism is rampant, class is everything, disease is prominent. In WFRP you are as likely to die from getting stabbed in a drunken bar brawl as you are to die fighting a monster. Wizards are treated with suspicion, anyone that raises people from the dead is hunted down, elves are treated with conempt and fighting the monsters will probably lead you to become corrupt and insane.
Even that isn't really a simulation of a fantasy setting, it doesn't attempt to treat weapons as accutate representations of their capabilities or do use mechanics that would support simlulationist play.
D&D is fun if you like the gamist type of rules set it gives you but it most certainly is not a simulation unless the DM makes a large number of changes to the game. For those who want to know about the difference between gameist, simulationist and narrativist games they should look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNS_Theory.
Kaihlik
This is the reason I don't like 4e. I'm not going to stop other people playing it if they want, that would just be stupid, but our group won't be playing it because it's so very limiting in what you can do compared to 3.5e (although I can't compare it to the earlier rules, I only started playing at university and never used 3e or earlier).drisky said:
I also don't agree that 3.5e can't be cinematic - my group has been together for 5 years now, we've played a few big campaigns, most of which have been very gritty and realistic (especially the Eberron one), but every single week we have a few ridiculous cinematic moments, without breaking the realism very much at all. I think your (and WotC's) assumption that realism and cinematics are mutually exclusive is incorrect, and this is where my problems with 4e lie.
Finally, I also think that low level weak characters like wizards and rogues can still be fun and useful in combat - they're going to have high Dex, so give them a ranged weapon or some wands. My favourite character in the 5 years of playing was an elf wizard with a crossbow called Bug, who grew up in a poor mining town but was very positive, and enthusiatic about magic to the point of obsession (much to the irritation of our high level wizard patron). He was so much fun to play, and I never felt like I had nothing to do, even after he ran out of spells and stopped running around and started shooting his crossbow instead.
I hadn't really thought about the whole dissociated mechanic of the martial dailies. I'd always thought that the reason you couldn't do it more than once wasn't because your character physically couldn't do it but because it only really worked to it's full extent when other factors came into play. Maybe your opponent overbalances just slightly on their last swing or something and it's allowed you to deliver that crushing blow.
I would have to completely agree with this article. When I started playing D&D a couple of years back it was on the old 2nd Edition because my friend's brother had tons of books for it. We played and I DMed using my own homebrew campaign world. We had loads of fun and as you say it it was more a struggle for survival than a cinematic action fantasy. Then later on 4th edition came out(We skipped 3rd, though I have played it quite a bit) and we decided to buy it and upgrade to a newer and better system. After getting accustomed to the rules we continued were the previous AD&D campaign ended. It was fun, everybody was powerful, monsters were dying left and right but something was missing.
Players were more trying to maximize their characters using the various feat and power combos, trying to break the game, be even more powerful and all that put a less of an emphasis on roleplaying and more on it being a single player game.
And one more thing that annoys me about the newer versions of D&D. The monsters. Everything simply has to be more and more epic, greater, bigger, more powerful and more over the top. My PCs are going through a desert and I'm scouring the MM for a desert type monster I could use as an encounter and everything I found is either completely ridiculous or just won't fit in. There is nothing normal in the newer MMs. I must drop a picture or two to prove my point.
Just check the comparisons and see the difference.
Players were more trying to maximize their characters using the various feat and power combos, trying to break the game, be even more powerful and all that put a less of an emphasis on roleplaying and more on it being a single player game.
And one more thing that annoys me about the newer versions of D&D. The monsters. Everything simply has to be more and more epic, greater, bigger, more powerful and more over the top. My PCs are going through a desert and I'm scouring the MM for a desert type monster I could use as an encounter and everything I found is either completely ridiculous or just won't fit in. There is nothing normal in the newer MMs. I must drop a picture or two to prove my point.
Just check the comparisons and see the difference.
Simulation vs. Cinematic?
No, it has always been simulationists VS gamists.
The latter prefer 4E, because it's a more streamlined and balanced game, ever since WotC decided to stop trying to cater to both.
The simulationists prefer 3E to 4E, but cannot enjoy themselves with either game.
Then there's also a dying minority of old TSR fans who hate everything that came after 2E out of principle.
No, it has always been simulationists VS gamists.
The latter prefer 4E, because it's a more streamlined and balanced game, ever since WotC decided to stop trying to cater to both.
The simulationists prefer 3E to 4E, but cannot enjoy themselves with either game.
Then there's also a dying minority of old TSR fans who hate everything that came after 2E out of principle.
Well, if the one behind the plot is a mortal or dragon-blooded, that's true, but those are the grunts of the setting and solars are supposed to beat them hard. Solars and sidereal are another matter entirely.Friv said:
Well, a solar/abyssal will not so much make a byzantine plot since he can just brain-wash everyone and be done with it. Lie-detection against a solar's henchmen usually won't work because he thinks he's telling the truth.
Also, foiling the plans of a prepared sidereal is really a pain in the ass. How can you foil someone's plan when fate itself is removing your memories of that guy? How can you interrogate someone who doesn't remember the guy who told him to assassinate you? Sidereals have been ruling creation for thousands of years through manipulation. They're good at this. That's why I told my players they're not in the game (until they unmask one).
But yeah, characters in Exalted are supposed to be the Lawbringers that can see through the villain's lies then turn him into pulp for the glory of the Unconquered Sun. They ARE perfect in what they do, but not in what they are and that's where the fun begins. Dragon-Blooded fit better in a political game.
I'm sure you know that anyway since you said you're a veteran Exalted ST.
Anyway, I prefer DnD 4th because it's more cinematic (like Exalted) than previous versions. Like others said, a game can be cinematic while being in an open world. In the DnD game I'm currently in, my character is an exiled human warlord that's coming back to his corrupted country to try to prevent it from being used in the blood war as a recruitment ground for the demons. Enemies are at the gate and we have to avoid killing because every soul lost bolsters the demons' ranks.