I will admit, the lack of intermediate units in metric annoys the hell out of me. There's no equivalent to the foot in the Metric system. And before some genius says "what about decimeters, huh?!"...point me to one single individual in the whole-ass world that has EVER used a decimeter for measurement. Sure, you could do the one-point-five meters as "Fifteen decimeters", but then every session zero would need to be a remedial math class to remind people that there's technically a unit between Meter and Centimeter. Those roughly-a-foot measurements are important for a number of things, in both D&D and general reality, and it's always been the one real failing of Metric in my brain.
1 foot is 3 decimeters. Makes sense to me. 🤷♂️ Then again, I was taught both imperial and metric in school.
Plus, let's face it - Celsius degrees cover a range of, like...forty-five Farenheit degrees per Celsius degree. The range of variance in a Celsius degree is so high you need mili-degrees to get a useful measurement. I can say to someone who grew up with Metric "oh, it's about twenty, twenty-five degrees out" and that person will still have absolutely no idea how they need to dress because "twenty to twenty-five" Celsius covers anything from Farenheit forty to Farenheit two hundred and three :P
20 Celsius is 68 Fahrenheit, 25 Celsius is 77 Fahrenheit. The real difference between Celsius and Fahrenheit is that Celsius is way more useful for science, as it is based around the boiling and freezing temperatures of water, while Fahrenheit 0 is based around the lowest temperature that Mr. Fahrenheit could get a solution of saltwater down to (Salt lowers the freezing temperature of water.)
Despite the fact that Americans don't have an intuitive knowledge of Metric like you do Imperial, it would be FAR better for you guys to switch to what the rest of the world uses. In 1999 there was miscommunication at NASA about what system measurements to use and it resulted in a Mars orbiter worth 125 million dollars crashing. If schools started teaching kids in America metric, then they would have the same intuitive understanding of it that you do now.
As a note: they do teach metric in school. They taught it in school back when I was in school in the nineties, and I'm willing to stake my pride on the assertion that they haven't stopped. I distinctly remember a whole day of doing conversions back and forth. Teaching it in school doesn't meant the rest of the country doesn't operate on Imperial. All the navigation is in miles, all the weights are in pounds and ounces. That's what I mean about intuitive understanding. The only way to change it would be to start actively curbing or even outlawing the use of Imperial measurements, and frankly you've all seen what happens when the U.S. tries to curb/outlaw things which are actively harmful. Odds of convincing Congressmen to take steps that will instantly ignite the conservative portion of the populace in outrage and hatred for what is generally seen as zero practical gain? Unlikely.
Heh. Like I said at the start of this whole tangent: we know metric makes more sense (save for when it doesn't). I'm an electronics technician, I work with metric on the daily. Hell, a not-insignificant portion of my job involves doing those conversions on the fly when some dunderhead hands me measurements in fractional inches instead of clean, easily searchable decimals. Doesn't mean that when somebody asks me how tall I am, my gut answer isn't "a hair under six feet" instead of "somewhere in the vicinity of a bit over a meter and a half, I think?"
It ain't as easy as "just teach it in school" when the rest of the whole country around those kids is calibrated in Imperial.
Anyways. I should take my own advice and stop tangent-ing. Apologies, people.
Plus, let's face it - Celsius degrees cover a range of, like...forty-five Farenheit degrees per Celsius degree. The range of variance in a Celsius degree is so high you need mili-degrees to get a useful measurement. I can say to someone who grew up with Metric "oh, it's about twenty, twenty-five degrees out" and that person will still have absolutely no idea how they need to dress because "twenty to twenty-five" Celsius covers anything from Farenheit forty to Farenheit two hundred and three :P
20 Celsius is 68 Fahrenheit, 25 Celsius is 77 Fahrenheit. The real difference between Celsius and Fahrenheit is that Celsius is way more useful for science, as it is based around the boiling and freezing temperatures of water, while Fahrenheit 0 is based around the lowest temperature that Mr. Fahrenheit could get a solution of saltwater down to (Salt lowers the freezing temperature of water.)
Despite the fact that Americans don't have an intuitive knowledge of Metric like you do Imperial, it would be FAR better for you guys to switch to what the rest of the world uses. In 1999 there was miscommunication at NASA about what system measurements to use and it resulted in a Mars orbiter worth 125 million dollars crashing. If schools started teaching kids in America metric, then they would have the same intuitive understanding of it that you do now.
As a note: they do teach metric in school. They taught it in school back when I was in school in the nineties, and I'm willing to stake my pride on the assertion that they haven't stopped. I distinctly remember a whole day of doing conversions back and forth. Teaching it in school doesn't meant the rest of the country doesn't operate on Imperial. All the navigation is in miles, all the weights are in pounds and ounces. That's what I mean about intuitive understanding. The only way to change it would be to start actively curbing or even outlawing the use of Imperial measurements, and frankly you've all seen what happens when the U.S. tries to curb/outlaw things which are actively harmful. Odds of convincing Congressmen to take steps that will instantly ignite the conservative portion of the populace in outrage and hatred for what is generally seen as zero practical gain? Unlikely.
Heh. Like I said at the start of this whole tangent: we know metric makes more sense (save for when it doesn't). I'm an electronics technician, I work with metric on the daily. Hell, a not-insignificant portion of my job involves doing those conversions on the fly when some dunderhead hands me measurements in fractional inches instead of clean, easily searchable decimals. Doesn't mean that when somebody asks me how tall I am, my gut answer isn't "a hair under six feet" instead of "somewhere in the vicinity of a bit over a meter and a half, I think?"
It ain't as easy as "just teach it in school" when the rest of the whole country around those kids is calibrated in Imperial.
Anyways. I should take my own advice and stop tangent-ing. Apologies, people.
Yeh, fair enough, all are good points.
Even us brits use miles instead of kilometers, humans are a fickle lot.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
You shouldn't need to be wickedly precise with conversions; nothing in D&D will break if you treat a five-foot space as two meters for ease of convenience, treat a pound as half a kilo, treat a mile as two kilometers, and so forth. So long as the quick-and-easy conversions are consistently so, the game will work just fine.
Honestly, most maps are oversized, treating a square as one meter probably gets them closer to realistic scale (though multiplying by 0.3, making a 5' square 1.5 meters, is quite accurate).
Tbh I wouldn’t change anything about 5e, at least not that I can think of offhand. I’ve played 3e and I’ve read the rules and source material for 2e and 4e and in my opinion 5e is the best of all of them so far. It brought me back to D&D when I thought I had left for good to play World of Darkness and other Onyx Path/White Wolf games, and now I prefer D&D 5e to those games overall. I have never seen a published adventure for 5e I really hated, and I loved the last three. (Even Princes of the Apocalypse, which felt kinda like a video game to me, I was able to make work for my group once I made a few minor changes to the villains to make them more relatable.)
Also, I don’t think the current focus on RP is a fad. As other posters have pointed out, it’s been around at least since 2e (though definitely not all players play that way). It may come and go in waves, but in the end it always comes back because significant numbers of players want that.
Most of what drives preference among D&D players is emulation, which notably is also what drives design. The different editions of the game don't just mark alternative approaches to game design, but entirely different types of fantasy and styles of play. The current most popular way D&D is played is with a heavy story focus (The narrative is everything) and this is an emulation based largely on the growing popularity of certain Youtube channels. The last time this style of play was popular was specifically because of Star Wars and the Hickman novels (Dragonlance). Not saying it won't stick around, but we have cycled this type of approach in and out of D&D on a number of occasions in the past as we have other styles and just as was the case the last time it came around, everyone believed that "this is D&D forever now" and "it has always been like this". It won't be and it wasn't. If history is any indication it will change again in the future which is why I think people use the word "fad", though I agree this is a bit derogatory, even though I have used it myself. I suppose it's just hard to describe something that is currently popular and will inevitably change and potentially come back again without calling it a fad.
D&D has gone through most of the different styles of play (times when certain styles were cosmopolitan) a number of times. You are right that this style of play (narrative focused) can trace its origins all the way back to 2e, but it hasn't been "since", it was a period in which that style of play was "the way" and massively popular, but it was all but abandoned for a time and actually considered "crappy DMing" for a period as well. The game has changed several times and it returned to this style of play with 5e.
