D&D 5E Simulation vs Game - Where should D&D 5e aim?

[Bluenose]

So is my game both "styles" or neither?

If the players are describing in general terms some of what they hope to see before time, then I'd say it's a sandbox where some of the content is being created by the palyers and not by the GM. You're describing the form it takes, but it's in their hands what it is.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

If you don't want your fantasy RPGing to simulate "the reality found in legends and fantasy fiction", that's your prerogative. But I do. And I stand by my claim that simulationist rules tend not to produce the contrivances - including but not limited to matters of pacing, and the fact that luck is roughly proportionate to dedication and commitment - that are inherent to that "reality".

It sounds like we're in complete agreement about the mechanics involved and how they affect the tone of the game, and our only difference is a matter of opinion. You want rules that encourage fantasy fiction like Conan and Lord of the Rings, and I want rules that are unbiased so we can see how things happen to unfold (regardless of how heroic it may or may not be).

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I have no idea what "honestly" means here, or even could. Does it mean "without fudging the rolls/rules"? If so, then that's (a big) part of what motivated the development of narrative games & mechanics in the first place. If you think that somehow there is a set of statistics or rules that "truly" reflect a kobold or frost giant...then I don't know what that means. They, their behavior, and their statistics are utterly contrived to begin with!

I think that there must be a set of statistics that truly (honestly, objectively) represents what each individual kobold or frost giant is within the game world. After all, everything in the stat block can be measured objectively. It is a true fact that X specific creature will have Y% chance of hitting a stationary target, using a defined weapon at a given range, as corresponds perfectly to its ranged attack bonus. It is a true fact that X specific creature will have Z% chance of remaining unaffected when exposed to a particular disease, as corresponds perfectly to its Fortitude (or whatever).

Prior to 4E, every metric in the game could be measured and determined empirically in game because it was a truth within that reality.

 

[howandwhy99]

Apropos of nothing in particular, what about Pictionary. Undoubtedly that is a game - a classic parlour game.

And the quality of depictions is not irrelevant to Pictionary. It's pretty core to its gameplay.

Think of how games work. The designer creates a pattern with the rules. Players communicate within that design.

In Pictionary the artistic quality or narrative quality of what is drawn by drawing players is ignored. They are focused entirely on illustration with further factors which make it a game, like time limits so the game has borders and width of butch paper. What's being tested are not just the ability to illustrate by the drawer, the memory of the guessers, and also shared conceptions between team mates.

Verbal and nonverbal language off the pad are not allowed to keep the focus of game play on players discerning the illustration or drawing more articulately. Guessing Players may confirm verbally (or perhaps with sign language), but those expressions are about confirming the idea drawn.

The game doesn't support players wanting to variously experience a fantasy world. They are better off creating or viewing certain varieties of art for that experience.

 

[Bluenose]

It sounds like we're in complete agreement about the mechanics involved and how they affect the tone of the game, and our only difference is a matter of opinion. You want rules that encourage fantasy fiction like Conan and Lord of the Rings, and I want rules that are unbiased so we can see how things happen to unfold (regardless of how heroic it may or may not be).

Well that brings up the question of whether there's a set of D&D rules that doesn't have an inherent bias. I can pretty much guarantee that different editions will lead to different results even when the same tactics are employed to the same situations. If one set of rules (in a "Rules as Physics context) leads to one reality, and a different edition of rules leads ot a different reality then either the realities are different or one set of rules has got it "wrong".

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Devaluing them is fine, but why does he then feel it necessary to assert that, since they are not sandboxes, they must be railroads. This is clearly wrong. Further, it is insulting and inflammatory. I would say that an assumption that someone who makes statements that are both wrong and insulting/inflammatory is merely ignorant and in need of enlightemnet is a positively tolerant and gentle approach to take.

Irony much? Lecture me on tolerance, then turn around and behave far more intolerantly than I.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

If one set of rules (in a "Rules as Physics context) leads to one reality, and a different edition of rules leads ot a different reality then either the realities are different or one set of rules has got it "wrong".

Oh, there's no question that the realities are different, and there are subtly different laws of physics in place. The Abeir-Toril of 4E is a different place than the Abeir-Toril of 2E, and the 3E incarnation has more in common with 3E Greyhawk than to either of those two. At least, at the most fundamental levels.

I don't see anything wrong with that, either, since it's not like any of them are trying to accurately mimic reality. Only GURPS would be foolish enough to try that.

Rather, each game is trying to create an internally consistent world, with dragons and giants, etc. The specifics of where they want to vary from reality, in order to make a game this is fun and playable, is an important distinction.

 

[pemerton]

In Pictionary the artistic quality or narrative quality of what is drawn by drawing players is ignored. They are focused entirely on illustration

<snip>

Verbal and nonverbal language off the pad are not allowed to keep the focus of game play on players discerning the illustration or drawing more articulately.

I think the illustrative or "communicative" quality of the drawing is fairly important.

Thus, for instance, I think someone who is good up coming up with new "icons" used to label public places (like exit, toilet, no skateboarding, etc signs) would be much better at pictionary than me.

 

[pemerton]

each game is trying to create an internally consistent world

So am I. The goblins, hobgoblins, gnolls, giants etc in my gameworld are internally consistent. I just use a different mechanical framework from your preferred one.

I think it is a mistake to try to use "honesty", "bias", "objectivity", "internal consistency" etc as the basis for distinguishing simulationist from other modes of play, as these are common across almost all RPG experiences. I think that the presence or absence of "contrivances" is a more useful touchstone.

 

[pemerton]

Sure, those cultists you mention might show up anywhere, but they should only be interested in the pcs because they interfered with their plans or otherwise drew attention to themselves.

Actually, in my game it's generally the other way around: the cultists are interested in (say) a mass sacrifice at a dinner party, and it happens to be a party that the PCs have been invited to.

Or one of the PCs does a deal with a demon prince, which opens a gate that Orcus is able to exploit.

In other words, the PCs don't particularly need to seek out adventure - they are the sorts of people to whom it comes.

Much like in a book or film, I don't rely on ingame causation to tell me what's going to happen - rather, I decide what might be interesting were it to happen and adjust the ingame parameters (eg NPC motivations) to make that interesting thing fit within the constraints of ingame causality.

his statements make it clear that he not only doesn't value them, he devalues them.

Devaluing them is fine, but why does he then feel it necessary to assert that, since they are not sandboxes, they must be railroads. This is clearly wrong.

As with Balesir, I don't care about the disvaluing. I am responding to the misdescription.

Perhaps in 1984 sandbox and Dragonlance were the only two modes of play that were widely known. But 30 years have passed since then.