D&D works because it balances all three considerations. Other games will lean more heavily into one or another, but they're not D&D. Which is fine, other games don't need to be D&D... but D&D absolutely does need to be D&D.
The distinction I would draw is that I don't think D&D has ever balanced all three of GNS. It's a gamist game through-and-through and has been all along. A few bits of AD&D 1e tried to pretend to be a little simulationist, and 5e's market is big enough to get a bunch of narrativists from the Critical Role etc crowd. (But if you want a "narrativist version" of 5e you probably want Daggerheart.)
D&D is not simulationist, and simulationist arguments about its rules never make any sense. Ranged attacks get Disadvantage when an enemy is in melee range because they wanted to balance it that way, and any "realism" argument is merely post-hoc.
D&D is not simulationist, and simulationist arguments about its rules never make any sense. Ranged attacks get Disadvantage when an enemy is in melee range because they wanted to balance it that way, and any "realism" argument is merely post-hoc.
Sure, it's imperfect in execution (and obviously I agree, since I'm asking about changing a rule), but "we should accept the rules as written because they were written that way" is an even less satisfying philosophy to me than the rule we started with! :)
I don't like that rule. I want to change it to my proposed alternative. What are the potentially negative mechanical consequences of that approach, beyond my own apostasy? If the rule was written that way and justified post-hoc, we can totally ignore the why I don't like the rule, so what second and third order impacts on gameplay could be expected from that change?
It makes glass cannons more fragile, I guess. The Shield spell just offsets the advantage melee attackers would have against a ranged caster at point blank range. What else?
D&D is not simulationist, and simulationist arguments about its rules never make any sense. Ranged attacks get Disadvantage when an enemy is in melee range because they wanted to balance it that way, and any "realism" argument is merely post-hoc.
Sure, it's imperfect in execution (and obviously I agree, since I'm asking about changing a rule), but "we should accept the rules as written because they were written that way" is an even less satisfying philosophy to me than the rule we started with! :) I don't like that rule. I want to change it to my proposed alternative. What are the potentially negative mechanical consequences of that approach, beyond my own apostasy? If the rule was written that way and justified post-hoc, we can totally ignore the why I don't like the rule, so what second and third order impacts on gameplay could be expected from that change? It makes glass cannons more fragile, I guess. The Shield spell just offsets the advantage melee attackers would have against a ranged caster at point blank range. What else?
That's a much better question / argument.
I think your version would make ranged attacks too "better than" melee attacks --- so would make ranged martials more-better than melee martials, or ranged cantrips more-better than melee cantrips, etc. I think it would, basically, make the primary value of melee weapons be "getting past the defenses of melee characters" which only matters when you let yourself get into melee, and only matters if the opponent has also chosen this strategy.
Because the value of "stay out of melee range and still do pretty-good damage" is too high.
As it stands, melee has the ability to kinda "lock down" ranged, and that would be lost.
D&D works because it balances all three considerations. Other games will lean more heavily into one or another, but they're not D&D. Which is fine, other games don't need to be D&D... but D&D absolutely does need to be D&D.
The distinction I would draw is that I don't think D&D has ever balanced all three of GNS. It's a gamist game through-and-through and has been all along. A few bits of AD&D 1e tried to pretend to be a little simulationist, and 5e's market is big enough to get a bunch of narrativists from the Critical Role etc crowd. (But if you want a "narrativist version" of 5e you probably want Daggerheart.)
D&D is not simulationist, and simulationist arguments about its rules never make any sense. Ranged attacks get Disadvantage when an enemy is in melee range because they wanted to balance it that way, and any "realism" argument is merely post-hoc.
OD&D, 1st AD&D, and largely 2nd AD&D were primarily simulationist. It's 3e which moved D&D in a gamist direction. D&D was largely hostile to gamist play until 3e.
Generally, a point blank shot is considered an easy one to make, not more difficult, but D&D's rules say the opposite.
