Is there a successor to 3.5 and Pathfinder's optimization cultures

[ftafp]

I grew up playing 3.5 and I absolutely loved the optimization cultures that popped up here and on the WotC forums. For the past year I've been playing 5e since 3.5 and Pathfinder 1 are no longer getting any content. However, disillusioned with 5e's lack of optimization culture I've been trying to bring some of 3.5's culture back to the system. The problem is, the more I try the more i realize 5e's physically isn't capable of supporting an optimization culture. The game is designed to be airtight, and prevent loopholes of any kind

With that in mind, I wanted to ask here, where people have experience with 3.5 and pathfinder's optimization cultures: is there a true successor, or will I have to come back to a system with a diminishing player base if I want to go back to optimizing in a way that's rewarding?

[CharonsHelper]

I haven't looked into it much myself - but isn't Pathfinder 2 trying to scratch that itch?

[PhantasyPen]

I haven't looked into it much myself - but isn't Pathfinder 2 trying to scratch that itch?

It's failing badly.

@OP I'm finding similar optimization itches are scratched wonderfully by Exalted 2e and the FATE system overall. Neither is d20 based though, so "muscle" memory from D&D will be more harmful than helpful.

[ftafp]

It's failing badly.

@OP I'm finding similar optimization itches are scratched wonderfully by Exalted 2e and the FATE system overall. Neither is d20 based though, so "muscle" memory from D&D will be more harmful than helpful.

the first thing I found when I looked up Exalted was 3e, so I'm assuming 2e isn't getting content anymore. FATE I looked up and could barely even find rules for it. The only rule I did find was a hard ceiling on skills which is definitely in the wrong direction

[NigelWalmsley]

Is there a reason you can't just continue to play 3.5 or PF1?

[ftafp]

Is there a reason you can't just continue to play 3.5 or PF1?

It's hard to say. 3.5 still has the biggest optimization community, but no new content has come out in over a decade, old content is vanishing – especially with the internet archive at risk – and after two decades of optimizers tinkering with it, it feels like 3.5 is a "solved" game.

As for pathfinder, to be truthful, I learned the rules of pathfinder but never actually played the game. the community has always seemed like a partial fan exodus. In either case, no new content is coming out so "discoveries" are a rapidly diminishing resource

[Crake]

I think with the shift away from competitive, GM vs Players style games, to a stronger focus on cooperative story telling, and roleplaying games entering the mainstream, meaning that, if you don't like a table's particular playstyle, it's easier than ever to find a table that does, optimization is fast becoming an obsolete skill. Optimization has always come as a means of player empowerment, but with a shift toward a more cooperative style of games, you don't need to do such things, as the DMs are more willing than ever to empower the players for the sake of the narrative.

[Edea]

Barring the sheer lack of published 5e content (I mean that's definitely non-negligible), another HUGE factor is the rise of the MMO, and online roleplaying video games in general.

When 3.0 came out, it was at the turn of the century. I didn't even have a computer, and the local library was still on dial-up (which I relied on heavily). We didn't even have WoW, yet! Sitting at a table and hashing out builds like this, either on a forum board (from the library, lel) or out in meatspace thereby to be subjected to the whims of an actual person running a game, was really all that a lot of us were able to do back then.

But now? Holy Word, take your pick. We're able to engage in that competitive, 'gamist' arena whenever we want, in a plethora of different settings and with all kinds of different rulesets, all at the click of a mouse and at the behest of a completely impartial computer 'DM'. We even have 'gaming rigs', now. I remember when it was impressive to have an at-home dot matrix printer, sheesh...

So yeah, the allure of the tabletop has changed, focusing more on the narration/storytelling aspects as those are the parts that a video game can't duplicate (yet). Numbers are kinda in the background, now; the hobby's become a much more social/cooperative event. I guess all of us 'cave trolls' have moved on to grinding out toons and engaging in raids.

[Xervous]

I’m not so sure about the rise of computer gaming siphoning off those greatly concerned with stats so much as it has fostered an expectation of overemphasis on accessibility, coddling and normalization for entertainment mediums that are stat driven while still trying to appeal to the given audience for its genre.

[Segev]

[PF2 is] failing badly [at serving as a successor to 3.5/PF1's optimization cultures].

(Brackets added since what this was responding to isn't quoted; if I got the meaning wrong, please let me know, because that means I entirely misunderstood this and my reply is probably nonsense.)

Not disagreeing with you nor trying to defend PF2 - I've not been terribly impressed by what I've seen - but could you elaborate on why, to you, PF2 fails to scratch the optimization itch?

[Xervous]

(Brackets added since what this was responding to isn't quoted; if I got the meaning wrong, please let me know, because that means I entirely misunderstood this and my reply is probably nonsense.)

Not disagreeing with you nor trying to defend PF2 - I've not been terribly impressed by what I've seen - but could you elaborate on why, to you, PF2 fails to scratch the optimization itch?

PF2 has so few actual choices you can make. Class abilities are menu selectable, but gated behind one another such that they are mostly just different subclasses hidden in plain view. Nearly every single keyword acts as a limitation on combining abilities and features. Races are stripped of most of their features, which you can get back prevalent over time by sacrificing other build resources the game assumes you’ll use on progressing important stuff rather than acquiring ribbons. Most spells only have serious impact when enemies fail the save by 10 or more, are generally higher level spells than previous versions, and casters get far fewer spells. Oh and there’s that incapacitation keyword that effectively lowers the save DC of the spell by 10 just when you thought you found a good spell. AC, attack bonuses and skill bonuses treadmill like 4e.

Most Martials don’t get plot abilities still, but seeing as there’s little else that’s reliable in combat fighter saves the day because numbers are mostly all that matters.

[Psyren]

It's hard to say. 3.5 still has the biggest optimization community, but no new content has come out in over a decade, old content is vanishing – especially with the internet archive at risk – and after two decades of optimizers tinkering with it, it feels like 3.5 is a "solved" game.

As for pathfinder, to be truthful, I learned the rules of pathfinder but never actually played the game. the community has always seemed like a partial fan exodus. In either case, no new content is coming out so "discoveries" are a rapidly diminishing resource

I've been playing PF1 for over a decade and I still find new stuff to make builds around to this day. And while Paizo isn't publishing for 1e anymore, third-party publishers still are, plus the beauty of 3.5/PF is that it's broad/crunchy enough that anything created for a newer system like 5e or PF2 can be backported or retrocloned.

[Morty]

The 3.5 optimization culture was most likely unique, or at least highly unusual in the RPG community. It was also honestly based on the system's flaws as much as it was on its virtues and features. I wouldn't count on it appearing again.