3e for example was about simulationism, the most important thing to D&D players and DM's back then (what was cosmopolitan) was realism. Having an "unrealistic" D&D game was considered crap DMing and like "theatrical" D&D is defended today by most because its the most popular style, it was so with realism during the 3e era.
We went through all sort of cycles with D&D editions, styles and approaches over the years. There would always be one that was more popular than all the others, but all styles of play existed at any given time in groups in some measurable scale. Today for example people still play D&D in "pulp" style and they even create conversation rulesets for 5e, like 5e Hardcore Mode to allow them to do that.
Still the popularity of certain styles always resulted in a kind of hostility towards all the others at different points in D&D history/culture. The current most popular way to play I'm certain will be replaced by some new, cosmopolitan approach, it's inevitable. This is not to say that it will disappear,I think people always have and always will use certain styles regardless of what is cosmopolitan but, someday in the future, the masses will find some new style upon which to hang their hats and it will be said that D&D has always been this way and D&D will be this way forever, regardless of what this new style ends up being.
Emulation, Simulation, etc. are just synonyms for Roleplaying. You are emulating a personae. You are simulating a personae.
Imperial is more of a craftsman’s measure while metric is more of a science-math-architecture measure. That’s how I’ve always seen it.
The game should use whatever the majority of players are familiar with and have a table in the back of the book explaining how to convert to the other measuring system.
Yes, metric is taught in US schools. It is used in science classes almost exclusively. It is my feeling that there is little bleed over into other subjects.
The fact that imperial measure seems to "fit" the general feel of the game makes sense.
But if we are trying to be more inclusive of all, in every aspect of the game and life in general, it seems that WOtC could make the modest effort to accommodate the majority of the planet by providing an alternate way of measure. The retcon of the races certainly look longer than it would take to add a cohesive metric conversion to a publication.
We all realize that having an official rule makes it easier on everyone. Even if that rule is then modified or ignored.
I'd be happy with metric being the standard system for D&D. I don't really know it very well, but with the amount of gaming I indulge in, I'm sure I'd pick it up.
Tbh I wouldn’t change anything about 5e, at least not that I can think of offhand. I’ve played 3e and I’ve read the rules and source material for 2e and 4e and in my opinion 5e is the best of all of them so far. It brought me back to D&D when I thought I had left for good to play World of Darkness and other Onyx Path/White Wolf games, and now I prefer D&D 5e to those games overall. I have never seen a published adventure for 5e I really hated, and I loved the last three. (Even Princes of the Apocalypse, which felt kinda like a video game to me, I was able to make work for my group once I made a few minor changes to the villains to make them more relatable.)
Also, I don’t think the current focus on RP is a fad. As other posters have pointed out, it’s been around at least since 2e (though definitely not all players play that way). It may come and go in waves, but in the end it always comes back because significant numbers of players want that.
Most of what drives preference among D&D players is emulation, which notably is also what drives design. The different editions of the game don't just mark alternative approaches to game design, but entirely different types of fantasy and styles of play. The current most popular way D&D is played is with a heavy story focus (The narrative is everything) and this is an emulation based largely on the growing popularity of certain Youtube channels. The last time this style of play was popular was specifically because of Star Wars and the Hickman novels (Dragonlance). Not saying it won't stick around, but we have cycled this type of approach in and out of D&D on a number of occasions in the past as we have other styles and just as was the case the last time it came around, everyone believed that "this is D&D forever now" and "it has always been like this". It won't be and it wasn't. If history is any indication it will change again in the future which is why I think people use the word "fad", though I agree this is a bit derogatory, even though I have used it myself. I suppose it's just hard to describe something that is currently popular and will inevitably change and potentially come back again without calling it a fad.
D&D has gone through most of the different styles of play (times when certain styles were cosmopolitan) a number of times. You are right that this style of play (narrative focused) can trace its origins all the way back to 2e, but it hasn't been "since", it was a period in which that style of play was "the way" and massively popular, but it was all but abandoned for a time and actually considered "crappy DMing" for a period as well. The game has changed several times and it returned to this style of play with 5e.
3e for example was about simulationism, the most important thing to D&D players and DM's back then (what was cosmopolitan) was realism. Having an "unrealistic" D&D game was considered crap DMing and like "theatrical" D&D is defended today by most because its the most popular style, it was so with realism during the 3e era.
We went through all sort of cycles with D&D editions, styles and approaches over the years. There would always be one that was more popular than all the others, but all styles of play existed at any given time in groups in some measurable scale. Today for example people still play D&D in "pulp" style and they even create conversation rulesets for 5e, like 5e Hardcore Mode to allow them to do that.
Still the popularity of certain styles always resulted in a kind of hostility towards all the others at different points in D&D history/culture. The current most popular way to play I'm certain will be replaced by some new, cosmopolitan approach, it's inevitable. This is not to say that it will disappear,I think people always have and always will use certain styles regardless of what is cosmopolitan but, someday in the future, the masses will find some new style upon which to hang their hats and it will be said that D&D has always been this way and D&D will be this way forever, regardless of what this new style ends up being.
Emulation, Simulation, etc. are just synonyms for Roleplaying. You are emulating a personae. You are simulating a personae.
I don't think your quibble is following emulation and simulation in the context Big Lizard is using. While your formulation is sort of right that emulation and simulation can be rough synonyms for role playing. Emulation and simulation aren't being used as synonyms for role playing in BL's comment. To emulate is to reflect an ideal in ones actions or performance. BL's is contending that the most popular play style for 5e currently emulates the they-don't-call-it-but-I-will "Critical Role play style," a style that is often (maybe over) represented by "rule of cool" and what I'd call "doing it for the story."
Simulationism is a mode of TTRPG (and gaming in general) that is trying to mechanically capture maximum granular "realistic" detail of the situation being played, often resulting in a level of technical complexity discouraging to casual and new players. Slashing/piercing/bludgeoning weapons having modifiers to hit based on the type of armor being struck would be a step in a simulationist direction. A realistic game economy where players discovering a dragon hoard would likely result in significant regional consequences, and rules for that, would be simulationist. More thorough interplanar world building so that magic, especially divine magic was effected would arguably be simulationist. Simulationist gaming has a more substantiated world both lore wise but also mechanics to support what can be done in a world. 5e can't really be considered simulationist without bolting on a bunch of homebrew systems, and has no intention of being so.
Anyway, 3e is often considered the most simulationist of D&Ds. I'd say AD&D's Dungeoneer and Wilderness Survival guides was an effort to codify simulationist options developed with the AD&D community at the time. I'm also not entirely sure whether each edition really did encourage play style emulation in the rules themselves. Some games (Star Wars varied iterations, World of Darkness, Kult, Call of Chtulhu, Twilight: 2000, Alien) do sort of specify a sort of tone to emulate in play. I'm not sure D&D does that, I think it tries more often to avoid it. It's sort of a chicken and egg thing at best.
I wouldn't change the overall "tone" of 5e, largely because I don't think there's actually default tone for 5e. Every major campaign that's come out since BG:DitA has been hyped as "a whole new way of playing D&D".
What I would change is the specific feel of each spell caster's respective magic class. I'd say keep Wizards as they are, and Warlocks as they are, but let's do casting differently for Sorcerers, Druids, and Clerics (and treat the half-casters governance under their magics most eligible full caster analog). I like the difference between Wizard and Warlock magic, and want to see more distinction between the rest of the classes.
Tbh I wouldn’t change anything about 5e, at least not that I can think of offhand. I’ve played 3e and I’ve read the rules and source material for 2e and 4e and in my opinion 5e is the best of all of them so far. It brought me back to D&D when I thought I had left for good to play World of Darkness and other Onyx Path/White Wolf games, and now I prefer D&D 5e to those games overall. I have never seen a published adventure for 5e I really hated, and I loved the last three. (Even Princes of the Apocalypse, which felt kinda like a video game to me, I was able to make work for my group once I made a few minor changes to the villains to make them more relatable.)
Also, I don’t think the current focus on RP is a fad. As other posters have pointed out, it’s been around at least since 2e (though definitely not all players play that way). It may come and go in waves, but in the end it always comes back because significant numbers of players want that.