I'd have to say that you have got your base premise wrong. A point blank shot against a stationary target might well be quite easy but against a target that moves/defends itself it is a lot harder than taking the shot from range. IMO the D&D rules have it right.
The Barbarian's Reckless Attack provides a similar penalty, so it doesn't seem like granting melee attackers advantage against ranged opponents is an unworkable solution. But there are a lot of rules, and altering that setup might trigger unforeseen consequences... so I'm hoping people will suggest potential unforeseen consequences so that I can either address those, or abandon the idea.
The Barbarian is (narratively at least) acting in a reckless manor the whole round and thus it makes sense that he is penalised the whole round. Someone using a ranged weapon could easily drop/stow it straight after their attack and then draw a melee weapon and then it makes no sense to penalise them any more.
OD&D, 1st AD&D, and largely 2nd AD&D were primarily simulationist. It's 3e which moved D&D in a gamist direction. D&D was largely hostile to gamist play until 3e.
I disagree but before 3e, I only played late 2e. However, I blocked a lot of that hot mess out so maybe I am forgetting something. For reference, my first RPG experience was Rolemaster (now relaunched as Rolemaster Classic) which was born of adding simulationist components to early editions of D&D.
The realistic answer is that bows and crossbows in D&D are cinematically easy to use, not hard, and realistic penalties would be far worse than the existing rules. The basic issues are
Ancient ranged weapons are extremely easy to foul; it takes a fairly trivial contact to render them ineffective. This is hard to avoid while in close combat.
Ancient ranged weapons generally require standing still for a fairly extended period while readying and aiming. Unfortunately, standing still is an excellent way to get yourself killed in close combat.
Ranged weapons are not generally capable of parrying, or if they are, not capable of parrying more than once. It is very difficult to survive in close combat without a parrying weapon.
What this means is that the realistic way ranged vs melee works is that if you try to use a pre-gunpowder ranged weapon in melee combat... you die (firearms are much much more tolerant of the shooter moving, and are also significantly more durable, so while being in close combat is still bad, it's no longer a death sentence. Still, there's a reason that bayonets were used, before guns with high rate of fire and large magazines were available, the bayonet was the more effective choice at close combat range).
D&D works because it balances all three considerations. Other games will lean more heavily into one or another, but they're not D&D. Which is fine, other games don't need to be D&D... but D&D absolutely does need to be D&D.
The distinction I would draw is that I don't think D&D has ever balanced all three of GNS. It's a gamist game through-and-through and has been all along. A few bits of AD&D 1e tried to pretend to be a little simulationist, and 5e's market is big enough to get a bunch of narrativists from the Critical Role etc crowd. (But if you want a "narrativist version" of 5e you probably want Daggerheart.) D&D is not simulationist, and simulationist arguments about its rules never make any sense. Ranged attacks get Disadvantage when an enemy is in melee range because they wanted to balance it that way, and any "realism" argument is merely post-hoc.
OD&D, 1st AD&D, and largely 2nd AD&D were primarily simulationist. It's 3e which moved D&D in a gamist direction. D&D was largely hostile to gamist play until 3e.
Eeeehhhh, I think the original designers had many intentions, and I wouldn't argue they weren't trying all sorts of ideas (and kinda inventing a new formalization of playtime).
But the game grew directly out of wargaming, was based on gamified statistics, built around gamified choices like "choose race/class to best match your stats" and vice-versa, and all about trying to survive long enough to become a hero/legend. And there's the whole subculture of rules-lawyering (weaponized gamesmanship) that grew out of early D&D. That was predominantly gamist.
Pre-3e, it was also a giant hodgepodge of ideas. 3e, for the first time, made it into a kinda-holistic system. (I used to joke that it was like they finally got a real editor who understood the readers.) So it became way more obvious that it was gamist, and the system suddenly had a bunch of new power scaling and all that. That system was still a mess. So maybe it was also more friendly to "powergaming" which is a different concern.