[Madwand99]

I got into optimization from playing Shadowrun 2e. I'm not sure about later editions, but SR 3e and 4e definitely had optimization cultures. My Interest in optimization mostly came as a response to not having agency in the games I played: for whatever reason, I had a hard time accomplishing anything unless I really knew what I was doing from a character creation, tactical, and strategic perspective, and so I found it necessary to optimize to have the agency I wanted. D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder 1e also definitely scratch that itch. I tend to avoid games that don't let me optimize sufficiently, because I find that I don't have enough agency in these games.

So what am I playing these days to satisfy this need for agency? For me, it's Mutants and Masterminds 3e. It's a point-based generic/superpowered game, and definitely has enough crunchiness that you can optimize quite a bit. In fact, you have to self-limit so that you aren't too powerful and don't upset the GM. With this system, I haven't had any problem getting the agency I need. Generally, I can make my PCs capable of the things I want them to do, which is all that's necessary. There isn't exactly an optimization "culture", but there's a lot of help available building the kinds of PC you want at the MnM subreddit. Hopefully this helps anyone who is interested in optimization for the same reasons i am.

[Xervous]

I got into optimization from playing Shadowrun 2e. I'm not sure about later editions, but SR 3e and 4e definitely had optimization cultures. My Interest in optimization mostly came as a response to not having agency in the games I played: for whatever reason, I had a hard time accomplishing anything unless I really knew what I was doing from a character creation, tactical, and strategic perspective, and so I found it necessary to optimize to have the agency I wanted. D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder 1e also definitely scratch that itch. I tend to avoid games that don't let me optimize sufficiently, because I find that I don't have enough agency in these games.

So what am I playing these days to satisfy this need for agency? For me, it's Mutants and Masterminds 3e. It's a point-based generic/superpowered game, and definitely has enough crunchiness that you can optimize quite a bit. In fact, you have to self-limit so that you aren't too powerful and don't upset the GM. With this system, I haven't had any problem getting the agency I need. Generally, I can make my PCs capable of the things I want them to do, which is all that's necessary. There isn't exactly an optimization "culture", but there's a lot of help available building the kinds of PC you want at the MnM subreddit. Hopefully this helps anyone who is interested in optimization for the same reasons i am.

Am I doing you a disservice in summarizing this as “I like systems with a broad enough optimization range that I can define my narrative agency in advance with the GM rather than leaving it up to the GM’s whimsy in the moment.” ?

[Zanos]

I've been playing PF1 for over a decade and I still find new stuff to make builds around to this day. And while Paizo isn't publishing for 1e anymore, third-party publishers still are, plus the beauty of 3.5/PF is that it's broad/crunchy enough that anything created for a newer system like 5e or PF2 can be backported or retrocloned.
Same, there's just so much 3.5/PF content. Even without PF content I constantly find new tricks even for the classes I've played the most of. 5+ years on this forum and thousands of posts and I still don't know all the tricks for my favorite class, Wizard. And I've found a couple of 'undiscovered' ones myself.

[icefractal]

Am I doing you a disservice in summarizing this as “I like systems with a broad enough optimization range that I can define my narrative agency in advance with the GM rather than leaving it up to the GM’s whimsy in the moment.” ?Nicely put, that's exactly how I feel. It's not an absolute deal-breaker, I'll play systems that are more rulings-based, but being able to say "I can do X" instead of "I might be able to do X, depends how the GM is feeling today" is my preference.


On systems - well, it's technically now a 'dead' system as well, but for anyone who likes 3.5 optimization I'd recommend PF1. If you looked at it early on and were unimpressed, give it another look now. There's a lot of content there, and I think it's fertile ground for optimization, especially if you include the more popular 3PP content.

It also has one big advantage over 3.5 - the SRD (with all the content, not just the Core) is free, searchable, and legally available. No need to tell people to look something up in a book if they want to know the details, you can just directly link to (or quote) the rules in question.

[Madwand99]

Am I doing you a disservice in summarizing this as “I like systems with a broad enough optimization range that I can define my narrative agency in advance with the GM rather than leaving it up to the GM’s whimsy in the moment.” ?

Mostly, except perhaps without the "with the GM" part. The assumption here is that the GM may be in an almost antagonistic relationship with the player. In my experience, GMs often don't want to have the player have agency, or don't care about the player or their PC. My goal is to somehow make a PC I can enjoy anyway, despite this resistance or indifference. It's not that I want to disrupt the game, I just want it to be fun, and I can't have fun unless it is possible for me to make choices that matter. The power to do that comes from optimizing during character creation and the gameplay itself.

[Akal Saris]

I would suggest getting into PF 1E, personally. Yes, it's no longer getting new content as of this year, but that still leaves 11 years worth of content to mine through!

D&D 3.0/3.5 were only active for 8 years, from 2000-2008, but I would say up through 2016 I was still seeing new and interesting optimization tricks on a regular basis, though 5E or simply boredom eventually pulled away a few of the major contributors. Even now we still have great optimization work being done by GiTP regulars like Venger, Peggy Knowles, and the participants in the Iron Chef contests. So I think Pathfinder 1E will still have interesting new optimization opportunities for another 8-9 years.

Unfortunately, I don't have experience in PF 2E since most of my friends who tried it were not impressed. Most of my current optimization focus has been on 5E since that is what my 2 groups like to run, but I agree that it is a frustrating game to try to optimize because there's such limited customization and almost all of it is built around multiclassing.

[Batcathat]

Mostly, except perhaps without the "with the GM" part. The assumption here is that the GM may be in an almost antagonistic relationship with the player. In my experience, GMs often don't want to have the player have agency, or don't care about the player or their PC. My goal is to somehow make a PC I can enjoy anyway, despite this resistance or indifference. It's not that I want to disrupt the game, I just want it to be fun, and I can't have fun unless it is possible for me to make choices that matter. The power to do that comes from optimizing during character creation and the gameplay itself.

I don't understand how this could work. No matter how powerful and optimized a character is, a GM is omnipotent. If the GM doesn't want your character to have any agency I don't see how it being more powerful would help.

Also, it sounds like you have played with some (in my opinion) bad GMs if being antagonistic and uncaring is the default.

[Aharon]

I don't understand how this could work. No matter how powerful and optimized a character is, a GM is omnipotent. If the GM doesn't want your character to have any agency I don't see how it being more powerful would help.

Also, it sounds like you have played with some (in my opinion) bad GMs if being antagonistic and uncaring is the default.

I think it's not so much the GM not wanting player agency, as the GM only allowing as much agency as the game mechanics allow, and erring towards the "less agency is better" side of things. 5e could feel very heroic, if GMs used sensible Task DCs for skill checks, for example. All 3 GMs I played with so far set DCs according to what a normal 21st century human could do, so stuff was very seldomly very easy or easy, resulting in high chances of failure.
In 3.5, they might have done the same, but the rules allowed for more skilled characters, so there was less failure...

