Simulation vs. Cinematic

[Archon]

I am not going to move into discussing the GNS Model other than to say that, like any social science model, it's imperfect. In certain cases it can be helpful for analyzing certain elements of a game, but by and large I have not found it useful for determing which games I like, why I like them, or how they work.

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.

I read Burning Wheel and found it to be an impressive and elegant system. I haven't had the opportunity to play it, though. It definitely has a lot of really sexy systems.

D&D, at least in its original incarnation, is much more of a bottom-up simulation; it doesn't have Lifepaths, duels of wits, and so on. But it tracks coin, ammo, weight, movement rate, time, distance, and so on, in detail, and then scales upward. It leaves the integration of the bottom-up simulation with the world in the hands of the DM. I found that if you take the base assumptions of D&D, it works when applied across a large setting, though you have to make some small changes to the cost of non-adventuring goods (food, clothing) and the wages of mercenaries (for those interested, reduce the price of non-adventuring goods by a factor of 10, and increase the wages of mercenaries by a factor of 10). I actually did the work involved via a lot of spreadsheets to create every domain in a kingdom, tracking the incomes of everyone from peasant to king, cost of goods, etc., and then compared it to historical prices, incomes, manor sizes, and so on, and it turns out that D&D works just fine as a medieval simulator. This shouldn't be surprising, since the game descended from medieval wargaming and its co-creator was an insurance actuary... This is why I was curious as to your comments about "balance" etc.

 

[lokidr]

I think you've got the 3rd ed. vs 4e debate pretty much nailed. Even if hit points didn't make a lot of sense, they were a simple way to say "you're dead".

Simulation vs. Cinematic is a pretty easy situation to read in rules, but I think how much we like the games we play are more based on HOW those rules are interpreted and that is more subtle than simple rules. All D&D rules imply relatively simple stories: kill monsters, get loot, be a hero. The rules don't say that but that is how they are easiest to use. ShadowRun has a different basic story idea: get the job, do your homework, something goes wrong, you get betrayed. The rules of ShadowRun support this idea, with extensive rules for realistically tracking down information and dealing with the law since you are a criminal.

Both ShadowRun and D&D 1-3 are simulation-ist, even if ShadowRun is a little more hard-core on this end, so what is the real difference? I would say it is story complexity. ShadowRun doesn't allow you to take matters for granted, even if they are routine for your characters. Every run needs legwork. You could play ShadowRun as a SWAT team and D&D as political intrigue backstabbing extravaganza but you would at least ignore significant amounts of the rules in both cases just from lack of use.

Greg, I'd like to hear your views on the basic difference between a D&D style (simulation or cinematic) and your average angst fueled World of Darkness game or criminal underground ShadowRun game. Do you see this as a story difference supported by the rules or as just a matter of players?

 

[Tolerant Fanboy]

Major kudos to this article. It's nice to see someone allowing "live and let live" (or "roleplay and let roleplay", I suppose,) be an option in an ideological dispute.

 

[Altorin]

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.

except the wild west is mostly an anachronism, so basically you're simulating a cinematic genre

 

[Altorin]

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.

Just a couple things.. Players have always been trying to break the game.. 4th does a LOT better job of balancing the game and keeping games from getting broken then 3rd/3.5 did. Heck, even with Epic Destinies, they developed into the game a way for the character to end. 3rd had no such concession.. if you played an epic character, they could concievably level to a million.

and another thing.. yeah, those pictures are pretty badass, but really, you can describe the monster however you want. It's your game, it's your world.. if you want to put a crocodile in, it can just be a simple crocodile.. If you want a new race of creatures on the fly, and they're small and warlike, take goblins and describe them completely differently.

You're putting too much emphasis on what the book is telling you to do, without actually reading the part that says "These are just guidelines, it's your game, do what you want with our blessing"

 

[Greg Tito]

Major kudos to this article. It's nice to see someone allowing "live and let live" (or "roleplay and let roleplay", I suppose,) be an option in an ideological dispute.

Haha, i think i have just discovered a tolerant fanboy.

Thanks man!

 

[0over0]

For those of you arguing about realism in a game about magical medieval-style worlds, really, take a deep breath.
You have no idea what it would be like as there's no precedent for it. Having magic would change everything, regardless of whether the magic is common or rare.