. . . but if it's about defending being difficult, then it seems like the shot should be normal difficulty, and the melee attacker(s) should get advantage.
From a gameplay perspective, the main thing that you are overlooking is that the rules are basically never structured like this. You are proposing to give situational advantage to a creature when it is not even their turn.
In this scenario, it is the archer's turn. Now we need to know whether or not that archer actually decides to make an attack. If he does make an attack, now we must somehow remember that game state until later when the melee opponent can now counterattack with advantage on that particular turn because the archer has opened himself up to being more exposed by taking a shot? If that was the idea, then they would have used the opportunity attack mechanic. Generally, advantage and disadvantage is applied immediately and is resolved immediately while the event in question is taking place, you don't save it up for later. It's far simpler to just apply advantage / disadvantage to the attacker while that attack is happening.
I mean, if we were being more or less realistic, it would be something like
Melee attacks against you have advantage if you aren't wielding a melee weapon.
Moving during your turn gives disadvantage on ranged attacks.
Using a ranged weapon or casting a spell provokes an opportunity attack. If any creature chooses to take that opportunity attack, ranged attacks have disadvantage.
This would, of course, get ranged characters killed unless they had a screening force, which is fairly accurate but not much fun. Also, the it's very difficult to actually screen without a lot more people than a typical D&D party.
D&D works because it balances all three considerations. Other games will lean more heavily into one or another, but they're not D&D. Which is fine, other games don't need to be D&D... but D&D absolutely does need to be D&D.
The distinction I would draw is that I don't think D&D has ever balanced all three of GNS. It's a gamist game through-and-through and has been all along. A few bits of AD&D 1e tried to pretend to be a little simulationist, and 5e's market is big enough to get a bunch of narrativists from the Critical Role etc crowd. (But if you want a "narrativist version" of 5e you probably want Daggerheart.) D&D is not simulationist, and simulationist arguments about its rules never make any sense. Ranged attacks get Disadvantage when an enemy is in melee range because they wanted to balance it that way, and any "realism" argument is merely post-hoc.
OD&D, 1st AD&D, and largely 2nd AD&D were primarily simulationist. It's 3e which moved D&D in a gamist direction. D&D was largely hostile to gamist play until 3e.
Eeeehhhh, I think the original designers had many intentions, and I wouldn't argue they weren't trying all sorts of ideas (and kinda inventing a new formalization of playtime).
But the game grew directly out of wargaming, was based on gamified statistics, built around gamified choices like "choose race/class to best match your stats" and vice-versa, and all about trying to survive long enough to become a hero/legend. And there's the whole subculture of rules-lawyering (weaponized gamesmanship) that grew out of early D&D. That was predominantly gamist.
Except early D+D didn't let you choose Race/Class to best match your statistics, because there were no statistic bonuses tied to Race (there were maximums, bonuses came in 3e iirc).
And really early D+D, half the stats only affected how easily you gained xp in your class.
There's little min-maxing possible in OD+D, and not much more in 1st AD+D. 2nd starts giving players more actual choices, but it's still not a lot.
Wargaming origins doesn't mean a gamist paradigm. Lots of wargaming, especially historical wargaming (whence D+D ultimately derives), was primarily simulationist. The idea of wargaming as primarily a competitive activity is a later development (and many historical wargames still aim more for simulating the battle than anything else). Check out the original Chainmail - there's plenty of simulationist mechanics in there.
Gamists require room for optimization, which means significant choices by the player. Early D+D and AD+D had almost no choices by the players (pretty much just race and class), and humans were intentionally the strongest race (unlimited level progression) because Gygax's explicit goal was to have a human-dominated fantasy world (a simulationist goal). The most significant things for player power were magic items, which were under the control of the DM, not the player. Gamist play also requires a step-up competitive mechanism, which D+D simply doesn't have before 3e (and indeed, players weren't supposed to be competing against each other).