[Madwand99]

I don't understand how this could work. No matter how powerful and optimized a character is, a GM is omnipotent. If the GM doesn't want your character to have any agency I don't see how it being more powerful would help.

Also, it sounds like you have played with some (in my opinion) bad GMs if being antagonistic and uncaring is the default.

You are correct, there is no way to fight a GM that wants to destroy your PC. BUT... in most cases, they aren't that overt. The average GM is in most cases just trying to create a "challenge" for the PCs, but they aren't always very good at figuring out what an appropriate challenge should be, sometimes they over-correct. You just want a PC that's powerful enough they can't kill you without also TPKing everyone.

Some of my GMs have been bad... the original Shadowrun 2e GMs that made me the way I am about this, for example. I just couldn't accomplish *anything* in those games. I can't get over those early experiences, and it has made me very sensitive to biased rules calls. However, if I find a GM is really in it just to make a fun game (this is rare!) then I am happy to settle down and just enjoy the game.

[Zombimode]

I don't understand how this could work. No matter how powerful and optimized a character is, a GM is omnipotent.

Sure, but this assumes that the GM will actually enter this "arms race" and react to the optimized character to diminish the characters power.

Take D&D 5e for instance. It is really hard to be "good" at a skill, meaning that your bonus is both high enough to routinely succeed at task and be noticebly better then others. Having proficiency in a skill gives you the informed ability to be "good" and "traind" at the skill without that actually being true.

In 3.5 if you want your character to be good at some skill you can spend the build ressources to do that. If you want you can get +18 Intimidate at mid level and that means you are actually good at intimidation.


Practical optimization in real games with mature and considarate players and GMs is not about one-up-manship, not about leading the scoreboard. It is about creating characters with the abilities you want them to have. And not in a informed ability kind of way ("Sure, you are a GREAT thief! Look, you have a 50% chance of pickpocketing this average Joe! Isn't that great? And you are much better as everybody else with just 30%"), but with the abilities and numbers actually adding up.

[EldritchWeaver]

In response to the OP:

The lack of 5e options is attempted to be address by DropDeadStudios's 5e Spheres book, which is still in playtest. I don't play 5e nor have I looked into this, so no comment on quality. But the PF version is very popular and even has other 3PP companies writing for that system.

For successors of PF, I know that Kirthfinder has been praised in many mentions. There is Purple Duck Games Porphyra version. And Legendary Games is actually attempting to design a broadly supported successor, but it basically just started development. But if they scratch your itches and if they are compatible enough with the old content I can't say. I didn't read the first 2 and last one is not available yet. But at least there are some options, should the old content not be enough anymore.

[Zanos]

In 3.5 if you want your character to be good at some skill you can spend the build ressources to do that. If you want you can get +18 Intimidate at mid level and that means you are actually good at intimidation.
Pretty much why I like it. It is very clear in 3.5 what your character is good and bad at. 5e and many other systems make it difficult to know what your character is actually capable of, and are highly subject to the DMs whimsy. It makes it hard to roleplay(or rollplay) a character if you aren't sure whether or not they're competent at something.

[Ramza00]

The 3.5 optimization culture was most likely unique, or at least highly unusual in the RPG community. It was also honestly based on the system's flaws as much as it was on its virtues and features. I wouldn't count on it appearing again.

This. Scarcity of systems, plus a flawed system (that also had enough rules that you can sense a flow of structure) created a mixture of vice and virtue, excess and deficiency, that seemed to gel together.

It was a new system, plus the OGL made it easy to pick up, yet there was always something more to learn with all the new books. It was a product of its times and change 1 or 2 details of that time and it would not have been what it was. :smallsmile:

[Seto]

The average GM is in most cases just trying to create a "challenge" for the PCs, but they aren't always very good at figuring out what an appropriate challenge should be, sometimes they over-correct. You just want a PC that's powerful enough they can't kill you without also TPKing everyone.

Oh. I... wasn't aware this was a goal some players actually consciously aimed for. I thought it was universally agreed upon that a character like this was bad for table balance and needed to be toned down.
The issue I have with it is not "trying not to die". That's part of the game and that's absolutely your prerogative as a player. The problem with it, IMO, is that a character, in order for your description to apply, needs to be substantially more powerful than the other PCs. It's not about optimizing, it's about being the only one with your level of optimization. If all PCs are at the same level of optimization (whether high or low), the GM tries to match that level and create an appropriate challenge - which, as you note, they sometimes fail to do. Misjudging the difficulty of an encounter is something that happens, but learning to tune it properly is part of the art of GMing.
If a single PC is way more optimized than others, then there's no way for the GM to challenge that PC without steamrolling the others and risking a TPK. If the GM goes that way, it's not much fun for anyone. If they chicken out and don't, then your PC trivializes encounters and it's not very fun either. Basically, what you describe is an invitation to escalate an arms race. Whether the GM matches you or not, it has the effect of protecting only your own character at the expense of everyone else's enjoyment of the game. Do correct me if I'm reading you wrong.
(My premise is that enjoyment is derived from overcoming difficult but doable challenges, the "sweet spot" that GMs should aim for. Some people might enjoy different levels of challenge, either trivial or overwhelming, and that's fine. My argument wouldn't apply to them.)

[Cerefel]

The issue I have with it is not "trying not to die". That's part of the game and that's absolutely your prerogative as a player. The problem with it, IMO, is that a character, in order for your description to apply, needs to be substantially more powerful than the other PCs.

Being resilient enough to survive is not the same thing as being able to wipe encounters on your own. It's entirely possible to optimize around survivability without making a character that steals the spotlight and steps on toes

[Seto]

Fair enough. In that case, I don't think it's as much of a problem. It does leave somewhat of a bad taste in my mouth as a DM when I'm trying to make a dungeon feel, you know... dangerous, and some PCs just walk into traps and yawn while fighting enemies because they know they're not in any actual danger. I feel like it hurts the tension and epicness I'm trying to create around the adventure. But at least it doesn't make the other players feel useless, so I can live with it and try to find other ways to inject tension, of which an inventive GM can find many.

[NichG]

I can't really condone optimization as a method for seizing metagame agency against the wishes or expectations of others at the table (GM or players), because even defensive arms races can create problems when they end up being specifically by the arms race logic. That should be handled by open discussion, not bringing in mechanical surprises. If you hate character death then say that, and I'll be happy to run a campaign where it explicitly can't happen. If random failures make it hard to feel epic and that's what you want out of game then say that, and I'll find or make a 'degrees of success' system or a 'pay resources to buy success' system or even just have a reroll/roll augmentation thing like drama dice rather than just using a pass/fail mechanic.