Despite attempts to argue otherwise, it comes down to style and what a given group of players are looking for. Nothing else. One is not inherently better than another. One is not somehow more "truthful" than another. They simply are games, designed for entertainment with, at best, a nod at realism.

Besides, any decent DM is going to change things around to suit their idea of the game they want to run, and if the players are okay with that, then they continue to play, and if they don't, they leave. Free market indeed.

 

[Archon]

Not sure I agree 0over0, but perhaps we could dispense with the word "realism". Versimilitude would be a better word choice: Truthlikeness, or the degree to which one false theory is closer to the truth than another.

We can certainly assess the versimilitude of a particular rules set with regard to what it claims to be simulating. For instance, most of the myths and legends of ancient and medieval times assume that magic worked. So in a sense, the ancients themselves are telling us what they think life would be like in their times, with magic. We can certainly assess whether or not a game results in settings are truthlike with regard to those portrayed in myth and legend. That's why Ars Magica impresses, for instance.

We can likewise assess whether or not a game results in setting similar to those portrayed in literature. For instance, Exalted does not create characters or outcomes that in any way resemble those portrayed in Lord of the Rings, and would lack versimilitude as a rules set for Lord of the Rings. Call of Cthulhu would be an equally bad choice for Dragonball Z. But CoC is an impressive rules set for "realistic" encounters with the Great Old Ones...

 

[Chaya]

and another thing.. yeah, those pictures are pretty badass, but really, you can describe the monster however you want. It's your game, it's your world.. if you want to put a crocodile in, it can just be a simple crocodile.. If you want a new race of creatures on the fly, and they're small and warlike, take goblins and describe them completely differently.

You're putting too much emphasis on what the book is telling you to do, without actually reading the part that says "These are just guidelines, it's your game, do what you want with our blessing"

Yeah, I know and that's what I do. Just wanted to point out the more than obvious direction they are taking. Also, while the newer system is more balanced it makes, as the article says, the players something a bit too powerful. But yeah, to each his own, if some like it that way and many do as far as I can see they can play like that. I like my way of keeping the players as human as possible. Er, or elven or dwarven or whatever they want to be, but normal in a sense. So that there's a bigger emphasis on roleplaying and less on building your powers.

And note the difference in info given in the 2nd edition and in the 4th edition as seen in the picture I posted. The latter just assumes that nobody wants to know anything about monsters and that your only link with them is your desire to have them dead. Whereas the former gives even the monsters more life and depth while still making them challenging.

 

[Altorin]

and another thing.. yeah, those pictures are pretty badass, but really, you can describe the monster however you want. It's your game, it's your world.. if you want to put a crocodile in, it can just be a simple crocodile.. If you want a new race of creatures on the fly, and they're small and warlike, take goblins and describe them completely differently.

You're putting too much emphasis on what the book is telling you to do, without actually reading the part that says "These are just guidelines, it's your game, do what you want with our blessing"

Yeah, I know and that's what I do. Just wanted to point out the more than obvious direction they are taking. Also, while the newer system is more balanced it makes, as the article says, the players something a bit too powerful. But yeah, to each his own, if some like it that way and many do as far as I can see they can play like that. I like my way of keeping the players as human as possible. Er, or elven or dwarven or whatever they want to be, but normal in a sense. So that there's a bigger emphasis on roleplaying and less on building your powers.

And note the difference in info given in the 2nd edition and in the 4th edition as seen in the picture I posted. The latter just assumes that nobody wants to know anything about monsters and that your only link with them is your desire to have them dead. Whereas the former gives even the monsters more life and depth while still making them challenging.

You seem to have been under a rock during 3rd. That's fine, but this discussion is between 3rd/3.5 and 4th.. Comparing 2nd to 4th is a bit silly.. but if you enjoy 2nd, more power to you.

3rd was the most broken Piece of Work I've ever experienced in my life, and that's the gold standard that every D&D player seems to be adhering too.. Balance is DEFINITELY not what people are concerned about when it comes to the discussion between 3rd and 4th.