Most of what drives preference among D&D players is emulation, which notably is also what drives design. The different editions of the game don't just mark alternative approaches to game design, but entirely different types of fantasy and styles of play. The current most popular way D&D is played is with a heavy story focus (The narrative is everything) and this is an emulation based largely on the growing popularity of certain Youtube channels. The last time this style of play was popular was specifically because of Star Wars and the Hickman novels (Dragonlance). Not saying it won't stick around, but we have cycled this type of approach in and out of D&D on a number of occasions in the past as we have other styles and just as was the case the last time it came around, everyone believed that "this is D&D forever now" and "it has always been like this". It won't be and it wasn't. If history is any indication it will change again in the future which is why I think people use the word "fad", though I agree this is a bit derogatory, even though I have used it myself. I suppose it's just hard to describe something that is currently popular and will inevitably change and potentially come back again without calling it a fad.
D&D has gone through most of the different styles of play (times when certain styles were cosmopolitan) a number of times. You are right that this style of play (narrative focused) can trace its origins all the way back to 2e, but it hasn't been "since", it was a period in which that style of play was "the way" and massively popular, but it was all but abandoned for a time and actually considered "crappy DMing" for a period as well. The game has changed several times and it returned to this style of play with 5e.
3e for example was about simulationism, the most important thing to D&D players and DM's back then (what was cosmopolitan) was realism. Having an "unrealistic" D&D game was considered crap DMing and like "theatrical" D&D is defended today by most because its the most popular style, it was so with realism during the 3e era.
We went through all sort of cycles with D&D editions, styles and approaches over the years. There would always be one that was more popular than all the others, but all styles of play existed at any given time in groups in some measurable scale. Today for example people still play D&D in "pulp" style and they even create conversation rulesets for 5e, like 5e Hardcore Mode to allow them to do that.
Still the popularity of certain styles always resulted in a kind of hostility towards all the others at different points in D&D history/culture. The current most popular way to play I'm certain will be replaced by some new, cosmopolitan approach, it's inevitable. This is not to say that it will disappear,I think people always have and always will use certain styles regardless of what is cosmopolitan but, someday in the future, the masses will find some new style upon which to hang their hats and it will be said that D&D has always been this way and D&D will be this way forever, regardless of what this new style ends up being.
Emulation, Simulation, etc. are just synonyms for Roleplaying. You are emulating a personae. You are simulating a personae.
I don't think your quibble is following emulation and simulation in the context Big Lizard is using. While your formulation is sort of right that emulation and simulation can be rough synonyms for role playing. Emulation and simulation aren't being used as synonyms for role playing in BL's comment. To emulate is to reflect an ideal in ones actions or performance. BL's is contending that the most popular play style for 5e currently emulates the they-don't-call-it-but-I-will "Critical Role play style," a style that is often (maybe over) represented by "rule of cool" and what I'd call "doing it for the story."
Simulationism is a mode of TTRPG (and gaming in general) that is trying to mechanically capture maximum granular "realistic" detail of the situation being played, often resulting in a level of technical complexity discouraging to casual and new players. Slashing/piercing/bludgeoning weapons having modifiers to hit based on the type of armor being struck would be a step in a simulationist direction. A realistic game economy where players discovering a dragon hoard would likely result in significant regional consequences, and rules for that, would be simulationist. More thorough interplanar world building so that magic, especially divine magic was effected would arguably be simulationist. Simulationist gaming has a more substantiated world both lore wise but also mechanics to support what can be done in a world. 5e can't really be considered simulationist without bolting on a bunch of homebrew systems, and has no intention of being so.
Anyway, 3e is often considered the most simulationist of D&Ds. I'd say AD&D's Dungeoneer and Wilderness Survival guides was an effort to codify simulationist options developed with the AD&D community at the time. I'm also not entirely sure whether each edition really did encourage play style emulation in the rules themselves. Some games (Star Wars varied iterations, World of Darkness, Kult, Call of Chtulhu, Twilight: 2000, Alien) do sort of specify a sort of tone to emulate in play. I'm not sure D&D does that, I think it tries more often to avoid it. It's sort of a chicken and egg thing at best.
I wouldn't change the overall "tone" of 5e, largely because I don't think there's actually default tone for 5e. Every major campaign that's come out since BG:DitA has been hyped as "a whole new way of playing D&D".
What I would change is the specific feel of each spell caster's respective magic class. I'd say keep Wizards as they are, and Warlocks as they are, but let's do casting differently for Sorcerers, Druids, and Clerics (and treat the half-casters governance under their magics most eligible full caster analog). I like the difference between Wizard and Warlock magic, and want to see more distinction between the rest of the classes.
Thank you. I now have a better grasp of what “simulation” is. Maybe I’m dense, but I still don’t understand the difference between emulation and roleplaying. Maybe that’s because I’m a writer and see character as tightly connected to story?
As for Warlocks, I think the class is a total mistake and needs a rewrite. However, I do like that it is completely different from Wizards.
Tbh I wouldn’t change anything about 5e, at least not that I can think of offhand. I’ve played 3e and I’ve read the rules and source material for 2e and 4e and in my opinion 5e is the best of all of them so far. It brought me back to D&D when I thought I had left for good to play World of Darkness and other Onyx Path/White Wolf games, and now I prefer D&D 5e to those games overall. I have never seen a published adventure for 5e I really hated, and I loved the last three. (Even Princes of the Apocalypse, which felt kinda like a video game to me, I was able to make work for my group once I made a few minor changes to the villains to make them more relatable.)
Also, I don’t think the current focus on RP is a fad. As other posters have pointed out, it’s been around at least since 2e (though definitely not all players play that way). It may come and go in waves, but in the end it always comes back because significant numbers of players want that.
Most of what drives preference among D&D players is emulation, which notably is also what drives design. The different editions of the game don't just mark alternative approaches to game design, but entirely different types of fantasy and styles of play. The current most popular way D&D is played is with a heavy story focus (The narrative is everything) and this is an emulation based largely on the growing popularity of certain Youtube channels. The last time this style of play was popular was specifically because of Star Wars and the Hickman novels (Dragonlance). Not saying it won't stick around, but we have cycled this type of approach in and out of D&D on a number of occasions in the past as we have other styles and just as was the case the last time it came around, everyone believed that "this is D&D forever now" and "it has always been like this". It won't be and it wasn't. If history is any indication it will change again in the future which is why I think people use the word "fad", though I agree this is a bit derogatory, even though I have used it myself. I suppose it's just hard to describe something that is currently popular and will inevitably change and potentially come back again without calling it a fad.
D&D has gone through most of the different styles of play (times when certain styles were cosmopolitan) a number of times. You are right that this style of play (narrative focused) can trace its origins all the way back to 2e, but it hasn't been "since", it was a period in which that style of play was "the way" and massively popular, but it was all but abandoned for a time and actually considered "crappy DMing" for a period as well. The game has changed several times and it returned to this style of play with 5e.
3e for example was about simulationism, the most important thing to D&D players and DM's back then (what was cosmopolitan) was realism. Having an "unrealistic" D&D game was considered crap DMing and like "theatrical" D&D is defended today by most because its the most popular style, it was so with realism during the 3e era.
We went through all sort of cycles with D&D editions, styles and approaches over the years. There would always be one that was more popular than all the others, but all styles of play existed at any given time in groups in some measurable scale. Today for example people still play D&D in "pulp" style and they even create conversation rulesets for 5e, like 5e Hardcore Mode to allow them to do that.
Still the popularity of certain styles always resulted in a kind of hostility towards all the others at different points in D&D history/culture. The current most popular way to play I'm certain will be replaced by some new, cosmopolitan approach, it's inevitable. This is not to say that it will disappear,I think people always have and always will use certain styles regardless of what is cosmopolitan but, someday in the future, the masses will find some new style upon which to hang their hats and it will be said that D&D has always been this way and D&D will be this way forever, regardless of what this new style ends up being.
Emulation, Simulation, etc. are just synonyms for Roleplaying. You are emulating a personae. You are simulating a personae.
I don't think your quibble is following emulation and simulation in the context Big Lizard is using. While your formulation is sort of right that emulation and simulation can be rough synonyms for role playing. Emulation and simulation aren't being used as synonyms for role playing in BL's comment. To emulate is to reflect an ideal in ones actions or performance. BL's is contending that the most popular play style for 5e currently emulates the they-don't-call-it-but-I-will "Critical Role play style," a style that is often (maybe over) represented by "rule of cool" and what I'd call "doing it for the story."