On the other hand, I do find optimization to make for fun gameplay as long as it's being done as part of playing the game, and when the campaign is structured to assume that optimization can happen and be tolerant of that.

Lets say the GM says: this is the world, it has things that vary in power by 5 orders of magnitude in it, and you all optimizing is telling me the scale of things you'd like to be involved in, and I will give out help and exclusive homebrewed broken stuff to players who fall behind the peak power level. If the optimizer has no problem with challenges and other players being scaled to their optimization level, I think that's fine and healthy for the game. If they insist that others should be weaker because they didn't figure out a legit trick, I'm going to have a problem with that player.

All that said, I basically systems or variants on a per-campaign basis to create new optimization puzzles for those players for whom that's the fun of things. That tends to keep things fresh since optimizing E6 or 'you can buy levels, class abilities, attribute scores, and feats directly with XP' or 'heres a new sysyem where rolls are replaced with bidding from defensive pools' and so on require different mindsets. To make it good optimization fodder, I try to make things modular and cross referential with enough abstraction for there to be surprises:an item that increases the numerical +X buff from one other source to X+1, etc kinds of things. If X is a bonus to a roll, no big deal; if X is the number of attacks per round auto dodged, interesting. If X is a multiplier on some other bonus...

[Madwand99]

Fair enough. In that case, I don't think it's as much of a problem. It does leave somewhat of a bad taste in my mouth as a DM when I'm trying to make a dungeon feel, you know... dangerous, and some PCs just walk into traps and yawn while fighting enemies because they know they're not in any actual danger. I feel like it hurts the tension and epicness I'm trying to create around the adventure. But at least it doesn't make the other players feel useless, so I can live with it and try to find other ways to inject tension, of which an inventive GM can find many.

If I'm feeling a sense of danger in a dungeon, it's probably because a TPK is imminent -- my sense of what an appropriate challenge for a party should be is finely tuned.. Sensing danger means I'm not having fun. Instead, I'm worrying about the game ending and all the character development to this point being wasted. Instead, I wish GMs would focus more on making the game fun and interesting. Allow for more character development, allow PCs to make big changes to the world and have agency, allow for the story to move forward. I have no interest in feeling any sense of danger, and I put a lot of work into character creation to avoid that feeling. Oh, and I avoid watching horror movies for similar reasons.

[Fizban]

This. Scarcity of systems, plus a flawed system (that also had enough rules that you can sense a flow of structure) created a mixture of vice and virtue, excess and deficiency, that seemed to gel together.

It was a new system, plus the OGL made it easy to pick up, yet there was always something more to learn with all the new books. It was a product of its times and change 1 or 2 details of that time and it would not have been what it was. :smallsmile:
In addition to these, there's a particular thing I like to point out about the differences in systems-

3.5 has what I call "multiple parallel advancement paths," and a *lot* of them. All the different factors of your ability scores, ability improvements from level, racial features, hit dice, BAB, saves, skill points, skill tricks, class skills, feats, bonus feats, class features, class levels, spell lists, spells known, prestige class features, and levels, and continuations of features, equipment, equipment customization, and potential minions, cohorts, and companion creatures, all with varying amounts of the above, and that's not even counting templates or affiliations or permament/close enough magical effects, and. . . . There are dozens of ways in which your character can improve at every level, some for free, some with tradeoffs. But most importantly, *never* with a fixed limit that makes all characters equal. That unbounded crossover automatic nature is what allows char-op to char-op.

I haven't played many other games, but I've played some. Point-based systems can still be optimized to heck and back, but if you want to see "solved" systems, point-based is where it's at: there is one most cost-efficient X and that's it. Meanwhile 5e has levels, sure, but they intentionally made everything tied to class level rather than overall level, except for attacks/skills/saves, where the numbers barely diverge and are set against essentially arbitrary DCs set by the DM based on whether they want you to succeed or not (rather than 3.5's expectation that you build a scenario which creates the correct DCs as given in the skill descriptions)- 5e has a number of choices, but they're all direct tradeoffs coming out of the same pool, no synergy, no crossovers, no free stuff. All carefully designed to have upper limits to explicitly avoid 3.x problems.

In order to have an optimization culture like 3.5's with an actively updated game, you would first need to have a game with the fairly ridiculous number of parallel advancement paths as 3.5. Which is not the kind of game anyone savvy wants to make anymore, because every one of those parallel bits is an exponential increase (maybe a small exponent like 1.1, but still exponential) in complexity. PF painted themselves as a step *forward* from an already laughably broken system so they were viewed more as brave saviors continuing the fight- would anyone take the risk walking in without that safetly? Knowing that they've created a system with a base of open-ended complexity which they will then unleash dozens of writers upon with no real unifying limits (and many of whom work at cross-purposes) where every printed book becomes an irrevocable part of canon and their customer base will be fractured across dozens of ideas of what is actually appropriate so every step alienates as many as it pleases? Why try to target the incredibly specific "3.5/PF style optimization crowd," when that market already has a product in front of them that doesn't expire, and which many (probably most) are specifically "married" to with no intention of switching and leaving behind their decades of time investment?

Because to sell a continuous stream of books you need to sell a continuous stream of books. I could see some people picking up the new thing, maybe even a few books, but in order to pull the existing crowd onto your new stuff you need to beat the old stuff, not just be a novelty. And the 3.5/PF boom crowd is getting older, so more work/kids and less time for games, When they want to game, they'll want the game they already know, not a new train of two dozen books to get a new "university minor" in. Or they'll want something that "just works." Or you need to somehow be the one to feed a starving generation which is sitting at a buffet.

Unless WotC decides to intentionally circle back and try to repeat the paradigm of 3.x, I don't see it happeneing. Even if they had the self-awareness (not impossible), this would require the newer safer actually mostly planned out style to fail. Maybe a decade from now when PF has gone cold, if no one else has successfully done it, and if the better designed products are failing, I could see them intentionally doing a regressive flail. Otherwise, nope. And the current strategy seem to be focusing on actual adventure content rather than mechanical expansion, so they won't need to do an edition wipe until people stop buying new adventures, and even then it will probably be a much smaller increment- to shake things up and drum up re-launch hype rather than re-invent the wheel.

[Crake]

Sensing danger means I'm not having fun. Instead, I'm worrying about the game ending and all the character development to this point being wasted.

I mean, some people have greater satisfaction and enjoyment from knowing that it could all come to an end from making poor decisions, and sure, it may feel "wasted" to you, but to others, it instead becomes a tragic tale to be told by the campfire, and added to the history of the campaign setting.

