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

[Aenghus]

Couldn't the same type of argument be used for a narrativist system as well... In other words a single system's mechanics will be good at reproducing a certain type of narrative say pulp-action fantasy but breakdown (without modifications and house rules which can be done for either type of system) for producing other types... say dark fantasy... or fairy tale-esque fantasy?

I don't know a lot about narrativist systems, but they tend to be more modern and far more specific in their targetted gamestyle, whereas D&D is a lot more scattershot amongst it's various editions, and has been adapted to run a huge variety of gamestyles by different groups (it being the only tool in the box in the early years).

But my comment was inspired by the irony that in simulation, if you want the best model you have to put aside personal bias and sentiment and use the model that best fits the target criteria, not the one you happen to like the best. This obviously doesn't work for RPGs, where subjectivity and sentiment are a huge part of the whole process, even in so-called simulationism.

 

[Hussar]

I think the difference of who decides (as well as what realm the decision lies in) when you are capable of the one shot kill is a pretty important one. Does the player through gaining xp, selecting feats (in certain editions), finding magical items, and so on determine when he is capable of one-shoting a particular monster... Or does the DM decide arbitrarily when your character has reached the point where he or she is now capable of such a feat through manipulation of the setting elements?

In one instance it is up to the player and the player mechanics of the game and is within the realm of his/her character and their abilities (thus the character actually grows to reach the point that he can one shot certain monsters...

In the other situation it is up to the DM and DM mechanics and falls within the realm of DM designing setting (thus the character doesn't grow powerful enough to one shot a monster... the monster grows, relatively speaking, weaker to enable a one shot)...

To me it's not even a question I would ask. It makes no difference to me. I know that a very high level character should be one shorting low level monsters. That's why I'm high level. I don't need the level of granularity that you are talking about to "prove" it.

Inverse ninja rule takes care of that.

 

[fjw70]

It is an interesting criticism of 4e that the DM decides when a monster can be one shotted since most people criticize 4e for giving players too much power.

 

[Imaro]

To me it's not even a question I would ask. It makes no difference to me. I know that a very high level character should be one shorting low level monsters. That's why I'm high level. I don't need the level of granularity that you are talking about to "prove" it.

Inverse ninja rule takes care of that.

You do realize there are minions for low level characters too right? So it's not necessarily a high-level character thing

Edit: It's a DM decides it thing...

 

[Imaro]

It is an interesting criticism of 4e that the DM decides when a monster can be one shotted since most people criticize 4e for giving players too much power.

Well I think it speaks to my own thoughts on 4e being incoherent when it comes to player and DM power distribution and responsibilities in the game... but that's a can of worms I don't want to get into in this thread...

 

[Ahnehnois]

It is an interesting criticism of 4e that the DM decides when a monster can be one shotted since most people criticize 4e for giving players too much power.

I'm pretty sure any DM can decide what opponents he wants to throw at the PCs.

 

[Obryn]

If Joe the paladin has 45 hit points, then it consistently takes ~10 arrows from a long bow before he goes down. You can prove this, over any number of battles, because it's an objective measurement. It is a true fact of the game world that Joe's (meat + luck + divine favor + skill + etc) allow him to not drop from the first nine arrows that hurt him, where the tenth is likely to be the point at which he can take no more and falls over.

... Thereby illustrating why taking hit points, armor class, and the rest too literally ends up with a cartoon parody universe.

"Nah, Bob, just shoot a few more arrows into me. I'll be fine tomorrow. You know what? We have five already sticking into me... How about... Three more. I want to go in there and show my kids my porcupine impression!"

 

[Ahnehnois]

... Thereby illustrating why taking hit points, armor class, and the rest too literally ends up with a cartoon parody universe.

...also known as "D&D".

 

[Obryn]

...also known as "D&D".

Also known as "Toon."

I've mentioned this before, but it's really bizarre to me how this reverse simulationism is popping up.

I can understand a desire for a game's rules to somehow model the physical laws of the fictional world, accepting certain abstractions for ease of play.

I can't understand moving from there to a position that those ease-of-play abstractions must therefore also be physical laws of the fictional world. That's just bizarre.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I can't understand moving from there to a position that those ease-of-play abstractions must therefore also be physical laws of the fictional world. That's just bizarre.

The rules are the only things we know about D&D. Classes are the only way we know of describing D&D characters. Hit points are the only way we know of describing their health.

If we don't assume that the rules we know about are the ones that determine everything that happens in this fictional world, then what does? At that point, we must conclude that there is another separate set of rules for how the D&D reality works. Are those simply the rules of the real world? Obviously not, since there are deities and alternate planes and magic. So, if the PHB is not a worldbuilding manual, we now must wrap our head around three different realities: the real world, the PCs' reality, and the rest of the D&D world, which apparently has rules that are not described anywhere and that no one knows about.

Talk about "secret backstory".