Simulationism is a mode of TTRPG (and gaming in general) that is trying to mechanically capture maximum granular "realistic" detail of the situation being played, often resulting in a level of technical complexity discouraging to casual and new players. Slashing/piercing/bludgeoning weapons having modifiers to hit based on the type of armor being struck would be a step in a simulationist direction. A realistic game economy where players discovering a dragon hoard would likely result in significant regional consequences, and rules for that, would be simulationist. More thorough interplanar world building so that magic, especially divine magic was effected would arguably be simulationist. Simulationist gaming has a more substantiated world both lore wise but also mechanics to support what can be done in a world. 5e can't really be considered simulationist without bolting on a bunch of homebrew systems, and has no intention of being so.
Anyway, 3e is often considered the most simulationist of D&Ds. I'd say AD&D's Dungeoneer and Wilderness Survival guides was an effort to codify simulationist options developed with the AD&D community at the time. I'm also not entirely sure whether each edition really did encourage play style emulation in the rules themselves. Some games (Star Wars varied iterations, World of Darkness, Kult, Call of Chtulhu, Twilight: 2000, Alien) do sort of specify a sort of tone to emulate in play. I'm not sure D&D does that, I think it tries more often to avoid it. It's sort of a chicken and egg thing at best.
I wouldn't change the overall "tone" of 5e, largely because I don't think there's actually default tone for 5e. Every major campaign that's come out since BG:DitA has been hyped as "a whole new way of playing D&D".
What I would change is the specific feel of each spell caster's respective magic class. I'd say keep Wizards as they are, and Warlocks as they are, but let's do casting differently for Sorcerers, Druids, and Clerics (and treat the half-casters governance under their magics most eligible full caster analog). I like the difference between Wizard and Warlock magic, and want to see more distinction between the rest of the classes.
Thank you. I now have a better grasp of what “simulation” is. Maybe I’m dense, but I still don’t understand the difference between emulation and roleplaying. Maybe that’s because I’m a writer and see character as tightly connected to story?
As for Warlocks, I think the class is a total mistake and needs a rewrite. However, I do like that it is completely different from Wizards.
I agree Warlocks could use some work because it's a varied but also wildly inconsistent class iMHO. I just like the fact that magic works distinctly different. For the other casters, I would say maybe have Sorcerers work entirely off sorcery points (revised and making them de facto spell points driven), and maybe Clerics having some sort of tie between its casting and channel divinity (kinda like Paladins and their smites actually), Druids not sure ... but enough difference so they can't all be just regarded as "full casters".
On emulation, you're not wrong that one could describe some forms of the playing a role part of role playing as emulating, but that's not the context BL was getting at from what I'm reading. Yes, if you're playing a Drow from "classic old school evil Lloth hive" Drow, but you're Drow is a good guy, but because they're a Drow is often persecuted by those he would help, so took the wilds as a Ranger, oh, and dual wields, yeah you're emulating Drizzt. That's a player emulating a character. Robin Hood is probably emulated by a lot of high Dex rogues with bows. So yes, emulating can be used in your sense.
However BL, I think, is talking about emulation at a sort of meta and table level. A group of players emulating CR aren't playing characters after Scanlon, the interchangeably attractive blue skinned half elves, Percy, Big guy, etc. What they're emulating is the _sort of game_ CR plays, that's going for story highpoints and rules of cool etc. So you're using the word right, BL is just using it more broadly, as the word allows.
There's also software emulators ... but I don't see that applying here, though in hindsight I can now see how someone more familiar with emulators in that complex think the word is more solidly equivalent to simulator than the word is in its fuller definition.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
My usual understanding of 'emulation' for games is trying to set up the rules so the outcome of actions is genre-appropriate for the genre you're emulating, but that's never been a big focus of D&D, so not sure what would be meant in a D&D context.
I would not say any edition of D&D has been terribly simulationist, though. Mostly it's been a conflict between the roleplaying aspects, the puzzle-solving aspects, and the tactical wargame aspects.
Warlocks in theory I like a lot. My only real issues with them involve some of the invocations that seem to steer a bit to much toward just stealing features from other classes. Letting them add ritual spells from any spell list into their book? Giving them smites? IMO these infringe a bit too much onto wizard and paladin territory. But in general I like the idea of a short rest caster with invocation based customization. In fact I wish every class got some additional invocation like cusotmization separate from their subclass.
Tbh I wouldn’t change anything about 5e, at least not that I can think of offhand. I’ve played 3e and I’ve read the rules and source material for 2e and 4e and in my opinion 5e is the best of all of them so far. It brought me back to D&D when I thought I had left for good to play World of Darkness and other Onyx Path/White Wolf games, and now I prefer D&D 5e to those games overall. I have never seen a published adventure for 5e I really hated, and I loved the last three. (Even Princes of the Apocalypse, which felt kinda like a video game to me, I was able to make work for my group once I made a few minor changes to the villains to make them more relatable.)
Also, I don’t think the current focus on RP is a fad. As other posters have pointed out, it’s been around at least since 2e (though definitely not all players play that way). It may come and go in waves, but in the end it always comes back because significant numbers of players want that.
Most of what drives preference among D&D players is emulation, which notably is also what drives design. The different editions of the game don't just mark alternative approaches to game design, but entirely different types of fantasy and styles of play. The current most popular way D&D is played is with a heavy story focus (The narrative is everything) and this is an emulation based largely on the growing popularity of certain Youtube channels. The last time this style of play was popular was specifically because of Star Wars and the Hickman novels (Dragonlance). Not saying it won't stick around, but we have cycled this type of approach in and out of D&D on a number of occasions in the past as we have other styles and just as was the case the last time it came around, everyone believed that "this is D&D forever now" and "it has always been like this". It won't be and it wasn't. If history is any indication it will change again in the future which is why I think people use the word "fad", though I agree this is a bit derogatory, even though I have used it myself. I suppose it's just hard to describe something that is currently popular and will inevitably change and potentially come back again without calling it a fad.
D&D has gone through most of the different styles of play (times when certain styles were cosmopolitan) a number of times. You are right that this style of play (narrative focused) can trace its origins all the way back to 2e, but it hasn't been "since", it was a period in which that style of play was "the way" and massively popular, but it was all but abandoned for a time and actually considered "crappy DMing" for a period as well. The game has changed several times and it returned to this style of play with 5e.
3e for example was about simulationism, the most important thing to D&D players and DM's back then (what was cosmopolitan) was realism. Having an "unrealistic" D&D game was considered crap DMing and like "theatrical" D&D is defended today by most because its the most popular style, it was so with realism during the 3e era.
We went through all sort of cycles with D&D editions, styles and approaches over the years. There would always be one that was more popular than all the others, but all styles of play existed at any given time in groups in some measurable scale. Today for example people still play D&D in "pulp" style and they even create conversation rulesets for 5e, like 5e Hardcore Mode to allow them to do that.
Still the popularity of certain styles always resulted in a kind of hostility towards all the others at different points in D&D history/culture. The current most popular way to play I'm certain will be replaced by some new, cosmopolitan approach, it's inevitable. This is not to say that it will disappear,I think people always have and always will use certain styles regardless of what is cosmopolitan but, someday in the future, the masses will find some new style upon which to hang their hats and it will be said that D&D has always been this way and D&D will be this way forever, regardless of what this new style ends up being.
Emulation, Simulation, etc. are just synonyms for Roleplaying. You are emulating a personae. You are simulating a personae.
I don't think your quibble is following emulation and simulation in the context Big Lizard is using. While your formulation is sort of right that emulation and simulation can be rough synonyms for role playing. Emulation and simulation aren't being used as synonyms for role playing in BL's comment. To emulate is to reflect an ideal in ones actions or performance. BL's is contending that the most popular play style for 5e currently emulates the they-don't-call-it-but-I-will "Critical Role play style," a style that is often (maybe over) represented by "rule of cool" and what I'd call "doing it for the story."