As an aside though, in a narrative-based game, even a TPK doesn't have to necessarily spell the end of a campaign, that's what faustian pacts are for after all.

[Seto]

If I'm feeling a sense of danger in a dungeon, it's probably because a TPK is imminent -- my sense of what an appropriate challenge for a party should be is finely tuned.. Sensing danger means I'm not having fun. Instead, I'm worrying about the game ending and all the character development to this point being wasted. Instead, I wish GMs would focus more on making the game fun and interesting. Allow for more character development, allow PCs to make big changes to the world and have agency, allow for the story to move forward. I have no interest in feeling any sense of danger, and I put a lot of work into character creation to avoid that feeling. Oh, and I avoid watching horror movies for similar reasons.

Okay. Then we have different expectations of what we want out of a game, or more specifically, what we want out of the combat minigame in the larger narrative that is the roleplaying game.
I respect your self-awareness in knowing what you want. I'm just saying that you're more likely to get what you want by expressing that desire to the GM out of game, than by trying to force their hand with optimization. Let's imagine for a minute that I'm your GM. I have that principle I stated above where I want the players to feel danger. And it's not just for my own enjoyment, but for theirs too: my players have outright told me sometimes that they want fights to be harder and that the best feeling is triumphing by the skin of their teeth. So if you tried to optimize yourself out of danger at my table, I'd either try and match you by just making challenges harder (thinking "meh, they're optimized, they can handle it") - or, if that solution is not open to me, then I'd find other ways to place obstacles in your PC's path, so that your success is uncertain and feels more earned when you do reach it. Either way, I'd see it as a problem, it would make me unsatisfied with the game, and I'd spend time and effort trying to "solve" what I see as a problem.
If you came to me instead and stated your preferences? Then I'd understand you better and be willing to work with you to accommodate your style.
I think NichG's above advice is good stuff.

[satorian]

Just dropping in to say Madwand isn't alone in their view of danger, so long as not all challenge equals danger. But yeah, I play for the adventure, heroism and story, with a little reasonable level of threat thrown in. When friends run Ravenloft or Call of Cthulu or Tomb of Horrors type things, I sit it out. There's enough despair in real life.

TPKs do happen by chance in the kinds of game I enjoy, but very rarely. But when I lose a character, it's a chance to make a new hero with a new story. It's rare I'd have a character accept resurrection, let alone sign a Faustian pact. 3.x doesn't make death final, but I do. It helps me invest in role play.

I suppose if I really wanted to play in a game, and the only game available had a killer DM, I'd just show up with characters named "Fighter Frank," "Charlie Cleric," and "Wizard Willy" and invest nothing in them emotionally or backstory-wise.

[Zanos]

I think there's a (dis?)comfort zone between constant imminent death and never feeling like you're in danger. If every trap is a save vs death(LotFP says hi), then I'm not really having fun. If I play my character intelligently and navigate the dungeon with reasonable precautions against what I could expect from a setting perspective, I should have a very good chance of success and an extremely high chance of not dying.

[Crake]

I suppose if I really wanted to play in a game, and the only game available had a killer DM, I'd just show up with characters named "Fighter Frank," "Charlie Cleric," and "Wizard Willy" and invest nothing in them emotionally or backstory-wise.

This is kinda the thing though, with how mainstream RPGs have become now, there's very little stopping you from finding a plethora of DMs who can match the play style you want to play in, wheras during 3.5's development cycle, you likely had the one group of friends, and probably that one guy who liked DMing, and that was your only option.

Being able to pick and choose tables (virtual or otherwise) that suit your playstyle means that you don't need to optimize to your playstyle at all, just find a DM who's willing to empower your characters in the way you want.

[Quertus]

I think with the shift away from competitive, GM vs Players style games, to a stronger focus on cooperative story telling, and roleplaying games entering the mainstream, meaning that, if you don't like a table's particular playstyle, it's easier than ever to find a table that does, optimization is fast becoming an obsolete skill. Optimization has always come as a means of player empowerment, but with a shift toward a more cooperative style of games, you don't need to do such things, as the DMs are more willing than ever to empower the players for the sake of the narrative.

I'm a bit confused. Afaict, "Railroading" is both firmly in the "story" camp and firmly outside the "player agency" camp. So why would you view an increase in story focus to inherently involve an increase in player agency? :smallconfused:


The 3.5 optimization culture was most likely unique, or at least highly unusual in the RPG community. It was also honestly based on the system's flaws as much as it was on its virtues and features. I wouldn't count on it appearing again.

I definitely need to remember this for the theoretical day when I create my "why 3e balance is perfect" thread.


Same, there's just so much 3.5/PF content. Even without PF content I constantly find new tricks even for the classes I've played the most of. 5+ years on this forum and thousands of posts and I still don't know all the tricks for my favorite class, Wizard. And I've found a couple of 'undiscovered' ones myself.

Iirc, when I said that I was aware of 5 or 6 builds that could reliably kill 100+ foes per round, the Playground was stumped, and unable to produce even 1.

Yeah, there's lots of builds still out there to be discovered.


Am I doing you a disservice in summarizing this as “I like systems with a broad enough optimization range that I can define my narrative agency in advance with the GM rather than leaving it up to the GM’s whimsy in the moment.” ?


Mostly, except perhaps without the "with the GM" part. The assumption here is that the GM may be in an almost antagonistic relationship with the player. In my experience, GMs often don't want to have the player have agency, or don't care about the player or their PC. My goal is to somehow make a PC I can enjoy anyway, despite this resistance or indifference. It's not that I want to disrupt the game, I just want it to be fun, and I can't have fun unless it is possible for me to make choices that matter. The power to do that comes from optimizing during character creation and the gameplay itself.


I don't understand how this could work. No matter how powerful and optimized a character is, a GM is omnipotent. If the GM doesn't want your character to have any agency I don't see how it being more powerful would help.

Also, it sounds like you have played with some (in my opinion) bad GMs if being antagonistic and uncaring is the default.


I can't really condone optimization as a method for seizing metagame agency against the wishes or expectations of others at the table (GM or players), because even defensive arms races can create problems when they end up being specifically by the arms race logic. That should be handled by open discussion, not bringing in mechanical surprises. If you hate character death then say that, and I'll be happy to run a campaign where it explicitly can't happen. If random failures make it hard to feel epic and that's what you want out of game then say that, and I'll find or make a 'degrees of success' system or a 'pay resources to buy success' system or even just have a reroll/roll augmentation thing like drama dice rather than just using a pass/fail mechanic.

On the other hand, I do find optimization to make for fun gameplay as long as it's being done as part of playing the game, and when the campaign is structured to assume that optimization can happen and be tolerant of that.