4th is balanced. It gives each player more power, but that doesn't mean it's unbalanced. The fact that characters cycle out their powers in 4th is a good example of how it's balanced. Removing race abilities and allocating them into feats, is another example of how it's balanced.. each race is more or less balanced against eachother.

The role system allows different classes to be balanced against eachother, and in the long haul, they seem pretty balanced. I mean, I'm sure a real munchkin could figure out how to make their rogue MOAR POWARFULL then any ranger could possibly hope to be, but that's not that bad of a problem.. It's only the munchkins are finding the broken parts in 4th edition. EVERYONE was breaking the game in 3rd, that was the whole point of it.

 

[Greg Tito]

It's only the munchkins are finding the broken parts in 4th edition. EVERYONE was breaking the game in 3rd, that was the whole point of it.

That's an interesting point, Altorin. I do think it's one of the failings of 3.5. Everyone I played with was so obsessed with gaming the system that they multiclassed endlessly and planned what prestige class they were going to take from the onset, picking the appropriate skills from first level.

I played with one player whose character took 5 different classes in the first 5 levels he advanced. I think he was a barbarian/ranger/fighter/exalted soul/douchebag. That's an extreme case, but 3.5 allowed and therefore encouraged that weird kind of experiment.

At least with 4E, you know what kind of character you are going to play.

 

[Altorin]

It's only the munchkins are finding the broken parts in 4th edition. EVERYONE was breaking the game in 3rd, that was the whole point of it.

That's an interesting point, Altorin. I do think it's one of the failings of 3.5. Everyone I played with was so obsessed with gaming the system that they multiclassed endlessly and planned what prestige class they were going to take from the onset, picking the appropriate skills from first level.

I played with one player whose character took 5 different classes in the first 5 levels he advanced. I think he was a barbarian/ranger/fighter/exalted soul/douchebag. That's an extreme case, but 3.5 allowed and therefore encouraged that weird kind of experiment.

At least with 4E, you know what kind of character you are going to play.

Nothing seems so ridiculously unbalanced in 4th.. I mean, I'm sure it will come, and it will be broken in a strictly competitive sense, however, I doubt you'll feel weak by NOT abusing the system, even when it's easily breakable. That's what it was like in 3rd edition and 3.5, you felt weak unless you were some ridiculous thing.. You can pick a simple wizard that prestiges into Archmage in 4th and be happy.

One big complaint is that rules for roleplaying have been cut down.. I don't see that.. I see that most of the skill rules have been pruned down to their bare essentials.. I actually find it a lot EASIER to roleplay in 4th edition, and identify with a character, and I LOVE the Dragonborn/Tiefling... My only 2 4th edition characters so far were a Dragonborn Warlock and a Tiefling Warlord.. they were fun as heck.

edit: and if you think roleplaying is dead in 4e, my Dragonborn Warlock was a Star Pact, and had spent 300 years of real time (60 years of percieved time) trapped in a Fey Realm.. He came out whimsical yet grumpy with a distaste for the boastful pride and hubris of his race.

my tiefling warlord was obsessed with removing his demonic heritage. Every battle he went into had to be leading him on that path. Even if it was just to get more powerful, but most often he had a better reason for fighting. He couldn't just fight for fighting's sake. He refused to use his class powers unless he had a reason to be in the conflict above the most basest primal aggressive urges.

And my sister played a dwarf that had his (yes, his, lol) village destroyed while he was being a truant guard. He was sleeping at the time, and could never sleep again unless he was blind drunk and tired out from fighting. So he fought specifically to tire himself out. And he would always order "Goats Milk and Ale" as a nightcap - "Just like mom useta make"

So yeah, Roleplaying is still alive and well.

 

[Archon]

Hmmm. Greg wrote an article comparing Original (1st ed) D&D to 4th edition D&D, and it STILL turned into a 3.5 versus 4th edition war!

Arguing about 3.5E v. 4E is like arguing about who got the Silver and the Bronze at the Olympics. 1E gets the Gold!

 

[Ph0t0n1c Ph34r]

My main issue with 4E was how schizophranic it seemed. Some mechanics seemed to come from left field. And this is left field in the Elemental Chaos to boot.