Heck, the original character creation method: 3d6 x6 in order, was a simulationist approach. And indeed, as originally intended, you chose your race first, then rolled stats, then chose your class. Your character was dealt a set of stats by fate, and it was up to you to do the best with it you could. Almost every design decision has simulationist roots, including the focus on time keeping and mundane resource expenditure (rations, torches, etc...). Even the 1st AD+D action system (using Segments rather than character turns) was more simulationist. As were spell functions like 'fireball produces 33,000 cu ft of flame' instead of always a 20' radius sphere.
I played plenty of 1st and 2nd edition D+D. Nobody was a gamist. There were few to no rules to codify anything other than combat, and thus real world as a guide was how DMs would generally adjudicate declared actions outside those explicitly defined. The rules were a simplification for simulating combat, not a 'board game'.
Except early D+D didn't let you choose Race/Class to best match your statistics, because there were no statistic bonuses tied to Race (there were maximums, bonuses came in 3e iirc).
And really early D+D, half the stats only affected how easily you gained xp in your class.
That sounds like benefits for certain race/class combinations. You could even call these bonuses. I remember there being class and kit restrictions by race. Multiclassing worked differently for Humans and non-humans.
I played plenty of 1st and 2nd edition D+D. Nobody was a gamist. There were few to no rules to codify anything other than combat, and thus real world as a guide was how DMs would generally adjudicate declared actions outside those explicitly defined. The rules were a simplification for simulating combat, not a 'board game'.
Unless you had an exceptional sample size, this is likely a form of survivorship bias. You didn't encounter gamist players so obviously there weren't any.
You seem to be making the argument modeling realism is simulationism. It is not, or at least not the only form of it. Modeling a genre is simulationism. None of the features you are describing are examples showing simulationism of the fantasy genre. None of your examples show that later editions are less simulationist than earlier ones.
Except early D+D didn't let you choose Race/Class to best match your statistics, because there were no statistic bonuses tied to Race (there were maximums, bonuses came in 3e iirc).
And really early D+D, half the stats only affected how easily you gained xp in your class.
That sounds like benefits for certain race/class combinations. You could even call these bonuses. I remember there being class and kit restrictions by race. Multiclassing worked differently for Humans and non-humans.
I played plenty of 1st and 2nd edition D+D. Nobody was a gamist. There were few to no rules to codify anything other than combat, and thus real world as a guide was how DMs would generally adjudicate declared actions outside those explicitly defined. The rules were a simplification for simulating combat, not a 'board game'.
Unless you had an exceptional sample size, this is likely a form of survivorship bias. You didn't encounter gamist players so obviously there weren't any.
You seem to be making the argument modeling realism is simulationism. It is not, or at least not the only form of it. Modeling a genre is simulationism. None of the features you are describing are examples showing simulationism of the fantasy genre. None of your examples show that later editions are less simulationist than earlier ones.
Sure, it doesn't have to be reality, although fantasy as a genre works via the contrast of the explicitly fantastical with the otherwise mundane. But simulationism is simulating something, and makes an attempt to approximate outcomes appropriate to the thing simulated.
I mean, there were things that were simulating particular types of fantasy. Gygax's preference for a human-centric world was based on the fantasy stories he was most attached to (explicitly not Tolkien - he says so), and so making the demihumans incapable of achieving high level was designed to make worlds where all the powerful movers and shakers in the D+D worlds would be human - a simulation of the type of fantasy world he enjoyed. Vancian casting comes straight from the works of Jack Vance.
The emphasis on wandering monsters was a simulationist thing (there are monsters wandering around the world - encounters don't just exist to advance the plot). And those wandering monster tables weren't tailored to the player's level. (In fact, while xp served as a guideline for how tough a monster probably was, there was no concept of an 'appropriate encounter' - the players could decide to fight, parlay, avoid, or otherwise engage with any given encounter.)