Lets say the GM says: this is the world, it has things that vary in power by 5 orders of magnitude in it, and you all optimizing is telling me the scale of things you'd like to be involved in, and I will give out help and exclusive homebrewed broken stuff to players who fall behind the peak power level. If the optimizer has no problem with challenges and other players being scaled to their optimization level, I think that's fine and healthy for the game. If they insist that others should be weaker because they didn't figure out a legit trick, I'm going to have a problem with that player.

All that said, I basically systems or variants on a per-campaign basis to create new optimization puzzles for those players for whom that's the fun of things. That tends to keep things fresh since optimizing E6 or 'you can buy levels, class abilities, attribute scores, and feats directly with XP' or 'heres a new sysyem where rolls are replaced with bidding from defensive pools' and so on require different mindsets. To make it good optimization fodder, I try to make things modular and cross referential with enough abstraction for there to be surprises:an item that increases the numerical +X buff from one other source to X+1, etc kinds of things. If X is a bonus to a roll, no big deal; if X is the number of attacks per round auto dodged, interesting. If X is a multiplier on some other bonus...


Okay. Then we have different expectations of what we want out of a game, or more specifically, what we want out of the combat minigame in the larger narrative that is the roleplaying game.
I respect your self-awareness in knowing what you want. I'm just saying that you're more likely to get what you want by expressing that desire to the GM out of game, than by trying to force their hand with optimization. Let's imagine for a minute that I'm your GM. I have that principle I stated above where I want the players to feel danger. And it's not just for my own enjoyment, but for theirs too: my players have outright told me sometimes that they want fights to be harder and that the best feeling is triumphing by the skin of their teeth. So if you tried to optimize yourself out of danger at my table, I'd either try and match you by just making challenges harder (thinking "meh, they're optimized, they can handle it") - or, if that solution is not open to me, then I'd find other ways to place obstacles in your PC's path, so that your success is uncertain and feels more earned when you do reach it. Either way, I'd see it as a problem, it would make me unsatisfied with the game, and I'd spend time and effort trying to "solve" what I see as a problem.
If you came to me instead and stated your preferences? Then I'd understand you better and be willing to work with you to accommodate your style.
I think NichG's above advice is good stuff.

As a GM, I'm "Boccob the Uncaring".

As a player, that's the kind of GM I want.

I design my characters to make it as obvious as possible when the GM is not living up to my expectations. When they are obviously tailoring content to challenge my strengths (or to "challenge" my weaknesses).

Getting a GM to say, "yeah, i railroad" or "yeah, I'm an illusionist"? Not likely to happen. Instead, I give them enough rope to hang themselves / to trip them up.

Kinda like all those Fighters who claim that they can only get to know someone by crossing blades / comparing martial arts in combat.

I love talking to people. I prefer to solve things this way. But, IME, "player agency" just isn't the kind of issue that can be solved so directly with the (admittedly, often terrible) GMs I've had.

"Show, don't tell" is a classic writing admonition. Similarly, IME, it works best to *show* GMs what you're talking about, to facilitate a more productive conversation.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Crake
This is kinda the thing though, with how mainstream RPGs have become now, there's very little stopping you from finding a plethora of DMs who can match the play style you want to play in....

This is probably overoptimistic for most players. I'm in a fairly large area, but I've never had a "plethora" of DMs, and I've certainly never been able to pick and choose DMs based on playstyle. I doubt if too many people have easy access to the bounty that you're describing.

[Quertus]

This is probably overoptimistic for most players. I'm in a fairly large area, but I've never had a "plethora" of DMs, and I've certainly never been able to pick and choose DMs based on playstyle. I doubt if too many people have easy access to the bounty that you're describing.

I certainly could have back in the 2e days (instead, I tried to play with them all, to maximize my RPG "experience").

Anecdotally, it's felt to me like the game has been waning since the 2e heyday.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Quertus
Anecdotally, it's felt to me like the game has been waning since the 2e heyday.

Really? You've never mentioned this. Not once. It's never come up.

:smalltongue:

[Quertus]

Really? You've never mentioned this. Not once. It's never come up.

:smalltongue:

That text was supposed to be blue, right? :smallwink:

Although, really, this is substantively different from what I usually say (I think - darn senility).

Usually, I'm talking about how I *like* 2e better, or how the rules or gameplay were better. But, here, I'm taking about market saturation - how it felt like many more people were playing 2e than later editions.

[icefractal]

Re: Play Styles. Obviously YMMV, and this is probably less the case for PbP games, but -
Personally speaking, most of my RPGing is done with existing friends (many of which I met via gaming). The primary factor is "playing something with these particular people", not "playing this particular thing with some people".

So IME, being able to adjust for different campaign styles is useful, because "just find one that's an exact match for your preferred style" is usually not applicable.

[Crake]

This is probably overoptimistic for most players. I'm in a fairly large area, but I've never had a "plethora" of DMs, and I've certainly never been able to pick and choose DMs based on playstyle. I doubt if too many people have easy access to the bounty that you're describing.

Online games are available to anyone, the only issue becomes timezone constraints, but time zones are PRETTY huge, so you should have a rather large available pool of DMs to choose from.


I'm a bit confused. Afaict, "Railroading" is both firmly in the "story" camp and firmly outside the "player agency" camp. So why would you view an increase in story focus to inherently involve an increase in player agency? :smallconfused:

I'm also a bit confused, railroading isn't the only kind of story based games either, so that's a rather disengenuous statement. Some people also prefer more railroaded experiences, but if you don't... you can just find another DM, as above.

[Zanos]

Online games are available to anyone, the only issue becomes timezone constraints, but time zones are PRETTY huge, so you should have a rather large available pool of DMs to choose from.
Eh, I think the pool of 3.5 specific games is shrinking massively, even online. Not to say that you can't find a good one if you try, but it's much harder than it was even a few years ago.

[Crake]

Eh, I think the pool of 3.5 specific games is shrinking massively, even online. Not to say that you can't find a good one if you try, but it's much harder than it was even a few years ago.

I was more referring to the general trend of RPGs, not 3.5 specifically, as part of the reason why games like 5e don't have optimization cultures.

[Quertus]

I'm also a bit confused, railroading isn't the only kind of story based games either, so that's a rather disengenuous statement.

… let's try that again.

IME, the primary nemesis of Player Agency is Railroading.

Railroading lies firmly in the "story" camp.

So, why would an increase in story thinking result in an increase in Player Agency?

I feel like, if water were the bane of witches, I'd just been told that witches would be safer now due to the increase in liquids in the world. :smallconfused: :smallamused:

Sure, not all liquid are water, but all "water" is liquid. (Because, if it's not liquid, it's "steam" or "ice", not "water").

