Why use D&D for a Simulationist style Game?

[BryonD]

I would never consider "D&D" as a criteria. So, I guess the question doesn't apply to me.

As a kid I loved 1E and, early on, 2E. Then I started to become dissatisfied. And I also discovered other games, primarily GURPS, but not limited to just GURPS.
I wanted much better sim AND I wanted much lower fantasy. 2E was highly unsatisfactory, to me, at either of those criteria.

As the years went by, my desire for low fantasy drifted back to higher fantasy. And around the same time a game came out that was a "great enough" (*for me*) sim of HIGH fantasy and it just happened to also be the 3rd edition of D&D. I had long been more than happy with my status as a non-D&D player, so the D&D name was truly a insignificant coincidence.

I really find the "one true wayism" and "if it doesn't happen at my table, it doesn't happen anywhere" criteria for what makes something great at a matter of taste to be highly counter-productive.

 

[Celebrim]

Back in the day, say circa 1990, I was certain that imbalance and failure to properly judge player proposition, where features of a game that where primarily the result of its low realism - that is to say, that they didn't simulate reality with its complex give and take and checks and balances faithfully enough. I figured that the basis of a game was reality plus stated consistent departures from same as described consistently by the rules. Otherwise, players wouldn't know what to do, and rules wouldn't produce answers that made for a predictable outcome for anyone.

So I started running GURPS. Only to my annoyance, GURPS was doing absolutely no better in play than D&D. So I decided that I needed to fix GURPS, and to my great delight I found that there was a guy out there who had done exactly that. He'd created a system he called GULLIVER based on GURPS and various house rule fixes he'd applied to the GURPS 3e system (much of which ended up being official in GURPS 4e).

But then I discovered a the limits of my theory. While the GULLIVER system was awesome in many ways and fixed a lot of problems, it created a game which was basically too complex to prepare, run, or play. It caused me to step back and reassess my priorities and assumptions. What I eventually decided was that a system didn't need to be faithful to reality. All a system really did for you was generate a fortune - '56% chance of X/44% chance of Y'. A good system needed to generate that fortune quickly (so that it was playable) and transparently (so that the GM could tweak for circumstance), and all it had to do in terms of realism was be believable and broadly applicable. In the process I went back and reassessed the design of 1e D&D and discovered there was more going on than I'd thought.

I felt that 3e D&D offered for me a good balance between my various goals, which largely still remains, "I want a game that produces self-consistent consequences from the actions of all beings within the shared imaginary space."

I'm not sure I wholly believe that a system is 'simulationist', or 'gamist', or 'narrativist'. While it can certainly lean that way and encourage those things, fundamentally if you look at the definitions it's clear that those things have less to do with system than they do with a way of approaching and thinking about play.

For example: "Process-sim is a style of gaming in which you focus on the "how" of what your characters are doing and the realistic/self-consistent consequences thereof." You can take the tools of any system and use them to that purpose. All you are doing is judging roughly what you think the realistic fortune is based on the player proposition. It's a stance; not a system.

"'simulationism' treats the rules of a game as if they were an accurate simulation, and explores what those de-facto laws of physics imply about the world and its denizens." - Again, it's a stance; not a system.

"Genre fidelity or genre emulation is an attempt to simulate a genre (like fantasy, in an FRPG) or genre conventions, rather than simulate any actual (or even imagined), consistent, 'reality.'" - Again, that's a stance; not a system.

I don't think it's any weirder to treat D&D generally as a good basis of simulationist play than it is to treat 4e (or any other edition) as a good basis of narrativist play.

 

[Emerikol]

Been reading the The Ranger You got spell casting in my peanut butter! thead and the following quote really caught my eye:



And, I have to admit, despite all the hoopla over the past few years, I really don't get it. I love sim style games. I do. GURPS is a favourite game of mine that I don't get to play anywhere nearly often enough. But, where does this idea that D&D is a good fit for sim style play come from? In 2001, if you had claimed that you self identified as a sim player and your go to game for that style was D&D, everyone would look at you like you had two heads.

When did D&D become the poster child for sim play? D&D has always been primarily gamist in most of its approaches. The mechanics have virtually always been, "What makes this a fun game" rather than, "How can we model this through mechanics"? This is why we have a combat system that is entirely abstract. We use Hit Points rather than any number of systems model physical damage far better. We have dungeons that make virtually no sense and game worlds that barely pay lip service to the massive impact that the mechanics would have if the mechanics were actually applied to world building.