The later editions are certainly less simulationist. Gamism sprang into existence: Building your character's stats how you want it is a move away from simulationism towards gamism (starts in 2e after Gygax is no longer in control, takes off in 3e with race giving stat bonuses). Point Buy is super-Gamist and afaik didn't exist until 3e. Formalizing an appropriate encounter for a party was gamist and doesn't happen until 3e. The whole concept of classes being "balanced" was non-existent before 3e. More choices in character building lead to optimization (a Gamist way of interacting with the game). There wasn't even any discussion of Gamism as a philosophy of roleplaying until D+D 3e existed. (Although prior games like GURPS and Champions allowed gamist play, no one talked about it in those terms). Gamism is about exploiting the rules system and demonstrating your mastery of it. That philosophy is non-existent in early D+D on the development side.
Gygax wrote a column for Dragon magazine regularly, and Dragon featured plenty of other writers. You can go check how people perceived the game then, it's not an unknowable mystery. There's simulationism fingerprints all over the early D+D editions, and in the writings many of the significant figures in early D+D. Or talk to older players who played then.
Edit: This off topic for the Rules Discussion. If you want to continue it, it should probably be elsewhere.
As far as this topic is concerned, I think the current system is accurate enough. If you want realism, there are better systems, possibly better editions. The proposed changes are out of character for the system, as others have mentioned.
Sure, it doesn't have to be reality, although fantasy as a genre works via the contrast of the explicitly fantastical with the otherwise mundane. But simulationism is simulating something, and makes an attempt to approximate outcomes appropriate to the thing simulated.
I mean, there were things that were simulating particular types of fantasy. Gygax's preference for a human-centric world was based on the fantasy stories he was most attached to (explicitly not Tolkien - he says so), and so making the demihumans incapable of achieving high level was designed to make worlds where all the powerful movers and shakers in the D+D worlds would be human - a simulation of the type of fantasy world he enjoyed. Vancian casting comes straight from the works of Jack Vance.
I don't know what is worse for D&D Jack Vance or THAC0. At least THAC0 had the good sense to go away.
The later editions are certainly less simulationist. Gamism sprang into existence: Building your character's stats how you want it is a move away from simulationism towards gamism (starts in 2e after Gygax is no longer in control, takes off in 3e with race giving stat bonuses). Point Buy is super-Gamist and afaik didn't exist until 3e. Formalizing an appropriate encounter for a party was gamist and doesn't happen until 3e. The whole concept of classes being "balanced" was non-existent before 3e. More choices in character building lead to optimization (a Gamist way of interacting with the game). There wasn't even any discussion of Gamism as a philosophy of roleplaying until D+D 3e existed. (Although prior games like GURPS and Champions allowed gamist play, no one talked about it in those terms). Gamism is about exploiting the rules system and demonstrating your mastery of it. That philosophy is non-existent in early D+D on the development side.
I believe Skills and Powers for 2e had Point Buy and similar alternative ability generation methods.
It's been a while since I played but I am pretty sure XP was used as a guideline for appropriate encounters.
Balanced classes wasn't actually a thing in 3e.
Optimization was always a thing as long as there were choices to be made. I am pretty sure I have seen players act suicidally with their characters in order to reroll bad stats.
Gamism and discussions of it predates 3e by a few years.
I don't have any old articles to pull up, but I found this article with a few quotes from Gygax.
With the popularity of DUNGEONS & DRAGONS increasing so dramatically, I fervently desire to put the matter of variants, particularly “realistic” variants, to rest once and for all, so as to get on to other more important things, but it keeps springing up every time a sound stroke is dealt to it. Additions to and augmentations of certain parts of the D&D rules are fine. Variants which change the rules so as to imbalance the game or change it are most certainly not. These sorts of tinkering fall into the realm of creation of a new game, not development of the existing system, and as I stated earlier, those who wish to make those kind of changes should go and design their own game.
Each character role has been designed with care in order to provide varied and unique approaches to solving the problems which confront the players. If characters are not kept distinct, they will soon merge into one super-character. Not only would this destroy the variety of the game, but it would also kill the game, for the super-character would soon have nothing left to challenge him or her, and the players would grow bored and move on to something which was fun.
