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

[Obryn]

I don't think that helps

Yeah, I just want to keep a sense of perspective about all this. Minions exist to pose a certain kind of challenge, not because the world demands there be minions.

They're a game construct. When I want a fight with movie ninjas, I can have a fight with movie ninjas. When I want a fight with a dragon, I can have a fight with a dragon.

 

[Bluenose]

Who has EVER glossed over that 4e is a non-sim-oriented system? There must have been thousands of posts on that topic on these boards alone over the past 6 years. It's just about the most widely-recognised feature of 4e out there!

Arguably, Ahnenois, when he's arguing that the rules of the world are a description of how physics works in that world. That works just as well for 4e D&D as it does for other systems.

Reality certainly works by rules. Ask your nearest physics professor.

RPGs are not just - in fact, in my opinion hardly ever should be at all - about physics. I don't think an Economics professor (to use one example) is going to be able to write the Rules in the way a physicist might.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Yeah, I just want to keep a sense of perspective about all this. Minions exist to pose a certain kind of challenge, not because the world demands there be minions.

They're a game construct. When I want a fight with movie ninjas, I can have a fight with movie ninjas. When I want a fight with a dragon, I can have a fight with a dragon.

You've been thinking about Feng Shui recently But there's nothing wrong with using a sandbox with 4e even if it isn't your favoured playstyle.

 

[pemerton]

If two completely disparate mechanical frameworks could conceivably be applied to the same situation, that isn't a very well-designed set of rules.

Why not?

There are plenty of RPGs in which the selection of the mechanical framework to use is a function not just of the ingame situation but metagame considerations such as mood and pacing (as [MENTION=177]Umbran[/MENTION] has noted). Mike Mearls was recently promoting just such a framework on L&L (namely, his new Battlesystem). In 4e, the rules recognised that a given situation might be resolved using a simple skill check or as a skill challenge, depending on its context within the adventure unfolding at the table.

Whoa there, tiger! That sounds like some DM fiat to me.

Framing mechanics isn't fiat, at least in the sense that that has been debated in old threads. Deciding outcomes is fiat.

I'm not sure what the point of that semantic distinction is.

Because a rule is a norm or procedure for yielding a resolution. Genre expectations aren't rules. They're closer to models, illustrations or paradigms.

Reality certainly works by rules.

Sure, but reality itself is not a rule. And when I use reality as a measure of plausibility in an RPG, I'm not (normally) whipping out any trusty laws of motion. I'm more often projecting from my own knowledge and experience (eg that carts have wheels, that one-legged people are slower than two-legged, that friendly folks will grett you as they pass, that libraries have books with pages with ink on them, etc).

I also agree with [MENTION=49017]Bluenose[/MENTION] - at least in my RPGing, principle of sociology and history, philosophy and theology (and occasionally even economics) are more important than physical laws for making sense of what is happening.

In all three cases, there are boundaries that demarcate what can and cannot occur.

Rules tend not to demarcate what can occur, but dictate it.

As a general rule, the game is not going to break because a player's PC got to do what the player wanted

If that's really the case, we ought to throw out the rulebook.

I don't see why, at least not for my own case.

I don't have an especially strong sense of what you use the rules for. (Worldbuilding? But I'm not sure how. Resolution during play? Your procedures for play aren't very clear to me.) In my own case, they are used to build game elements (eg monsters, PCs, etc) and to resolve players' action declarations for those game elements over which they have control (mostly their PCs). In the context of resolving action declaration, the rules play a rationing role. They regulate how much the players get of what they want.

The interplay between the players getting what they want, and not getting what they want, is what drives the ingame situation forward. That interplay depends upon applying the rules.

This has no tendency to refute the claim that, as a general rule, 4e is not going to break because a player's PC got to do what the player wanted. (The same thing may not be true of other editions of D&D. For instance, I think AD&D might be more brittle in this respect.)

The bigger picture relates to the fact that the rules aren't actually doing what people are claiming. they are saying a minion is supposed to be for when you get to a higher level and the relative version of that creature becomes weaker for your character... but that's not actually what is promoted in the rules as shown by the Duergar example

As [MENTION=2656]Aenghus[/MENTION] noted, the fact that you can use minion rules to do A doesn't mean you can't use them to do B too.