Simulationism is a mode of TTRPG (and gaming in general) that is trying to mechanically capture maximum granular "realistic" detail of the situation being played, often resulting in a level of technical complexity discouraging to casual and new players. Slashing/piercing/bludgeoning weapons having modifiers to hit based on the type of armor being struck would be a step in a simulationist direction. A realistic game economy where players discovering a dragon hoard would likely result in significant regional consequences, and rules for that, would be simulationist. More thorough interplanar world building so that magic, especially divine magic was effected would arguably be simulationist. Simulationist gaming has a more substantiated world both lore wise but also mechanics to support what can be done in a world. 5e can't really be considered simulationist without bolting on a bunch of homebrew systems, and has no intention of being so.
Anyway, 3e is often considered the most simulationist of D&Ds. I'd say AD&D's Dungeoneer and Wilderness Survival guides was an effort to codify simulationist options developed with the AD&D community at the time. I'm also not entirely sure whether each edition really did encourage play style emulation in the rules themselves. Some games (Star Wars varied iterations, World of Darkness, Kult, Call of Chtulhu, Twilight: 2000, Alien) do sort of specify a sort of tone to emulate in play. I'm not sure D&D does that, I think it tries more often to avoid it. It's sort of a chicken and egg thing at best.
I wouldn't change the overall "tone" of 5e, largely because I don't think there's actually default tone for 5e. Every major campaign that's come out since BG:DitA has been hyped as "a whole new way of playing D&D".
What I would change is the specific feel of each spell caster's respective magic class. I'd say keep Wizards as they are, and Warlocks as they are, but let's do casting differently for Sorcerers, Druids, and Clerics (and treat the half-casters governance under their magics most eligible full caster analog). I like the difference between Wizard and Warlock magic, and want to see more distinction between the rest of the classes.
Thank you. I now have a better grasp of what “simulation” is. Maybe I’m dense, but I still don’t understand the difference between emulation and roleplaying. Maybe that’s because I’m a writer and see character as tightly connected to story?
As for Warlocks, I think the class is a total mistake and needs a rewrite. However, I do like that it is completely different from Wizards.
I agree Warlocks could use some work because it's a varied but also wildly inconsistent class iMHO. I just like the fact that magic works distinctly different. For the other casters, I would say maybe have Sorcerers work entirely off sorcery points (revised and making them de facto spell points driven), and maybe Clerics having some sort of tie between its casting and channel divinity (kinda like Paladins and their smites actually), Druids not sure ... but enough difference so they can't all be just regarded as "full casters".
On emulation, you're not wrong that one could describe some forms of the playing a role part of role playing as emulating, but that's not the context BL was getting at from what I'm reading. Yes, if you're playing a Drow from "classic old school evil Lloth hive" Drow, but you're Drow is a good guy, but because they're a Drow is often persecuted by those he would help, so took the wilds as a Ranger, oh, and dual wields, yeah you're emulating Drizzt. That's a player emulating a character. Robin Hood is probably emulated by a lot of high Dex rogues with bows. So yes, emulating can be used in your sense.
However BL, I think, is talking about emulation at a sort of meta and table level. A group of players emulating CR aren't playing characters after Scanlon, the interchangeably attractive blue skinned half elves, Percy, Big guy, etc. What they're emulating is the _sort of game_ CR plays, that's going for story highpoints and rules of cool etc. So you're using the word right, BL is just using it more broadly, as the word allows.
There's also software emulators ... but I don't see that applying here, though in hindsight I can now see how someone more familiar with emulators in that complex think the word is more solidly equivalent to simulator than the word is in its fuller definition.
I think character vs plot is like running across snow. The character makes the footprints and, when he looks behind him, the trail is the story. So, when you make a distinction between story (emulation) and character (roleplay), I get confused.
As for Warlock, I think the class is, ultimately, supposed to be a cult leader. The class (along with the cleric) should be able to gather followers and resources. I also think that the rules should play up the rituals to gather power and negotiate with greater beings. In fact, I think the Warlock should have a lot more rituals than the other classes and that these rituals should have durations listed in days and that they can keep only so much magic in these rituals going at a time based on their class level. Some of these rituals would enchant items like bells, books, candles, and blades.
The Sorcerer, I believe, should have to make a roll (with no attribute bonus) vs a DC whenever they cast a spell. When they fail that roll, they take xd6 in damage.
I think character vs plot is like running across snow. The character makes the footprints and, when he looks behind him, the trail is the story. So, when you make a distinction between story (emulation) and character (roleplay), I get confused.
Think of it this way. If you are playing D&D and you are a big Star Wars fan, you might create a character that uses a magic sword and wields magic spells like Telekenisis to emulate Luke Skywalker. That is emulation when you sort of base your experience on trying to quasi replicate something that already exists.
In my description, it's less specific than that, when we talk about what gaming groups try to emulate with 5e very often it is Critical Role or one of the other popular shows. They watch these youtube channels, see how they play D&D (the style Mercer uses to run his game and his players play it for example), get excited and they want that experience. So to them, playing D&D is trying to capture that experience, they enter into the game hoping to find it and so they emulate it (in a sense try to copy that style) so that they can have the same sort of experience.
I agree that 5e is not specifically designed to emulate Critical Role "style", but this style is what D&D culture is very focused on trying to emulate with 5e D&D today and I think 5e supports that style of play very well. The end result however is the same, a new cosmopolitan style of D&D is born, but as was pointed out, Matt Mercer and Critical Role didn't really create this new style, it was actually originally born in the 2e AD&D days and probably was practiced by some groups even before that.
In 2e AD&D this style of play became really popular specifically after the Dragonlance Novels were written and the D&D modules created tried to emulate the story's in the books. In fact, in 2e days it was to such a degree that a whole series of "Dragons of" modules were created where you could literally take on the role of the characters from the book and play through the whole epic story of the book, a form of emulation that hasn't been seen in D&D since.
The point I was making however is that D&D breaks down into many different eras (periods) of D&D culture where wildly different styles of play became popular at different times as is the case with modern 5e and the "Narrative first" style of play popularized by Critical Role and emulated by modern D&D culture today. The popularity of these styles however shifts in and out of fashion, which is why I'm calling it a fad which again, I agree is often used in a derogatory way, which is not my intention here, its really just the most appropriate word I can think of. As was the case in the past during any given era of D&D, the current most popular style of play is described by the current gaming culture as "this is how D&D has always been and always will be", a similar mantra we heard of any given style in any given period, even though that is actually never been true of any of these styles and preferences, no matter how popular they were at any given time.
It's really just an academic discussion for the most part. The current most popular style of play is just one of many styles of play and while the modern gaming culture wants to suggest that "its always been like this", it doesn't change the fact that it hasn't and more importantly, this has been said about every style of play that came before it and it will be said about whatever style is popularized next.
What is important is that Wizards of the Coasts understands this and doesn't design a system that supports one of these styles but not the others which arguably has been the problem with D&D "evolutions" in the past. Each edition of the game end up being designed towards a specific complaint & style of play, which resulted in other existing styles being ignored and in some cases, the design very specifically attacking it.
For example 3e made it very difficult to run a purely narrative game because simulationism (adding coded realism) made it much more difficult to run a "pulp" adventure-style game and pure narrative-style games. The heavy rule set got in the way.
In the 4e days it became really difficult to run Dungeon Crawls and pulp-style games because gold and magic items where effectively all but removed from the game.
Each edition of the game created obstructions to different styles of games and with 5e there has been a real attempt to create a more flexible system, but because the narrative style has become so overwhelmingly popular, my concern for the future "evolution" of the game is that we will once again get an edition that is overly focused on one style of play ignoring or even obstructing others and this idea is being pushed pretty hard by the current D&D culture. Overwhelmingly more focus on story over other things is being demanded and we are seeing that in the sort of adventures WotC is publishing now. Adventures with no combat, adventures without dungeons and that sort of thing is becoming extremely popular. Great for narrative gamers, terrible for guys like me that want a game about dungeon crawling and finding treasure and magic items.
But some of us like exactly what you’re complaining about. I thought WBtW was an amazing adventure. Though tbh I like a little dungeon crawling and treasure in my adventures too. Just not too much. Like spice in cooking.
