Why use D&D for a Simulationist style Game?

[BryonD]

I have to wonder why ... and [MENTION=957]BryonD[/MENTION] aren't taking you to task for the same thing. Unarmored characters are not rare at all IME. The wizard for one almost never has any armour on.

Because I'm not paying any attention to this thread?
But, Hussar, it is good to know that going forward I can presume you agree with every statement you don't personally smack down. It will make effective communication so much easier.....

 

[pemerton]

I honestly can't say, since I started with AD&D 2E, but that edition had an ogre deal damage "by weapon +6" -- to account for their 18/00 Strength score. Or they could do 1d10 if they were unarmed, for some reason.

This is quite different from OD&D and AD&D - which were Gygax's two editions!

 

[Hussar]

And also not entirely accurate either:

Ogres wielding weapons get a Strength bonus of +2 to hit; leaders have +3, chieftains have +4. Females fight as males but score only 2-8 points of damage and have a maximum of only 6 hit points per die. Young ogres fight as goblins.

Note, the +6 to damage with weapons is true. However, here we have a perfect example of monsters and PC's using different rules. If a monster has an 18/00 strength, why is he only getting a +2 to hit and not +3?

The fact that Saelorn talks about a Greataxe (which doesn't appear in 2e), I think shows that he's working from memory, rather than actually from the rules. Plus, his math seems very off, since a 5th level MU has a max HP of 20, and an average of 13 (well, 12.5) which means that an average 5th level MU has a pretty good chance of surviving a hit from our Ogre. A 15 Con (which is what was posited) makes this largely guaranteed as our 5th level MU now has 17 HP on average.

Never minding, of course, that our ogre would be using a club or battle axe for d6 or d8 damage. At best a two handed sword for d10. There wasn't anything bigger than that in 2e.

---------------

But this is all largely besides the point. The thing is, Saelorn is perfectly fine with interpreting damage that way. There's absolutely nothing preventing him from doing so. Which is my point. There's also nothing preventing me from interpreting it in a completely opposite manner. The mechanics are 100% silent on the issue. We simply don't know.

And that's the problem if you're trying to claim some sort of simulation model. Since the model doesn't preclude any interpretation, it's pretty useless as a model. I can say it's blunt force trauma or losing God Points, and nothing in the mechanics gainsays that.

 

[Hussar]

Because I'm not paying any attention to this thread?
But, Hussar, it is good to know that going forward I can presume you agree with every statement you don't personally smack down. It will make effective communication so much easier.....

Heh. You spent several posts taking me to task about something you thought I was saying that you thought was too broad. I've yet to see you do this to anyone else. I'm kind of wondering why you are so intent on what I say, but, completely ignore others doing the same thing. It's almost like you're arguing the poster and not the post.

 

[MichaelSomething]

Cause making a game really sim is hard...

http://www.polygon.com/2014/7/23/59...ush-your-cpu-because-creating-history-is-hard

With some basic rules and some DM elbow grease, D&D can get close enough to simulation for most peoples' taste (and for a fraction of the work that hard sim requires).

It's also easier to get people to play D&D and add sim elements then it is to get people to play a sim game...

 

[Dausuul]

I mostly hang out in the 5E forums, and didn't notice this thread until today. Since I'm the guy being quoted in the OP, I figure I should probably weigh in. I'll start by saying that I don't believe in simulationism.

And by that, I don't mean "I don't like simulationism" or "I don't think simulationism makes for a good game." I mean that I actually do not believe there is any such thing. More precisely, I think that "simulationism" is lumping together a whole lot of different goals one might pursue in an RPG--verisimilitude, immersion, historical accuracy, the narrative flowing naturally from the rules, high granularity in the rules--and treating them as a coherent agenda when they're nothing of the sort. Some people happen to value all those things, and you could call them "simulationists*," but you're not describing a distinct category of people, just picking the middle of a Venn diagram and slapping a label on it. I don't believe in gamism either, or narrativism, for much the same reasons.