 

[Phanixis]

I have heard arguments of this type before, and I do not buy it. This idea that OD&D players(which are probably 3.5 players) are "simulationist" strikes me as a failed attempt to understand why there are so many OD&D holdouts. 4E lacks depth, but this is more in terms of what the PC are able to do within the available game mechanics than with an accurate simulation of the game world. Some of what was lost in the transition to 3.5E to 4E is gradually being restored through supplements, but the number of supplements needed to do many of the things that could be done with the old core 3 rulebooks(for example, having a Druid that summons animals), makes an edition transition far too expensive.

 

[Altorin]

Hmmm. Greg wrote an article comparing Original (1st ed) D&D to 4th edition D&D, and it STILL turned into a 3.5 versus 4th edition war!

Arguing about 3.5E v. 4E is like arguing about who got the Silver and the Bronze at the Olympics. 1E gets the Gold!

if you're referring to OD&D, that's not first mi capitan

 

[bjj hero]

Most of the fun I've had is with 2nd Edition. It was absolutely brutal at low levels and there were some classes you wouldn't touch with a barge pole. Realism isn't the word I'd use but you were in constant fear for your life until at least level 7.

(under the old rules a domestic cat would regularly win a fight to the death with an unarmed man)

3rd edition took some time for me to warm to it. I initially found it overly complicated (what do you mean I have to choose feats?) but after a time I saw the benefits. It gave everyone more freedom to develop (especially the fighters from 2nd, hope you can RP as they were all identical on paper). I can specialise my charecter so that my fighter can do things your fighter cannot and visa vesa, without house rules. In second we would do it with house rules but trying to balance untested changes was a mare.

I understand about power gaming and abuse issues with it but it didn't really happen in our group. My turn as player had me as a vanilla horse arching ranger (with a hammer for tight spaces) and I had no plans to specialise.

4th edition seems to be carrying on with 3rd but trying to simplify the rules, this should fix some of the shock I had moving from 2nd to 3rd and make it more accessable. This is my opinion and I've not actually played 4th.

I always thought the simulation/blockbuster scale was dependant upon your DM and setting, not your rules. Thats why its important to talk the campaign through with your DM before starting so that everyones on the same page.

Spoiler

http://img191.imageshack.us/img191/6746/krokodil.jpg
http://img94.imageshack.us/img94/2495/basiliskcompare.jpg

Just check the comparisons and see the difference.

I love the 2nd edition basilisk. He had real charecter. I'd keep one as a pet in a tank if it weren't for the obvious health risks.

 

[craddoke]

Perhaps I'm unusually dense, but I don't understand the argument that there are certain role-playing activities possible in 3.5 that became impossible in 4E. If a DM or player wants to do something and the rulebooks don't assign that action a specific ability or skill for the purposes of adjudication, you just make some shit up. Like always, TSR/WotC/Hasbro will release a supplement covering that situation later on and then you're free to adopt the "official" solution to the problem (or not). In terms of "depth of mechanics," I think that all the systems are just about the same - 4E's depth is of a different kind than the depth in 1-3.5, but it's still there (believe me, I've had to sit and explain the differences between 50 different possible feats and powers to an eight year-old - the 4E system is plenty complicated enough).

Basically, I've never heard a truly coherent argument for why one edition of DnD is better than another - its all opinion based on individual playing experiences that have more to do with the chemistry of the specific people involved (or just outright uninformed prejudice). In other words, if someone asked me to join their DnD game, I would never use the edition they preferred as a litmus test for whether I joined them or not.

 

[PedroSteckecilo]

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.

except the wild west is mostly an anachronism, so basically you're simulating a cinematic genre

Well Aces and Eights prides itself on providing fuel for both and I would never call that game "Cinematic" by any stretch. It's a nasty, gritty piece of work where you can survive a bullet wound in a fight but then lose that leg a month later due to gangrene, depending on how deep you want to go with the Injury Rules. Hell, you can randomly get a brain parasite by drinking from a stream and die in the wilderness with nobody to find you.

Essentially, it's as good as "realistic" and if you really want to go further I accuse thee of semantics and nitpicking where none is needed.

 

[cj_iwakura]

Title is a tease. This isn't about Night Trap or Deception!