I prefer when the rules explain how a DM can generate and advance a story, rather than just giving the DM a story to run (event A happens when they reach area A, etc). I don't think the 5e rules do a good job of the former, but the adventure books do a lot of the latter. My favorite adventure books have been the ones that pack in some of that story-generation advice, and my least favorite are the ones that put no consideration into the notion that players might diverge even one centimeter from the rails.
Obviously different stories require different approaches, but not every story is a D&D story. (Another fact it would be helpful to codify.) You'd only need to detail the kinds of stories the game is intended to include. Some rules for genre emulation would be sufficient, I think. I'm not talking about the ones we have ("limit healing for a more gritty tone"), I'm saying like, "for a training arc, consider doing this" or "if you're trying to do Indiana Jones, here's a format" or something. You could introduce more systems, like if you're doing an anime inspired game maybe you want rules for tracking friendship bonds so that your various arcs ("someone gets mad and leaves for an episode," "someone gets seduced by evil," "tournament arc") can have more juice.
Other systems have what I'm talking about to various degrees. D&D could really stand to incorporate it.
I think character vs plot is like running across snow. The character makes the footprints and, when he looks behind him, the trail is the story. So, when you make a distinction between story (emulation) and character (roleplay), I get confused.
Think of it this way. If you are playing D&D and you are a big Star Wars fan, you might create a character that uses a magic sword and wields magic spells like Telekenisis to emulate Luke Skywalker. That is emulation when you sort of base your experience on trying to quasi replicate something that already exists.
In my description, it's less specific than that, when we talk about what gaming groups try to emulate with 5e very often it is Critical Role or one of the other popular shows. They watch these youtube channels, see how they play D&D (the style Mercer uses to run his game and his players play it for example), get excited and they want that experience. So to them, playing D&D is trying to capture that experience, they enter into the game hoping to find it and so they emulate it (in a sense try to copy that style) so that they can have the same sort of experience.
I agree that 5e is not specifically designed to emulate Critical Role "style", but this style is what D&D culture is very focused on trying to emulate with 5e D&D today and I think 5e supports that style of play very well. The end result however is the same, a new cosmopolitan style of D&D is born, but as was pointed out, Matt Mercer and Critical Role didn't really create this new style, it was actually originally born in the 2e AD&D days and probably was practiced by some groups even before that.
In 2e AD&D this style of play became really popular specifically after the Dragonlance Novels were written and the D&D modules created tried to emulate the story's in the books. In fact, in 2e days it was to such a degree that a whole series of "Dragons of" modules were created where you could literally take on the role of the characters from the book and play through the whole epic story of the book, a form of emulation that hasn't been seen in D&D since.
The point I was making however is that D&D breaks down into many different eras (periods) of D&D culture where wildly different styles of play became popular at different times as is the case with modern 5e and the "Narrative first" style of play popularized by Critical Role and emulated by modern D&D culture today. The popularity of these styles however shifts in and out of fashion, which is why I'm calling it a fad which again, I agree is often used in a derogatory way, which is not my intention here, its really just the most appropriate word I can think of. As was the case in the past during any given era of D&D, the current most popular style of play is described by the current gaming culture as "this is how D&D has always been and always will be", a similar mantra we heard of any given style in any given period, even though that is actually never been true of any of these styles and preferences, no matter how popular they were at any given time.
It's really just an academic discussion for the most part. The current most popular style of play is just one of many styles of play and while the modern gaming culture wants to suggest that "its always been like this", it doesn't change the fact that it hasn't and more importantly, this has been said about every style of play that came before it and it will be said about whatever style is popularized next.
What is important is that Wizards of the Coasts understands this and doesn't design a system that supports one of these styles but not the others which arguably has been the problem with D&D "evolutions" in the past. Each edition of the game end up being designed towards a specific complaint & style of play, which resulted in other existing styles being ignored and in some cases, the design very specifically attacking it.
For example 3e made it very difficult to run a purely narrative game because simulationism (adding coded realism) made it much more difficult to run a "pulp" adventure-style game and pure narrative-style games. The heavy rule set got in the way.
In the 4e days it became really difficult to run Dungeon Crawls and pulp-style games because gold and magic items where effectively all but removed from the game.
Each edition of the game created obstructions to different styles of games and with 5e there has been a real attempt to create a more flexible system, but because the narrative style has become so overwhelmingly popular, my concern for the future "evolution" of the game is that we will once again get an edition that is overly focused on one style of play ignoring or even obstructing others and this idea is being pushed pretty hard by the current D&D culture. Overwhelmingly more focus on story over other things is being demanded and we are seeing that in the sort of adventures WotC is publishing now. Adventures with no combat, adventures without dungeons and that sort of thing is becoming extremely popular. Great for narrative gamers, terrible for guys like me that want a game about dungeon crawling and finding treasure and magic items.
Emulation is like when the people at the table try to replicate Critical Role or when a player tries to replicate Drizzt?
But, surely trying to replicate Drizzt or any of the Critical Role PCs is an act of roleplaying? Is it any less acting because a thespian plays King Lear instead of doing improv?
I understand the claim that 3e got so bloated that it became primarily simulationist, but, with regard to 4e, we did dungeon crawls with no problem. What 4e did a bad job with was roleplay. It simulated a video game. Characters like Illusionists, Summoners, and Enchanters were highly limited in what they could do.
But some of us like exactly what you’re complaining about. I thought WBtW was an amazing adventure. Though tbh I like a little dungeon crawling and treasure in my adventures too. Just not too much. Like spice in cooking.
I was not complaining, I was just illustrating how the current most popular style drives game design. I have a fairly simple capitalist attitude about game books. If I like it I buy it, if I don't, I don't. The last 5e book I bought was Ghost of Saltmarshes and Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes, nothing since has interested me. Its not a complaint, just a fact.
Emulation is like when the people at the table try to replicate Critical Role or when a player tries to replicate Drizzt?
But, surely trying to replicate Drizzt or any of the Critical Role PCs is an act of roleplaying? Is it any less acting because a thespian plays King Lear instead of doing improv?
Emulation is not replication, it isn't about playing X character, its about playing in the style of X character, trying to imitate the experience in your own game. But in either case, you're not wrong, it's all just different approaches to role-playing, so I agree, whatever floats your boat.
I understand the claim that 3e got so bloated that it became primarily simulationist, but, with regard to 4e, we did dungeon crawls with no problem. What 4e did a bad job with was roleplay. It simulated a video game. Characters like Illusionists, Summoners, and Enchanters were highly limited in what they could do.
Yeah but see this is kind of the problem with the perception. For starters, a game cannot get "bloated". Just because a book of options was released by the "official publisher" doesn't require you to use it. 3e was every bit as good (or bad depending on your opinion) on the day it was released as it was on the day it was shut down. When I say D&D culture, this is one of those things. It was a fad to assume that any officially published books by WotC are cannon, must be owned and must be allowed in your game or you're a terrible DM and no one will want to play with you.... but if those books were bad, then WotC is terrible and 3e is ruined. It was a pretty ridiculous mentality back then.
I have a limited opinion about 4e, I did not play it very long and I ran it for even less time. For me the issue was that the combat was just too involved and too slow. Doing Dungeon Crawls was painfully slow.
I’m sorry. I didn’t mean to imply you were complaining. I should’ve said “talking about.”
For starterFor starters, a game cannot get "bloated". Just because a book of options was released by the "official publisher" doesn't require you to use it., a game cannot get "bloated". Just because a book of options was released by the "official publisher" doesn't require you to use it.
But some of us like exactly what you’re complaining about. I thought WBtW was an amazing adventure. Though tbh I like a little dungeon crawling and treasure in my adventures too. Just not too much. Like spice in cooking.
I was not complaining, I was just illustrating how the current most popular style drives game design. I have a fairly simple capitalist attitude about game books. If I like it I buy it, if I don't, I don't. The last 5e book I bought was Ghost of Saltmarshes and Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes, nothing since has interested me. Its not a complaint, just a fact.
Emulation is like when the people at the table try to replicate Critical Role or when a player tries to replicate Drizzt?
But, surely trying to replicate Drizzt or any of the Critical Role PCs is an act of roleplaying? Is it any less acting because a thespian plays King Lear instead of doing improv?