So, again, not all story is railroad, but all railroad is story. So why would one expect an increase in the size of player agency's nemesis's home to be a win for player agency?

[Batcathat]

Railroading lies firmly in the "story" camp.

I'm not sure this assumption is accurate. Sure, railroading can be used by a GM in order to tell the story they want to tell but it can also be used to shove the party from battle to battle without a story in sight.

[NichG]

… let's try that again.

IME, the primary nemesis of Player Agency is Railroading.

Railroading lies firmly in the "story" camp.

So, why would an increase in story thinking result in an increase in Player Agency?

I feel like, if water were the bane of witches, I'd just been told that witches would be safer now due to the increase in liquids in the world. :smallconfused: :smallamused:

Sure, not all liquid are water, but all "water" is liquid. (Because, if it's not liquid, it's "steam" or "ice", not "water").

So, again, not all story is railroad, but all railroad is story. So why would one expect an increase in the size of player agency's nemesis's home to be a win for player agency?

There's a difference between a story-focused DM and a story-focused game though. Story-focused game design often builds in ways to explicitly allow the players to have responsibility for certain parts of the story, which directly increases player agency. Basically, the DM can always railroad the players regardless of what kind of system it is, but in a story-based game system the players also have tools to let them railroad the DM.

[Azuresun]

Mostly, except perhaps without the "with the GM" part. The assumption here is that the GM may be in an almost antagonistic relationship with the player. In my experience, GMs often don't want to have the player have agency, or don't care about the player or their PC. My goal is to somehow make a PC I can enjoy anyway, despite this resistance or indifference. It's not that I want to disrupt the game, I just want it to be fun, and I can't have fun unless it is possible for me to make choices that matter. The power to do that comes from optimizing during character creation and the gameplay itself.

This sounds kind of tragic to me, and speaks of a lack of trust. You talked to the GM about this....right?

I'd hope that players in a game I run would talk to me if they're not feeling that they're getting to be cool or that they don't like character death, before trying to "GM-proof" their characters and reduce the degree to which the story or an enemy could possibly affect them.

[Crake]

… let's try that again.

IME, the primary nemesis of Player Agency is Railroading.

Railroading lies firmly in the "story" camp.

So, why would an increase in story thinking result in an increase in Player Agency?

I feel like, if water were the bane of witches, I'd just been told that witches would be safer now due to the increase in liquids in the world. :smallconfused: :smallamused:

Sure, not all liquid are water, but all "water" is liquid. (Because, if it's not liquid, it's "steam" or "ice", not "water").

So, again, not all story is railroad, but all railroad is story. So why would one expect an increase in the size of player agency's nemesis's home to be a win for player agency?

The fault in your logic lays in the All As are Bs, but not Bs are As fallacy. Just because railroading is a story-based mechanism, does not mean all story based games will be railroaded.

[Madwand99]

This sounds kind of tragic to me, and speaks of a lack of trust. You talked to the GM about this....right?

I'd hope that players in a game I run would talk to me if they're not feeling that they're getting to be cool or that they don't like character death, before trying to "GM-proof" their characters and reduce the degree to which the story or an enemy could possibly affect them.

It is somewhat tragic, and it is true that I lack trust... initially. After I've played with a GM a while, I learn whether they can be trusted or not (and I relax considerably if they can). Unfortunately, this lack of trust comes from experience. The vast majority of GMs are not trustworthy. In my experience, most GMs have hidden agendas that influence their decision making. Something like "make combat challenging" is one of the most common and benign, but any hidden agenda creates a problem for me. I have a lot of experience spotting these hidden biases and GM desires, and each time, it reinforces my lack of trust and keeps me from suspending my disbelief. SoD is incredibly important to me.

I do talk to GMs if and when it becomes apparent that doing so would be useful. Unfortunately, the majority of GMs are not good at taking feedback or improving due to feedback. A good sign is if a GM asks for feedback, until then I might keep any feedback rather low-key until I get a feel for how the GM responds to constructive criticism.

Note that I would never ask a GM to give me "crowning moments of awesome (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/SugarWiki/MomentOfAwesome)" (even though I love them) or to limit character death (even though I hate PC death). These kinds of asks create bias in a GM, and bias is bad. I want the "Boccob the Uncaring" GM mentioned earlier, who is merely an arbiter of events, a simulationist (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNS_theory) who just creates a world that makes sense and in which awesome moments can arise naturally, and in which death is naturally rare. This is one of the reasons I recommended Mutants and Masterminds earlier, as it is a game that makes these things easy while allowing an optimizer free reign to design their character concept.

[PhantasyPen]

FATE I looked up and could barely even find rules for it. The only rule I did find was a hard ceiling on skills which is definitely in the wrong direction

Skills get a hard-cap in FATE because you can stack bonuses infinitely, and the system encourages it.

[Seto]

[...]In my experience, most GMs have hidden agendas that influence their decision making. Something like "make combat challenging" is one of the most common and benign, but any hidden agenda creates a problem for me. I have a lot of experience spotting these hidden biases and GM desires, and each time, it reinforces my lack of trust and keeps me from suspending my disbelief. SoD is incredibly important to me.

[...]These kinds of asks create bias in a GM, and bias is bad. I want the "Boccob the Uncaring" GM mentioned earlier, who is merely an arbiter of events, a simulationist (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNS_theory) who just creates a world that makes sense and in which awesome moments can arise naturally, and in which death is naturally rare. This is one of the reasons I recommended Mutants and Masterminds earlier, as it is a game that makes these things easy while allowing an optimizer free reign to design their character concept.

"Unbiased" doesn't exist, just like there's no truly neutral way for journalist to report on news. A game is not a machine, and neither is a GM. They're also players at the table - albeit with a different role -, and they're also trying to enjoy themselves. For some of them, that might mean trying for neutral, unbiased arbitration; but that IS in itself a "bias", or rather an approach to the game. And kind of a counterintuitive one at that, given that part of the GM's "job" is to make a game that the players will enjoy, which runs counter to being truly "uncaring". That's even truer if they create the game world; you might try to neutrally run a written module, not modifying anything and sticking as close as possible to the book. Sticking to the rules as well, not fudging dice, not tailoring encounters to your players, okay. But if you design the encounters yourself? What does "simulationism" even mean? What are you simulating, if not a world that you created, and that is sure to carry the mark of your own preferences?



Skills get a hard-cap in FATE because you can stack bonuses infinitely, and the system encourages it.
Basically, yeah. The best way to topple a tough enemy with better stats than yours is to Create Advantage, Create Advantage, etc., until one party member leverages all of those advantages in one single devastating action. I still wouldn't say it's a good system for optimizers. There's definitely an optimal way to play, but not so for character creation. For those who like minmaxing a character and choosing for a plethora of obscure options to make a concept the best it can be, FATE can disappoint. It's all about being inventive at the table, not before.