So: With regard to my rant quoted in the OP, where am I coming from? Not "simulationism," certainly. I'd say my agenda is a combination of "immersion," "challenge," "verisimilitude," "ease of play," and "popularity." I want a game that is immersive, that allows me to "step into my character" and make decisions as my character would. I want a game that offers me (through my character) interesting choices, both tactical and personal. I want a game in which the fictional reality presented to me is a convincing facade, one that doesn't cause me to question what's going on during play**. I want a game where the mechanics are relatively light and I don't have to spend a lot of mental energy manipulating numbers. And finally, I want to be able to find other people to play it! D&D meets these requirements pretty well--not perfectly on any of them, but well enough on all that I don't feel the need to go through the time and effort of finding a game that meets them better and convincing my group to switch.

The question at issue was, "If you take ranger spells, and reskin them as non-magical abilities, does it matter that they have odd daily limits on their use?" I should first of all note that my rant suggests I care a lot more about this specific issue than I do; it's a nuisance, not a deal-breaker. It's been in D&D since days of yore, it's been bugging me that entire time, I live with it. But, I do object to many per-day abilities on immersion grounds. During play, I want to make decisions as my character would. If I am using a per-day ability, one of the factors weighing heavily in my decision-making is the knowledge that I only get limited use out of that ability per day--if I use it now, it may cost me a chance to use it later.

If my character has no such knowledge, that's a problem for me, because now I'm making decisions on the basis of out-of-character knowledge. My character doesn't have to know the exact numbers; when I play a barbarian, the barbarian doesn't have to know that she gets exactly 3 rages per day. (This is an acceptable concession for ease of play.) But she knows that raging is tiring and if she does it too much, she'll be too tired to do it again. I object to limits I can't easily explain in character.

[SIZE=-2]*Or possibly "narrativists," or maybe "gamists." My other problem with GNS is that the definitions of the words change radically depending on what hobbyhorse Ron Edwards is riding that day.

**The words "during play" are crucial here. I do not require that the rules be realistic; I only require that they don't make me stop and go "Huh?" in the heat of the game. I also don't mind making out-of-character decisions, like picking feats on level-up, when not at the table.[/SIZE]

 

[Sword of Spirit]

Just now saw this thread, and am reticent to jump into a giganta-thread without reading it, but since the topic is something I've thought a lot about I thought I'd give a (relatively) brief response to the general topic.

D&D has varied widely b edition in which playstyles it is best suited to support. I'm going to go further and say that D&D is unique in how much it has varied. I'm personally unaware of any other system that has had a complete switch from best supporting narrativist play to best supporting simulationist play (for example) due to an edition change. That's a huge part of the problem. D&D's supported playstyles has been a moving target by edition, and so you have people who see D&D so much differently than others do.

You don't, for instance, get people arguing that GURPS should be played in a narrativist manner, or Marvel Heroic Roleplaying should be viewed as a simulationist game, or Battletech is really best played if the GM takes the rules as loose guidelines and focuses on improvising. It's pretty simple to figure out what most systems are best able to support (which may actually be contrary to the intent of the designers! The field is still in its infancy and a high degree of design insight is a rare and elusive thing.)

So D&D suffers because it has run across the spectrum and has gamers seeing their version as the way D&D is supposed to be. It also has the issue of being egregiously incoherent in its design. Some systems are pretty far in one direction, and other systems pretty far into a different direction in a way that is incompatible. This leads to vast disagreement about the more "neutral" systems, based on your overall emphasized personal perspective on the game, colored by your own initial or defining experiences with anything that had the Dungeons & Dragons label on it.

Taking for granted that all editions of D&D are incoherent (some parts of the system support one playstyle, while others support another, and they all have some systems that best support each style) my estimation of the overall support for the various playstyles by edition follows.