So, I ask you, why D&D? If you like sim style play where the mechanics are making a statement about the game world, then why on Earth would you choose to play D&D?

I can only claim one of two things. Either you really don't know what sim is per the GNS definition or I don't know what it is per the GNS definition.

D&D until 4e worked fantastic for my style of play. 3e got too heavy at the end and magic mart of too far. Still overall D&D fit my playstyle like a glove from beginning to 4e. 4e totally rejected my style and went off in another direction. Now all of this paragraph is absolute fact. What you want to call it is up to you? I've called it sim but maybe I'm using the wrong term.

I reject all of these supposed desires that us sim players supposedly want. (I haven't met a sim espousing person though actually say they wanted these things just the anti-sim people).

1. Wound system. Lingering injuries. Etc. NO. We just want basic D&D hit points.
2. Hit location, complex plotting of combat manuevers, or anything like it. NO we just want a simple fighter. Attack, hit damage.
3. Excessively complicated tables, rules, etc... for any aspect of reality. NO. We would like some easy to use ad hoc rules that give the feel of reality in play.

D&D was great until it wasn't. So you figure me out. I'm tired of arguing about sim because nobody really seems to grasp what it really means. If you think it is about "simulating" a world realistically then you are so far out in left field that you are no longer even in the stadium.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I can only claim one of two things. Either you really don't know what sim is per the GNS definition or I don't know what it is per the GNS definition.

Or neither of you understand it. Or it's just so murky and useless a definition that it's of no value in the discussion. Or, since he didn't actually reference GNS, maybe he's not even using that definition.

But, if you self-identify as a sim-only player, maybe you could address the actual question. What about D&D makes it good for sim? Have you tried other, non-D&D systems? What made them less suited to your brand of it?

I reject all of these supposed desires that us sim players supposedly want.
1. Wound system. Lingering injuries. Etc. NO. We just want basic D&D hit points.

What about 'basic D&D hps' is sim? EGG wrote a treatise on what hps represented in the DMG that made them pretty vague and abstract. What about wound systems or lingering injuries isn't? Lingering injuries, for instance, are realistic (injuries take time to heal and can be debilitating), without them how do you model things like broken bones? Wound systems - breaking out physical wounds from temporary damage or exhaustion or morale, is, I assume what we're talking about - would add to the range of dangers you could more realistically model.

2. Hit location, complex plotting of combat manuevers, or anything like it. NO we just want a simple fighter. Attack, hit damage.

OK, what about a simple /fighter/ is sim? What about a complex one is contrary to sim? Why does this matter only to fighters and not to rogues, wizards, monks, paladins, assassins, warlocks, or other classes?

3. Excessively complicated tables, rules, etc... for any aspect of reality. NO. We would like some easy to use ad hoc rules that give the feel of reality in play.

The rules reality works by are really pretty complicated. What's the nature and threshold for this 'feel' how does D&D, with it's many profound abstractions and very unrealistic bits deliver that feel? What has the feel of reality even got to do with fantasy, which is very un-real, indeed?

I'm tired of arguing about sim because nobody really seems to grasp what it really means. If you think it is about "simulating" a world realistically then you are so far out in left field that you are no longer even in the stadium.

You just said you at least wanted a 'feel of reality.' Seems related. If sim has nothing to do with simulation, why call it sim? Is it short for something else?


Edit: Also, as an aside, we might have a shot at avoiding a threadlock if we leave edition warring out of it. The issue is sim players choosing D&D of any ed, not rejecting one edition of it. You clearly identify as a sim player. You /should/ be able to explain both your idea of sim, and how D&D, even D&D of only one edition, works well for that. If you must contrast D&D to something less amenable to sim, how about contrasting it with some of the other games you've tried?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

The short answer is that D&D was a) internally consistent, and b) not caught up on details.

The major problem with something like GURPS is that it does get caught up on the details, to the point where actually resolving anything took more effort than it was worth. The details aren't that important, though. As long as a game gives you a consistent answer whenever you look at it, the actually accuracy (compared to real-world outcome) isn't that important (to me, at least, and presumably others).