Did anyone upthread say that minions are only for when you get to a higher level relative to earlier foes? I didn't. I don't believe that [MENTION=27160]Balesir[/MENTION] did either.

The minionisation we are talking about, as I said earlier, does not explicitly happen in any official 4e product I am aware of.

<snip>

This is all optional and not actually recommended by the rulebooks.

I think you are right that it is not expressly recommended. But it is strongly implied by the existence of (for instance) 8th level hobgoblin warriors (cf 3rd level hobgoblin soldiers), 9th level orc warriors (cf 3rd level orc raiders) and 16th level ogre bludgeoneers (cf 8th level ogre savage).

In other words, I think the designers recognised pretty well the possibilities inherent in their monster-building system.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Framing mechanics isn't fiat, at least in the sense that that has been debated in old threads. Deciding outcomes is fiat.

Given that the outcomes and the process used to achieve them are intertwined, this distinction really isn't persuasive. Any player could simply cry "fiat" if the DM chooses a framework that he feels was less favorable to him than some other possibility.

Because a rule is a norm or procedure for yielding a resolution. Genre expectations aren't rules. They're closer to models, illustrations or paradigms.

Regardless of what definitions you'd like to coin, that doesn't change the fact that these three paradigms are redundant. An in-game outcome could be influenced by or determined by any of the above.

I don't have an especially strong sense of what you use the rules for. (Worldbuilding? But I'm not sure how. Resolution during play? Your procedures for play aren't very clear to me.)

Communication. The rules demarcate a shared space for fictional actions to take place, and because this space is infinitely complex, represent a dumbed down or simplified set of abstractions that allow everyone to reach a mutual understanding of what is happening.

The interplay between the players getting what they want, and not getting what they want, is what drives the ingame situation forward. That interplay depends upon applying the rules.

I don't see any connection between what players want and what drives the interactions of rules with game outcomes. What happens happens; the players may or may not want it, but that desire is really irrelevant. That's a metagame consideration for the DM to manage how he chooses.

 

[Umbran]

RPGs are not just - in fact, in my opinion hardly ever should be at all - about physics.

I don't know what "shouldn't be about" means in this context. I was responding to how "reality" isn't a set of rules. Our reality is all about rules. Physics is only one set of them. There are social rules, economic rules. Rarely is there anything in real life that somehow isn't about rules, in a sense.

You think your society isn't shaped by the fact that you stick to the ground the way you do? You figure the societies in games aren't going to be shaped by the presence of magic, which ultimately is an alteration in the physical laws of the universe in question? Even if you think the game should be "about" personalities and interpersonal interactions, those are informed by social mores - which are based in the physical reality and biological needs of the creatures and world. Failure to remember that gets you fictions in which character action becomes implausible for the world in which they live, which is ultimately unsatisfying, no?

I don't think an Economics professor (to use one example) is going to be able to write the Rules in the way a physicist might.

Interesting you should say that. The first Nobel Prize in economics was awarded to Jan Tinbergen, for developing dynamic models for analysis of economic processes. He originally studied mathematics and physics at Leiden University, with folks responsible for some of the grounding work of modern quantum mechanics as related to statistics. A great deal of modern economic theory is based on fluid dynamics - money flows, you see.

 

[Imaro]

As @Aenghus noted, the fact that you can use minion rules to do A doesn't mean you can't use them to do B too.

Where did I claim this wasn't the case?

Did anyone upthread say that minions are only for when you get to a higher level relative to earlier foes? I didn't. I don't believe that @Balesir did either.

I saw people assert it as if this was a part of the rules, (whether they said it was the only use or not was irrelevant to my point)... only later was it clarified as unofficial...

Never said either of you did... So now it's my turn to ask... what is the "bigger picture" of these replies to my posts? Is it to inform me of things I already know?

 

[innerdude]

This entire thread makes me exceptionally grateful that I've discovered Savage Worlds.

Savage Worlds uses "mooks" and "Wild Cards" to differentiate enemy "difficulty," but the entire combat encounter building paradigm is so completely different from D&D's that I don't even know that it's a valid comparison.

The basic functionality of a "d6 mook" vs. a "d8 mook" vs. a "d10 mook" vis-a-vis a "d6 Wild Card" vs. "d8 Wild Card" etc., never changes, and in fact, the granularity of Savage's system lets you create however many variants you need.