Those are some of the direct quotes but between that, other statements about balance from Gygax, and linked articles regarding early development of the game, it seems that elements you consider "gamist" were absolutely part of the development of D&D.
I think the issue isn't gamist versus simulationist. First, it's a fallacy to present them as mutually exclusive. Second, I think the simulation has changed. You're clinging to old simulation and seeing the new simulaiton as gamist while ignoring the gamist elements of the old simulation.
Yep, just popping in here in my bright, bright orange to say this has gotten a little derailed and might need refocusing to the original Rules & Mechanics of the question, but honestly it seems like the original discussion might be more Homebrew discussion (Thoughts on changes to the rules) than Rules discussion (How the rules/mechanics actually math out).
Would we like to shift this whole thread to another forum better suited to how the discussion wants to play out, or refocus it?
I think you are confusing the idea of D&D's combat/social/exploration "pillars" with GNS theory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNS_theory).
I will defer to your semantics, but the original question still stands.
Fair enough. :)
The distinction I would draw is that I don't think D&D has ever balanced all three of GNS. It's a gamist game through-and-through and has been all along. A few bits of AD&D 1e tried to pretend to be a little simulationist, and 5e's market is big enough to get a bunch of narrativists from the Critical Role etc crowd. (But if you want a "narrativist version" of 5e you probably want Daggerheart.)
D&D is not simulationist, and simulationist arguments about its rules never make any sense. Ranged attacks get Disadvantage when an enemy is in melee range because they wanted to balance it that way, and any "realism" argument is merely post-hoc.
Sure, it's imperfect in execution (and obviously I agree, since I'm asking about changing a rule), but "we should accept the rules as written because they were written that way" is an even less satisfying philosophy to me than the rule we started with! :)
I don't like that rule. I want to change it to my proposed alternative. What are the potentially negative mechanical consequences of that approach, beyond my own apostasy? If the rule was written that way and justified post-hoc, we can totally ignore the why I don't like the rule, so what second and third order impacts on gameplay could be expected from that change?
It makes glass cannons more fragile, I guess. The Shield spell just offsets the advantage melee attackers would have against a ranged caster at point blank range. What else?
That's a much better question / argument.
I think your version would make ranged attacks too "better than" melee attacks --- so would make ranged martials more-better than melee martials, or ranged cantrips more-better than melee cantrips, etc. I think it would, basically, make the primary value of melee weapons be "getting past the defenses of melee characters" which only matters when you let yourself get into melee, and only matters if the opponent has also chosen this strategy.
Because the value of "stay out of melee range and still do pretty-good damage" is too high.
As it stands, melee has the ability to kinda "lock down" ranged, and that would be lost.
OD&D, 1st AD&D, and largely 2nd AD&D were primarily simulationist. It's 3e which moved D&D in a gamist direction. D&D was largely hostile to gamist play until 3e.
I'd have to say that you have got your base premise wrong. A point blank shot against a stationary target might well be quite easy but against a target that moves/defends itself it is a lot harder than taking the shot from range. IMO the D&D rules have it right.
The Barbarian is (narratively at least) acting in a reckless manor the whole round and thus it makes sense that he is penalised the whole round. Someone using a ranged weapon could easily drop/stow it straight after their attack and then draw a melee weapon and then it makes no sense to penalise them any more.
I disagree but before 3e, I only played late 2e. However, I blocked a lot of that hot mess out so maybe I am forgetting something. For reference, my first RPG experience was Rolemaster (now relaunched as Rolemaster Classic) which was born of adding simulationist components to early editions of D&D.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
The realistic answer is that bows and crossbows in D&D are cinematically easy to use, not hard, and realistic penalties would be far worse than the existing rules. The basic issues are
What this means is that the realistic way ranged vs melee works is that if you try to use a pre-gunpowder ranged weapon in melee combat... you die (firearms are much much more tolerant of the shooter moving, and are also significantly more durable, so while being in close combat is still bad, it's no longer a death sentence. Still, there's a reason that bayonets were used, before guns with high rate of fire and large magazines were available, the bayonet was the more effective choice at close combat range).