Emulation is not replication, it isn't about playing X character, its about playing in the style of X character, trying to imitate the experience in your own game. But in either case, you're not wrong, it's all just different approaches to role-playing, so I agree, whatever floats your boat.
I understand the claim that 3e got so bloated that it became primarily simulationist, but, with regard to 4e, we did dungeon crawls with no problem. What 4e did a bad job with was roleplay. It simulated a video game. Characters like Illusionists, Summoners, and Enchanters were highly limited in what they could do.
. For starters, a game cannot get "bloated". Just because a book of options was released by the "official publisher" doesn't require you to use it.
But some of us like exactly what you’re complaining about. I thought WBtW was an amazing adventure. Though tbh I like a little dungeon crawling and treasure in my adventures too. Just not too much. Like spice in cooking.
I was not complaining, I was just illustrating how the current most popular style drives game design. I have a fairly simple capitalist attitude about game books. If I like it I buy it, if I don't, I don't. The last 5e book I bought was Ghost of Saltmarshes and Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes, nothing since has interested me. Its not a complaint, just a fact.
Emulation is like when the people at the table try to replicate Critical Role or when a player tries to replicate Drizzt?
But, surely trying to replicate Drizzt or any of the Critical Role PCs is an act of roleplaying? Is it any less acting because a thespian plays King Lear instead of doing improv?
Emulation is not replication, it isn't about playing X character, its about playing in the style of X character, trying to imitate the experience in your own game. But in either case, you're not wrong, it's all just different approaches to role-playing, so I agree, whatever floats your boat.
I understand the claim that 3e got so bloated that it became primarily simulationist, but, with regard to 4e, we did dungeon crawls with no problem. What 4e did a bad job with was roleplay. It simulated a video game. Characters like Illusionists, Summoners, and Enchanters were highly limited in what they could do.
Yeah but see this is kind of the problem with the perception. For starters, a game cannot get "bloated". Just because a book of options was released by the "official publisher" doesn't require you to use it. 3e was every bit as good (or bad depending on your opinion) on the day it was released as it was on the day it was shut down. When I say D&D culture, this is one of those things. It was a fad to assume that any officially published books by WotC are cannon, must be owned and must be allowed in your game or you're a terrible DM and no one will want to play with you.... but if those books were bad, then WotC is terrible and 3e is ruined. It was a pretty ridiculous mentality back then.
I have a limited opinion about 4e, I did not play it very long and I ran it for even less time. For me the issue was that the combat was just too involved and too slow. Doing Dungeon Crawls was painfully slow.
I disagree with you. What books are and are not included is ultimately decided by politics.
I hearby motion we stop blaming "politics" for the content of new D&D books.
Not every D&D player or DDB user has the misfortune of living in a country where basic human rights are considered a divisive political issue, and many of us who do live in that country are sick of our dirty laundry and our shitty inability to be decent people to each other being flapped in everybody else's faces. It has nothing to do with "what change would you make to 5e?", and at this point is nothing more than a button that bitter people upset that other folks exist push whenever they want to torpedo a thread.
Stop. It.
I will say this once, because I strongly feel it needs to be said. There is a world of difference between "I'm not actively excluding people from my game" and "I'm including people in my game." The difference between those two is so vast it's almost beyond comprehension, and yet a great many people believe there is no difference at all. Many of them do so innocently, from positions of well-meaning ignorance, and they do not mean harm. Some of them, however, actively refuse to believe in that difference and stubbornly stick to the idea that "not excluding people" is enough.
It may have been, seventy or so years ago. It no longer is. Don't blame "politics" for that. Politics has nothing to do with it. Blame people for deciding that they could strive to do better than exclusion through ommission, and society for progressing to a point where people were allowed to strive to do better.
Now. Can we please get back to discussing interesting ways people might change 5e? I stumbled across a very interesting notion in another thread of replacing the almost entirely pointless "Background Features" of most existing backgrounds with feats, a'la some of the new Strixhaven stuff but without all the awfulness that came with Strixhaven. Most DMs worth a damn would just give you what the background feature says anyways, but there might be something to making backgrounds more meaningful. Something like how a Pirate could choose between Athlete (a lifetime spent climbing the rigging and working themselves to death aboard a ship) or Tavern Brawler (because pirate). I very much like the idea and might do something similar in future games, assign starter feats based on background. What do you folks think?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please do not contact or message me.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
1 foot is 3 decimeters. Makes sense to me. 🤷♂️ Then again, I was taught both imperial and metric in school.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
As a note: they do teach metric in school. They taught it in school back when I was in school in the nineties, and I'm willing to stake my pride on the assertion that they haven't stopped. I distinctly remember a whole day of doing conversions back and forth. Teaching it in school doesn't meant the rest of the country doesn't operate on Imperial. All the navigation is in miles, all the weights are in pounds and ounces. That's what I mean about intuitive understanding. The only way to change it would be to start actively curbing or even outlawing the use of Imperial measurements, and frankly you've all seen what happens when the U.S. tries to curb/outlaw things which are actively harmful. Odds of convincing Congressmen to take steps that will instantly ignite the conservative portion of the populace in outrage and hatred for what is generally seen as zero practical gain? Unlikely.
Heh. Like I said at the start of this whole tangent: we know metric makes more sense (save for when it doesn't). I'm an electronics technician, I work with metric on the daily. Hell, a not-insignificant portion of my job involves doing those conversions on the fly when some dunderhead hands me measurements in fractional inches instead of clean, easily searchable decimals. Doesn't mean that when somebody asks me how tall I am, my gut answer isn't "a hair under six feet" instead of "somewhere in the vicinity of a bit over a meter and a half, I think?"
It ain't as easy as "just teach it in school" when the rest of the whole country around those kids is calibrated in Imperial.
Anyways. I should take my own advice and stop tangent-ing. Apologies, people.
Please do not contact or message me.
Yeh, fair enough, all are good points.
Even us brits use miles instead of kilometers, humans are a fickle lot.
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
Honestly, most maps are oversized, treating a square as one meter probably gets them closer to realistic scale (though multiplying by 0.3, making a 5' square 1.5 meters, is quite accurate).
Emulation, Simulation, etc. are just synonyms for Roleplaying. You are emulating a personae. You are simulating a personae.
Imperial is more of a craftsman’s measure while metric is more of a science-math-architecture measure. That’s how I’ve always seen it.
The game should use whatever the majority of players are familiar with and have a table in the back of the book explaining how to convert to the other measuring system.
Yes, metric is taught in US schools. It is used in science classes almost exclusively. It is my feeling that there is little bleed over into other subjects.
The fact that imperial measure seems to "fit" the general feel of the game makes sense.
But if we are trying to be more inclusive of all, in every aspect of the game and life in general, it seems that WOtC could make the modest effort to accommodate the majority of the planet by providing an alternate way of measure. The retcon of the races certainly look longer than it would take to add a cohesive metric conversion to a publication.
We all realize that having an official rule makes it easier on everyone. Even if that rule is then modified or ignored.
I'd be happy with metric being the standard system for D&D. I don't really know it very well, but with the amount of gaming I indulge in, I'm sure I'd pick it up.
I don't think your quibble is following emulation and simulation in the context Big Lizard is using. While your formulation is sort of right that emulation and simulation can be rough synonyms for role playing. Emulation and simulation aren't being used as synonyms for role playing in BL's comment. To emulate is to reflect an ideal in ones actions or performance. BL's is contending that the most popular play style for 5e currently emulates the they-don't-call-it-but-I-will "Critical Role play style," a style that is often (maybe over) represented by "rule of cool" and what I'd call "doing it for the story."
Simulationism is a mode of TTRPG (and gaming in general) that is trying to mechanically capture maximum granular "realistic" detail of the situation being played, often resulting in a level of technical complexity discouraging to casual and new players. Slashing/piercing/bludgeoning weapons having modifiers to hit based on the type of armor being struck would be a step in a simulationist direction. A realistic game economy where players discovering a dragon hoard would likely result in significant regional consequences, and rules for that, would be simulationist. More thorough interplanar world building so that magic, especially divine magic was effected would arguably be simulationist. Simulationist gaming has a more substantiated world both lore wise but also mechanics to support what can be done in a world. 5e can't really be considered simulationist without bolting on a bunch of homebrew systems, and has no intention of being so.