But it's telling to me that the whole concept of "mook," "Wild Card," and "shaken / wounded" are one of the few---but VERY clearly delineated---points of "non-simulation" in the system (the very designation of "mook" versus "Wild Card" affects the "reality" of how capable an NPC is of staying alive, regardless of his or her stats).

Interestingly, Savage World's concept of being "wounded" follows Balesir's idea where you don't really know how badly you're wounded until after the fact. When you're "incapacitated," you then make a series of checks to see just how bad it is---are you dead? Are you severely injured but stable? It's an interesting way to play out the process of getting hurt.

Everything else about the "core" of the system follows a casual-but-surprisingly-realistic-and-elegant application of "simulationism" that just FEELS right.

As a GM, and now as a player in a "War of the Dead" campaign, it's been incredibly freeing to have a very accurate picture of NPC capability, where what the GM shows matches up with both the fiction the character sees AND player expectations.

 

[innerdude]

I don't know what "shouldn't be about" means in this context. I was responding to how "reality" isn't a set of rules. Our reality is all about rules. Physics is only one set of them. There are social rules, economic rules. Rarely is there anything in real life that somehow isn't about rules, in a sense.

You think your society isn't shaped by the fact that you stick to the ground the way you do? You figure the societies in games aren't going to be shaped by the presence of magic, which ultimately is an alteration in the physical laws of the universe in question? Even if you think the game should be "about" personalities and interpersonal interactions, those are informed by social mores - which are based in the physical reality and biological needs of the creatures and world. Failure to remember that gets you fictions in which character action becomes implausible for the world in which they live, which is ultimately unsatisfying, no?

Interesting you should say that. The first Nobel Prize in economics was awarded to Jan Tinbergen, for developing dynamic models for analysis of economic processes. He originally studied mathematics and physics at Leiden University, with folks responsible for some of the grounding work of modern quantum mechanics as related to statistics. A great deal of modern economic theory is based on fluid dynamics - money flows, you see.

As well, how much do we take for granted in "Western" society our access to a relatively inexpensive, efficient mode of ground transportation (the internal combustion automobile)?

Take away access to this technology, and how many "rules" of our society would have to be radically, fundamentally altered? We forget so readily just how much proximity to crucial resources / locations played in political and economic power structures prior to the "modern" era.

Now, should an RPG try to account for "all of this stuff"? Clearly not. But I agree with Umbran, claiming that an RPG doesn't have to "follow the rules of physics" may be a valid claim. But it has to account for SOMETHING in terms of "structural reality."

 

[Umbran]

Sure, but reality itself is not a rule.

Insofar as you must impose reality within your game, no, I was really just being a bit facetious. But, there's a point to be made.

And when I use reality as a measure of plausibility in an RPG, I'm not (normally) whipping out any trusty laws of motion. I'm more often projecting from my own knowledge and experience (eg that carts have wheels, that one-legged people are slower than two-legged, that friendly folks will grett you as they pass, that libraries have books with pages with ink on them, etc).

And that knowledge and experience comes from? Interaction with the real world, which pretty solidly follows the rules.

And, watch what happens when you try to have a game that really and seriously departs from the rules of reality. We have problems enough with elves ending up being "pointy-eared humans", because players don't really have the personal frame of reference to play outside the norms of their personal experience. See how many times we come up with how magic fundamentally breaks our ideas of "economy", when we really consider the matter?

Which is not to say that reality is a rule - but that we typically underestimate how much we impose reality upon our games, even when they're explicitly stated in the rules to be different from reality. And cognitive dissonance then occurs....

I also agree with [MENTION=49017]Bluenose[/MENTION] - at least in my RPGing, principle of sociology and history, philosophy and theology (and occasionally even economics) are more important than physical laws for making sense of what is happening.

Chemistry is really just applied physics. Biology is just applied chemistry. Sociology and psychology are just applied biology. One informs the next. If you try to come up with economics without figuring in how the things below it will have an impact, you'll quickly find your economics are nonsensical. This becomes most obvious with magic. The number of results that should come out of Continual Light spells, but don't, come to mind.

This is where we loop back to the origin of the thread. How much simulation should we aim for? I think the real question is, how much simulation can we really, honestly, do well enough to bother?