[Madwand99]

"Unbiased" doesn't exist, just like there's no truly neutral way for journalist to report on news. A game is not a machine, and neither is a GM. They're also players at the table - albeit with a different role -, and they're also trying to enjoy themselves. For some of them, that might mean trying for neutral, unbiased arbitration; but that IS in itself a "bias", or rather an approach to the game. And kind of a counterintuitive one at that, given that part of the GM's "job" is to make a game that the players will enjoy, which runs counter to being truly "uncaring".

You can say "unbiased" doesn't exist, and I would completely disagree, for any reasonable definition of "bias". Calling any approach to the game a bias is disingenuous. I know when I GM, I enter a zen-like state in which I don't really care about the outcome of the game. I am unbiased. This has caused one near-TPK when my players got complacent, and I felt nothing slaughtering their overconfident PCs. I am a neutral arbiter of the rules and the world, and I expect the same of my GM. This is why I optimize... to survive a GM who doesn't care about my PC's survival. It's what I expect and what I want from a GM.


That's even truer if they create the game world; you might try to neutrally run a written module, not modifying anything and sticking as close as possible to the book. Sticking to the rules as well, not fudging dice, not tailoring encounters to your players, okay. But if you design the encounters yourself? What does "simulationism" even mean? What are you simulating, if not a world that you created, and that is sure to carry the mark of your own preferences?

I agree it's harder to be unbiased when playing a custom campaign. The more customization, the harder it is to be unbiased. This is why I really prefer modules, as it is much easier to simulate an environment you didn't have a hand in creating without getting emotional about the story that unfolds. Living Greyhawk was the epitome of this kind of gameplay, as the GMs never cared what happened to me. I loved it, and I was so sad when it ended.

Simulationism is defined in the link I provided above. It has nothing to do with being a world designer or module creator, though it can really help write more compelling and realistic campaigns or modules. Simulationism -- as a GM -- is just the process of taking all known facts about the world and the actions of your players and doing your best to answer "what would happen here"? This answer would often not care about fun or story, just what makes the most sense.

I totally understand why you might have a hard time understanding any of the points I'm making here. I understand why it may be a foreign concept to consider an unbiased GM, or a world that only cares about making sense, not "fun" or a good story. These are very strange concepts for someone who doesn't care about suspension of disbelief as much as I do, but if you do, it makes all the difference.

[Seto]

I see. Once again, I can't help but conclude that we have markedly different preferences and habits. I want you to know that I am very much enjoying our civil debate. It's nice to be able to exchange with someone who's willing to take time to explain their point of view. So if I'm replying here, it's not because I'm trying to "win" anything or prove a point, I just like the discussion.

I think I understand what you mean a little bit better, and it makes sense that you prefer modules. Let me explain where I'm coming from and why, even though I value simulationism as you describe it to some extent, my outlook isn't the same. See, as a GM, I mostly create my own content. It's more work, but I enjoy it. And so when I balk at the idea of being a neutral, unbiased arbiter, it's not just out of emotional attachment for a story - indeed, I pride myself on following through with player's choices, even if they run counter to what I had foreseen - it's because I have little to base a simulation on, except what I put there myself. You say the simulationist makes decisions according to their knowledge of the world + the player's actions. I agree that's how it happens during the session, but when the world is one I created, everything results from the choices I made at one point. I can very well say: "the red dragon eats your level 1 PCs, because it's what he would do in that situation. I just played the world realistically. You shouldn't have wandered into his lair". But I'm responsible for choosing to put a dragon's lair there in the first place, which is kind of a **** move if I know there's a good chance the PCs will enter it. Denying that responsibility is the same as being the player who brings a disruptive character and says "I'm just playing what my character would do". Sure, buddy, but maybe you should have thought harder about it when you were building the character?
Besides, whether you're playing a module or your own homebrew adventure, it's impossible to predefine everything and plan for everything. The players will, very often, ask you about or interact with a part of the setting that you're less sure about, and you're gonna have to make up answers on the spot. Answers that could really go either way, without a definite realistic answer. "Hey, where did the prince get his boots made? Can we go inspect the shoemaker's house?" (Of course, you have no idea who the shoemaker is, but players will be players, so you improvise something). Simulationism can give you part of the answer (the shoemaker will be Human, and rich since they're the Prince's own shoemaker), but not everything (possessions? alignment? does the shoemaker actually have interesting things to say about the prince?) And then, you have to either randomize the answer, or step out of the simulation and design your answer according to some other concern.

So, while at the table, even though I don't take it as far as you do, I run with a certain degree of simulationism. When I say I don't take it as far as you do, I mean that simulation is certainly not my only concern: I try to manage the rhythm and flow of the session, create story beats if possible, and when faced with several equally likely possibilities, I choose the one that I think leads to a more epic story. But simulating a real, coherent world is also an important thing to me. I let the dice fall where they may, and I try to present the players with the most logical consequences for their decisions. In fact, I'd argue that it is absolutely necessary to player agency. Without that, the player's choices ultimately don't matter.
That's when I'm running the session, according to the knowledge of the world I have. But beforehand, when I'm creating the world and preparing the adventure, simulation has no place. Then, I'm trying to design things that I think will be fun, and that the players will enjoy. That means: developed NPCs and locations, encounters with an appropriate level of challenge (because I know my players), cool story hooks, and possible scenes that will give each PC some of the spotlight.

TLDR: Even for a GM who prioritizes simulation, it can't be the only thing that defines their whole approach to the game. It's not enough to answer every situation.

[Madwand99]

Fair enough. I think I'd enjoy your games. I think we agree on most things, but I will make some points on the side: first, as to your point that the GM has to be somewhat biased while creating the world and story outside the session, I agree, and this is to some extent acceptable. I prefer pre-created worlds that have enough detail such that the GM doesn't have to make up many things during the session (I love Harn and Kingdoms of Kalamar for their great maps and atlases). I understand that there has to be *some* making things up during the session no matter what, and I think you have described a good balanced approach for doing so.

As to your red dragon example, I take your point, but I feel I must nitpick the example itself. In the case of a red dragon, signs of the creatures existence are likely easy for the players to find. Villagers they meet might describe it, they might find scorch marks, claw marks, scales, or even see it flying in the distance. In such cases, this forewarning should provide all they need to decide to venture into that cave or not. Powerful creatures usually -- though not always -- have some warning of their existence in the world. I think it is quite reasonable for a GM to scatter such creatures -- and the stories and signs of their existence -- throughout the world, both to serve as interesting worldbuilding and a warning to players not to get complacent and stay aware of the dangers. And perhaps, as future session fodder.