I don't want to play GURPS as a sim, because there's too much sim to deal with; it's hard to play GURPS as a sim. To contrast, it's easy to play D&D as a sim, because it only has a few touchstones to keep track of.

It's kind of like using a grid to track positions in AD&D, before any of the expanded combat rules that really made positioning important. Because there wasn't pushing and pulling, or flanking, you only needed to know rough relative positions - and the grid was great for that. You could easily solve all of the questions that came up (usually involving line of sight, or cover), specifically because it wasn't a tactical combat ruleset that required specific detailed positioning.

 

[Tony Vargas]

That's interesting, Saelorn. It sounds like you're saying that lack of rules is the critical element. What if you had no rules at all? Or a very simple, but consistent rule - like the way LARPs sometimes default to draughts as resolution mechanic, or a simple coin toss to resolve a disputed outcome?

(Oh, and there were certainly things like pushing & pulling in AD&D - there was a spell /called/ Push, for instance, that did nothing else but push, and monsters like Ropers could certainly pull you - and I'm sure that's not nearly the only examples. And there was a definition for 'flank' (and front and back) position relative to a figure & facing, IIRC, had some bearing on shield use, was it?)

 

[Ratskinner]

The short answer is that D&D was a) internally consistent, and b) not caught up on details.

The major problem with something like GURPS is that it does get caught up on the details, to the point where actually resolving anything took more effort than it was worth. The details aren't that important, though. As long as a game gives you a consistent answer whenever you look at it, the actually accuracy (compared to real-world outcome) isn't that important (to me, at least, and presumably others).

That's a very interesting viewpoint. Could you elaborate on what you mean by "internally consistent"?

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

So, I ask you, why D&D? If you like sim style play where the mechanics are making a statement about the game world, then why on Earth would you choose to play D&D?

For a while I tried to treat 3.x as a sim, writing dozens of pages of house rules in the effort. And the only explanation I can give is that I didn't really know any better; D&D was the game I cut my rp teeth on, the only ttrpg I had ever really played, and the only one that everyone knew.

I still have a strong sim streak in me, but it's changed over the years. At some point it went from 'faux-medieval sim + magic' to 'through-and-through fantastical world sim,' which I think 4e can do fairly well. In other words, I now mold the simulation to the game rather than trying to mold the game to the simulation.

1. It depends on which edition you're talking about. 3.x was by far the most sim-like edition of D&D, for my money 4th was the least.

Oddly enough, I find 4e the easiest edition to treat as a fantasy-world sim. Case in point: The whole DoaM thing, which I can easily explain as "It's martial magic." Bam, problem solved!

Whereas the way that other editions treat AC ruins any sense of real sim for me. Outside of 4e, characters get better at dodging fireballs, but not at dodging swords! (No level-based AC bonus.) So all I can do is sigh and swallow the abstract and gamey definition of hit points being forced down my throat.

So different strokes, and all that.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

I reject all of these supposed desires that us sim players supposedly want. (I haven't met a sim espousing person though actually say they wanted these things just the anti-sim people).

1. Wound system. Lingering injuries. Etc. NO. We just want basic D&D hit points.
2. Hit location, complex plotting of combat manuevers, or anything like it. NO we just want a simple fighter. Attack, hit damage.

We should meet in person, so that you can say you've met someone who wants something more than hit points in a 'hard sim,' and I can say I've finally met someone who just wants to roll a d20 and damage.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

That's interesting, Saelorn. It sounds like you're saying that lack of rules is the critical element. What if you had no rules at all? Or a very simple, but consistent rule - like the way LARPs sometimes default to draughts as resolution mechanic, or a simple coin toss to resolve a disputed outcome?

That would certainly meet a minimal definition for internal consistency, although I'm not sure that it would be terribly interesting as a game. Believe it or not, I actually do care about the game aspect of it, even if I hold the sim aspect as a higher priority. It's all about striking the right balance.

That's a very interesting viewpoint. Could you elaborate on what you mean by "internally consistent"?

As I use the term, it means that the outcome of any action depends solely on what the action is (within the game world), and not how you choose to represent it (with game mechanics).

Practically speaking, it means that anything (monster, item, spell, etc) must have one true set of stats which accurately reflect what it is, to ensure that it has consistent interactions with everything else within the game world. You can't have a mechanical difference between two things​ unless it reflected an actual in-game difference between those things.