Anyway, 3e is often considered the most simulationist of D&Ds. I'd say AD&D's Dungeoneer and Wilderness Survival guides was an effort to codify simulationist options developed with the AD&D community at the time. I'm also not entirely sure whether each edition really did encourage play style emulation in the rules themselves. Some games (Star Wars varied iterations, World of Darkness, Kult, Call of Chtulhu, Twilight: 2000, Alien) do sort of specify a sort of tone to emulate in play. I'm not sure D&D does that, I think it tries more often to avoid it. It's sort of a chicken and egg thing at best.
I wouldn't change the overall "tone" of 5e, largely because I don't think there's actually default tone for 5e. Every major campaign that's come out since BG:DitA has been hyped as "a whole new way of playing D&D".
What I would change is the specific feel of each spell caster's respective magic class. I'd say keep Wizards as they are, and Warlocks as they are, but let's do casting differently for Sorcerers, Druids, and Clerics (and treat the half-casters governance under their magics most eligible full caster analog). I like the difference between Wizard and Warlock magic, and want to see more distinction between the rest of the classes.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Thank you. I now have a better grasp of what “simulation” is. Maybe I’m dense, but I still don’t understand the difference between emulation and roleplaying. Maybe that’s because I’m a writer and see character as tightly connected to story?
As for Warlocks, I think the class is a total mistake and needs a rewrite. However, I do like that it is completely different from Wizards.
I agree Warlocks could use some work because it's a varied but also wildly inconsistent class iMHO. I just like the fact that magic works distinctly different. For the other casters, I would say maybe have Sorcerers work entirely off sorcery points (revised and making them de facto spell points driven), and maybe Clerics having some sort of tie between its casting and channel divinity (kinda like Paladins and their smites actually), Druids not sure ... but enough difference so they can't all be just regarded as "full casters".
On emulation, you're not wrong that one could describe some forms of the playing a role part of role playing as emulating, but that's not the context BL was getting at from what I'm reading. Yes, if you're playing a Drow from "classic old school evil Lloth hive" Drow, but you're Drow is a good guy, but because they're a Drow is often persecuted by those he would help, so took the wilds as a Ranger, oh, and dual wields, yeah you're emulating Drizzt. That's a player emulating a character. Robin Hood is probably emulated by a lot of high Dex rogues with bows. So yes, emulating can be used in your sense.
However BL, I think, is talking about emulation at a sort of meta and table level. A group of players emulating CR aren't playing characters after Scanlon, the interchangeably attractive blue skinned half elves, Percy, Big guy, etc. What they're emulating is the _sort of game_ CR plays, that's going for story highpoints and rules of cool etc. So you're using the word right, BL is just using it more broadly, as the word allows.
There's also software emulators ... but I don't see that applying here, though in hindsight I can now see how someone more familiar with emulators in that complex think the word is more solidly equivalent to simulator than the word is in its fuller definition.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
My usual understanding of 'emulation' for games is trying to set up the rules so the outcome of actions is genre-appropriate for the genre you're emulating, but that's never been a big focus of D&D, so not sure what would be meant in a D&D context.
I would not say any edition of D&D has been terribly simulationist, though. Mostly it's been a conflict between the roleplaying aspects, the puzzle-solving aspects, and the tactical wargame aspects.
Warlocks in theory I like a lot. My only real issues with them involve some of the invocations that seem to steer a bit to much toward just stealing features from other classes. Letting them add ritual spells from any spell list into their book? Giving them smites? IMO these infringe a bit too much onto wizard and paladin territory. But in general I like the idea of a short rest caster with invocation based customization. In fact I wish every class got some additional invocation like cusotmization separate from their subclass.
I think character vs plot is like running across snow. The character makes the footprints and, when he looks behind him, the trail is the story. So, when you make a distinction between story (emulation) and character (roleplay), I get confused.
As for Warlock, I think the class is, ultimately, supposed to be a cult leader. The class (along with the cleric) should be able to gather followers and resources. I also think that the rules should play up the rituals to gather power and negotiate with greater beings. In fact, I think the Warlock should have a lot more rituals than the other classes and that these rituals should have durations listed in days and that they can keep only so much magic in these rituals going at a time based on their class level. Some of these rituals would enchant items like bells, books, candles, and blades.
The Sorcerer, I believe, should have to make a roll (with no attribute bonus) vs a DC whenever they cast a spell. When they fail that roll, they take xd6 in damage.
But some of us like exactly what you’re complaining about. I thought WBtW was an amazing adventure. Though tbh I like a little dungeon crawling and treasure in my adventures too. Just not too much. Like spice in cooking.
I prefer when the rules explain how a DM can generate and advance a story, rather than just giving the DM a story to run (event A happens when they reach area A, etc). I don't think the 5e rules do a good job of the former, but the adventure books do a lot of the latter. My favorite adventure books have been the ones that pack in some of that story-generation advice, and my least favorite are the ones that put no consideration into the notion that players might diverge even one centimeter from the rails.
Obviously different stories require different approaches, but not every story is a D&D story. (Another fact it would be helpful to codify.) You'd only need to detail the kinds of stories the game is intended to include. Some rules for genre emulation would be sufficient, I think. I'm not talking about the ones we have ("limit healing for a more gritty tone"), I'm saying like, "for a training arc, consider doing this" or "if you're trying to do Indiana Jones, here's a format" or something. You could introduce more systems, like if you're doing an anime inspired game maybe you want rules for tracking friendship bonds so that your various arcs ("someone gets mad and leaves for an episode," "someone gets seduced by evil," "tournament arc") can have more juice.
Other systems have what I'm talking about to various degrees. D&D could really stand to incorporate it.
Emulation is like when the people at the table try to replicate Critical Role or when a player tries to replicate Drizzt?
But, surely trying to replicate Drizzt or any of the Critical Role PCs is an act of roleplaying? Is it any less acting because a thespian plays King Lear instead of doing improv?
I understand the claim that 3e got so bloated that it became primarily simulationist, but, with regard to 4e, we did dungeon crawls with no problem. What 4e did a bad job with was roleplay. It simulated a video game. Characters like Illusionists, Summoners, and Enchanters were highly limited in what they could do.
I’m sorry. I didn’t mean to imply you were complaining. I should’ve said “talking about.”
For starterFor starters, a game cannot get "bloated". Just because a book of options was released by the "official publisher" doesn't require you to use it., a game cannot get "bloated". Just because a book of options was released by the "official publisher" doesn't require you to use it.
I disagree with you. What books are and are not included is ultimately decided by politics.
I hearby motion we stop blaming "politics" for the content of new D&D books.
Not every D&D player or DDB user has the misfortune of living in a country where basic human rights are considered a divisive political issue, and many of us who do live in that country are sick of our dirty laundry and our shitty inability to be decent people to each other being flapped in everybody else's faces. It has nothing to do with "what change would you make to 5e?", and at this point is nothing more than a button that bitter people upset that other folks exist push whenever they want to torpedo a thread.
Stop. It.
I will say this once, because I strongly feel it needs to be said. There is a world of difference between "I'm not actively excluding people from my game" and "I'm including people in my game." The difference between those two is so vast it's almost beyond comprehension, and yet a great many people believe there is no difference at all. Many of them do so innocently, from positions of well-meaning ignorance, and they do not mean harm. Some of them, however, actively refuse to believe in that difference and stubbornly stick to the idea that "not excluding people" is enough.
It may have been, seventy or so years ago. It no longer is. Don't blame "politics" for that. Politics has nothing to do with it. Blame people for deciding that they could strive to do better than exclusion through ommission, and society for progressing to a point where people were allowed to strive to do better.
Now. Can we please get back to discussing interesting ways people might change 5e? I stumbled across a very interesting notion in another thread of replacing the almost entirely pointless "Background Features" of most existing backgrounds with feats, a'la some of the new Strixhaven stuff but without all the awfulness that came with Strixhaven. Most DMs worth a damn would just give you what the background feature says anyways, but there might be something to making backgrounds more meaningful. Something like how a Pirate could choose between Athlete (a lifetime spent climbing the rigging and working themselves to death aboard a ship) or Tavern Brawler (because pirate). I very much like the idea and might do something similar in future games, assign starter feats based on background. What do you folks think?
Please do not contact or message me.