Eeeehhhh, I think the original designers had many intentions, and I wouldn't argue they weren't trying all sorts of ideas (and kinda inventing a new formalization of playtime).
But the game grew directly out of wargaming, was based on gamified statistics, built around gamified choices like "choose race/class to best match your stats" and vice-versa, and all about trying to survive long enough to become a hero/legend. And there's the whole subculture of rules-lawyering (weaponized gamesmanship) that grew out of early D&D. That was predominantly gamist.
Pre-3e, it was also a giant hodgepodge of ideas. 3e, for the first time, made it into a kinda-holistic system. (I used to joke that it was like they finally got a real editor who understood the readers.) So it became way more obvious that it was gamist, and the system suddenly had a bunch of new power scaling and all that. That system was still a mess. So maybe it was also more friendly to "powergaming" which is a different concern.
From a gameplay perspective, the main thing that you are overlooking is that the rules are basically never structured like this. You are proposing to give situational advantage to a creature when it is not even their turn.
In this scenario, it is the archer's turn. Now we need to know whether or not that archer actually decides to make an attack. If he does make an attack, now we must somehow remember that game state until later when the melee opponent can now counterattack with advantage on that particular turn because the archer has opened himself up to being more exposed by taking a shot? If that was the idea, then they would have used the opportunity attack mechanic. Generally, advantage and disadvantage is applied immediately and is resolved immediately while the event in question is taking place, you don't save it up for later. It's far simpler to just apply advantage / disadvantage to the attacker while that attack is happening.
I mean, if we were being more or less realistic, it would be something like
This would, of course, get ranged characters killed unless they had a screening force, which is fairly accurate but not much fun. Also, the it's very difficult to actually screen without a lot more people than a typical D&D party.
Except early D+D didn't let you choose Race/Class to best match your statistics, because there were no statistic bonuses tied to Race (there were maximums, bonuses came in 3e iirc).
And really early D+D, half the stats only affected how easily you gained xp in your class.
There's little min-maxing possible in OD+D, and not much more in 1st AD+D. 2nd starts giving players more actual choices, but it's still not a lot.
Wargaming origins doesn't mean a gamist paradigm. Lots of wargaming, especially historical wargaming (whence D+D ultimately derives), was primarily simulationist. The idea of wargaming as primarily a competitive activity is a later development (and many historical wargames still aim more for simulating the battle than anything else). Check out the original Chainmail - there's plenty of simulationist mechanics in there.
Gamists require room for optimization, which means significant choices by the player. Early D+D and AD+D had almost no choices by the players (pretty much just race and class), and humans were intentionally the strongest race (unlimited level progression) because Gygax's explicit goal was to have a human-dominated fantasy world (a simulationist goal). The most significant things for player power were magic items, which were under the control of the DM, not the player. Gamist play also requires a step-up competitive mechanism, which D+D simply doesn't have before 3e (and indeed, players weren't supposed to be competing against each other).
Heck, the original character creation method: 3d6 x6 in order, was a simulationist approach. And indeed, as originally intended, you chose your race first, then rolled stats, then chose your class. Your character was dealt a set of stats by fate, and it was up to you to do the best with it you could. Almost every design decision has simulationist roots, including the focus on time keeping and mundane resource expenditure (rations, torches, etc...). Even the 1st AD+D action system (using Segments rather than character turns) was more simulationist. As were spell functions like 'fireball produces 33,000 cu ft of flame' instead of always a 20' radius sphere.
I played plenty of 1st and 2nd edition D+D. Nobody was a gamist. There were few to no rules to codify anything other than combat, and thus real world as a guide was how DMs would generally adjudicate declared actions outside those explicitly defined. The rules were a simplification for simulating combat, not a 'board game'.
