A Subtle Shift?

[Warbringer]

So 4e will be a gamists game. Nothing wrong with that, but as long time rpger (coming on 30 years now) I really think I want my rpgs to be a little more simulationist.

I've always built my campaigns around that; some for of physical representation of the effects of hp loss; the need for awareness of new feats/skills before getting access to them (sometimes just seeing it in action, sometimes a secret tradition of a lost organization); the need for finding a teacher when switching classes... stuff like that

I look forward to more movement in combat, less dependency on magic items, the ability of martial heroes to do more 'fantastic' moves/stances/maneuvers, spellcasters doing at will abilities (I love Complete Mage)... I just hope 4e permits me to maintain the flavor I want as DM.

That said, bring it on. I want to see the rules evolve and encourage new players.

It's great to see the excitement in the community; I hope Wizards, and Mearls, deliver (FYI I think they will)

 

[Ry]

I'll probably E6ify 4e and get all the simulation (i.e. genre simulation) I could hope for. I mean, it sounds like the Heroic levels (1-10) are all that I'm going to really want, so I'll find a way to make the game fun in those levels, stretch them out, and ignore the rest.

 

[T. Foster]

I'll probably E6ify 4e and get all the simulation (i.e. genre simulation) I could hope for. I mean, it sounds like the Heroic levels (1-10) are all that I'm going to really want, so I'll find a way to make the game fun in those levels, stretch them out, and ignore the rest.

Personally I'm still hoping that WotC (or perhaps some enterprising 3rd party publisher if the 4E OGL allows it?) will take my suggestion to extract levels 1-10 and publish them as a separate stand-alone game...

 

[Warbringer]

I really hope that the heric/paragon/epic thing becomes as much as realization of campaign preference as just a desciptor of level blocks...

meaning... a series of adventures that takes you 1-10, not 7-14, for example

 

[pawsplay]

I'm probably a an immersion type simulationist at heart, also, very much a social player (I often GM because I always like a game to be doing, keep the old crowd toghether).

 

[Exen Trik]

I think the 4e system will lend itself well to many different kinds of play styles, both through a bit of retheming to all out variants. However, I don't know how well a simulationist approach would work, considering a lot of mechanics might encourage a more over the top dramatic style.

But the one genre I see 4e having a big problem with is the grim and gritty style. The actual mechanics of PC and monsters would likely have to be tweaked to make the game less forgiving but not drop dead fatal. I haven't had much experience in that style though, so it's hard for me to say how much a problem it could be with what we know now.

 

[Kunimatyu]

I'm really looking forward to social encounter rules. Good Burning Wheel-esque social maneuvers could revolutionize the d20 system and really open up the possibilities for a campaign.

 

[HeinorNY]

So 4e will be a gamists game.

I don't think so.

One of D&D's major qualities, and IMO one of the reasons for its success, is exactly the flexibility regarding styles of playing, types of gamers, etc.
There is no need to concentrate in one style of playing in expense of the others, THAT would make D&D lose some of its player base.

I don't enjoy or support SW d20 anymore because it's a "cinematic/narrativistic" almost only game. 1d6 days to reach Coruscant?

I have a bad feeling about this.

 

[Irda Ranger]

So 4e will be a gamists game. Nothing wrong with that, but as long time rpger (coming on 30 years now) I really think I want my rpgs to be a little more simulationist.

When playing Monopoly, there's no rule that says you can't stop the game and "roleplay" what happens when two people spend the night on the same property.

Just sayin'

Even if D&D 4E is 'pure' gamist (and I don't think it will be), there is nothing that stops you from building a Keep. In fact, we already know two things that make 4E better at simulation than 3E:
1. Social Encounters. It's gotta' be better than a hit-or-miss single Diplo roll.
2. No Profession/Craft. Now you're free to take 27 ranks in Knowledge (Cheeses of Sembia) without harming your Warlord abilities.

"a secret tradition of a lost organization); the need for finding a teacher when switching classes... stuff like that" ... fine with me, just so long as you don't call it "Emerald Frost."

But the one genre I see 4e having a big problem with is the grim and gritty style.

All you need is Wound Points.

Even grittier is what Monte did for his d20 World of Darkness. On a crit, weapons do their base weapon damage (1d6, 1d8, etc.) as Con damage. Nasty.

 

[KingCrab]

One of D&D's major qualities, and IMO one of the reasons for its success, is exactly the flexibility regarding styles of playing, types of gamers, etc.
There is no need to concentrate in one style of playing in expense of the others, THAT would make D&D lose some of its player base.

I agree and I've seen many different styles of play in past editions. It does unfortunately seem that 4e is becoming more insistant about the types of games they want you to run (points of light, changes to the great wheel, etc.) I wish they had instead went the other way and made things as generic as possible.