OD&D: I can't comment much on OD&D--I have no direct experience.
BECMI: Primarily gamist.
AD&D 1e: Simulationism with a minor in gamism.
AD&D 2e: The focus was on simulationism, with a minor in both narrativism and gamism.
3e: A hybrid of simulationism and gamism.
4e: A hybrid of narrativism and gamism.
5e: Appears to major in incoherence, with minors in all three of the styles.

Now, you have to also realize that D&D has always been only moderate in any style. There has never been hard simulationism, strong narrativism, or finely-tuned gamism in any edition of D&D (with the possible exception of allowing 4e to claim finely-tuned gamism).

So no one has grounds to claim that D&D has been hard/strong on any of the spectrums. At the same time, claiming that D&D of a particular edition wasn't a particular style because it wasn't hard or strong in that style is a textbook strawman. Claims that D&D was simulationist or narrativist in edition X are only feasible when intepreted in meaning as saying this sort of thing: "3e D&D best supports a hybrid style of moderate simulationism and moderate gamism, while 4e best supports a hybrid style of moderate narrativism and moderate (though stronger) gamism."

Trying to play a game outside of its intended style is a recipe for frustration. Unfortunately, due to the nature of D&D's incoherence, it is almost guaranteed that you will face that frustration if you attempt to play it with any sort of coherence. If you play it in a more casual manner and don't think too much about it, you may be able to avoid that. In other words, D&D is a game that is hard to play seriously, but which many of us are seriously passionate about.

5e is particularly difficult, because it attempts to more or less consciously support all three styles, and ends up supporting none of them all that well (er...even less well than other editions, I mean). The good news about 5e though, is that you can often make a few house rules (or hopefully apply some modules when the DMG comes out) to add or remove components that will diminish the elements of the game that are most discordant to your personal playstyle, and leave you with (what I personally consider) the best cross-edition expression of the D&D experience.

So, a few thoughts.

 

[Neonchameleon]

OD&D: I can't comment much on OD&D--I have no direct experience.
BECMI: Primarily gamist.
AD&D 1e: Simulationism with a minor in gamism.
AD&D 2e: The focus was on simulationism, with a minor in both narrativism and gamism.
3e: A hybrid of simulationism and gamism.
4e: A hybrid of narrativism and gamism.
5e: Appears to major in incoherence, with minors in all three of the styles.

Now, you have to also realize that D&D has always been only moderate in any style. There has never been hard simulationism, strong narrativism, or finely-tuned gamism in any edition of D&D (with the possible exception of allowing 4e to claim finely-tuned gamism).

So no one has grounds to claim that D&D has been hard/strong on any of the spectrums.

You can only make that claim because you have no oD&D and limited BECMI experience. oD&D is the most finely tuned and playtested gamist RPG in the history of RPGs, and was destruct-tested by hardcore wargamers. AD&D 1e (pre-Dragonlance and pre-Lorraine Williams) is largely gamist - with the simulation in service of a better game. D&D has been hard on the spectrum - hard gamist.

 

[Hussar]

Cause making a game really sim is hard...

http://www.polygon.com/2014/7/23/59...ush-your-cpu-because-creating-history-is-hard

With some basic rules and some DM elbow grease, D&D can get close enough to simulation for most peoples' taste (and for a fraction of the work that hard sim requires).

It's also easier to get people to play D&D and add sim elements then it is to get people to play a sim game...

I think this is probably the closest to the truth answer.

 

[Hussar]

/snip

OD&D: I can't comment much on OD&D--I have no direct experience.
BECMI: Primarily gamist.
AD&D 1e: Simulationism with a minor in gamism.
AD&D 2e: The focus was on simulationism, with a minor in both narrativism and gamism.
3e: A hybrid of simulationism and gamism.
4e: A hybrid of narrativism and gamism.
5e: Appears to major in incoherence, with minors in all three of the styles.

/snip

Wow. I strongly disagree with this. AD&D 1 is pretty much purely gamist with maybe a tiny veneer of simulation going on. The rules are almost entirely gamist in nature. What about AD&D 1 would you point to to consider it a simulationist bent game?