That sounds like benefits for certain race/class combinations. You could even call these bonuses. I remember there being class and kit restrictions by race. Multiclassing worked differently for Humans and non-humans.
Unless you had an exceptional sample size, this is likely a form of survivorship bias. You didn't encounter gamist players so obviously there weren't any.
You seem to be making the argument modeling realism is simulationism. It is not, or at least not the only form of it. Modeling a genre is simulationism. None of the features you are describing are examples showing simulationism of the fantasy genre. None of your examples show that later editions are less simulationist than earlier ones.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
Sure, it doesn't have to be reality, although fantasy as a genre works via the contrast of the explicitly fantastical with the otherwise mundane. But simulationism is simulating something, and makes an attempt to approximate outcomes appropriate to the thing simulated.
I mean, there were things that were simulating particular types of fantasy. Gygax's preference for a human-centric world was based on the fantasy stories he was most attached to (explicitly not Tolkien - he says so), and so making the demihumans incapable of achieving high level was designed to make worlds where all the powerful movers and shakers in the D+D worlds would be human - a simulation of the type of fantasy world he enjoyed. Vancian casting comes straight from the works of Jack Vance.
The emphasis on wandering monsters was a simulationist thing (there are monsters wandering around the world - encounters don't just exist to advance the plot). And those wandering monster tables weren't tailored to the player's level. (In fact, while xp served as a guideline for how tough a monster probably was, there was no concept of an 'appropriate encounter' - the players could decide to fight, parlay, avoid, or otherwise engage with any given encounter.)
The later editions are certainly less simulationist. Gamism sprang into existence: Building your character's stats how you want it is a move away from simulationism towards gamism (starts in 2e after Gygax is no longer in control, takes off in 3e with race giving stat bonuses). Point Buy is super-Gamist and afaik didn't exist until 3e. Formalizing an appropriate encounter for a party was gamist and doesn't happen until 3e. The whole concept of classes being "balanced" was non-existent before 3e. More choices in character building lead to optimization (a Gamist way of interacting with the game). There wasn't even any discussion of Gamism as a philosophy of roleplaying until D+D 3e existed. (Although prior games like GURPS and Champions allowed gamist play, no one talked about it in those terms). Gamism is about exploiting the rules system and demonstrating your mastery of it. That philosophy is non-existent in early D+D on the development side.
Gygax wrote a column for Dragon magazine regularly, and Dragon featured plenty of other writers. You can go check how people perceived the game then, it's not an unknowable mystery. There's simulationism fingerprints all over the early D+D editions, and in the writings many of the significant figures in early D+D. Or talk to older players who played then.
Edit: This off topic for the Rules Discussion. If you want to continue it, it should probably be elsewhere.
As far as this topic is concerned, I think the current system is accurate enough. If you want realism, there are better systems, possibly better editions. The proposed changes are out of character for the system, as others have mentioned.
I don't know what is worse for D&D Jack Vance or THAC0. At least THAC0 had the good sense to go away.
I don't have any old articles to pull up, but I found this article with a few quotes from Gygax.
Those are some of the direct quotes but between that, other statements about balance from Gygax, and linked articles regarding early development of the game, it seems that elements you consider "gamist" were absolutely part of the development of D&D.
I think the issue isn't gamist versus simulationist. First, it's a fallacy to present them as mutually exclusive. Second, I think the simulation has changed. You're clinging to old simulation and seeing the new simulaiton as gamist while ignoring the gamist elements of the old simulation.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
ModeratorYep, just popping in here in my bright, bright orange to say this has gotten a little derailed and might need refocusing to the original Rules & Mechanics of the question, but honestly it seems like the original discussion might be more Homebrew discussion (Thoughts on changes to the rules) than Rules discussion (How the rules/mechanics actually math out).
Would we like to shift this whole thread to another forum better suited to how the discussion wants to play out, or refocus it?
D&D Beyond ToS || D&D Beyond Support