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

[Obryn]

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.

Nope, nothing wrong with that at all, of course.

 

[Aenghus]

I used to believe that rules as physics was the only correct way to run a game, and the alternative was some sort of railroad. This was from bad experiences with seat of their pants referees where I didn't understand how their campaign world worked and constantly misinterpreted situations. This was from a combination of differences in worldview and poor communication.

The more obfuscated adjudication is the harder it can be for players to figure out what the hell is going on in the world, and how cause and effect applies.

Common sense isn't necessarily enough as an adjudication method as it isn't common, and it's inherently subjective. It's viable if the players involve happen to agree with it or at least tolerate it.

Particularly in theatre of the mind play honest misunderstanding can occur, some with serious consequences such as PC death. Such misunderstandings also deprotagonise PCs, preventing the players from making deliberate choices.

Which is why I like transparent rules, clear communication and the option to call a time out when it looks like there's a major misunderstanding getting in the way of play.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Chemistry is really just applied physics. Biology is just applied chemistry. Sociology and psychology are just applied biology.

Tangent, but that sounds like something a physicist would say. I know many psychologists that have no training in biology, chemistry, or physics, and plenty of psychology that has no identifiable basis in any of it. A psychologist would term this viewpoint "materialistic reductionism".

Even the physical sciences have somewhat disparate histories and aren't quite that coherent.

One of the reasons why we can't do a perfect simulation is we don't understand the world to begin with. There isn't one science, there are many sciences.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I'm arguing with a weird inversion that Ahnehnois and Saelorn are pushing where, after you've settled on your abstractions, you turn around and declare that those abstractions must also be directly observable physics of the universe. This goes to Fighter Bob knowing exactly how many arrows Ranger Jeff can shoot at him before he keels over. (As opposed to this information being known only by their players, Beth and Jenny.)

The really important part is that the average number of arrows to drop someone is an objective part of the game world (for whatever definition of "hit" you want to use). Whether that's a scratch, or a direct impact against armor, or extremely-close shave - or even if it's left undefined - as long as the reality of the arrow is mechanically reflected as d8 damage, and the state of the character is mechanically reflected as a number of hit points, then it will be true that it takes about the same number of arrows to go from full to zero (barring outside variables, like critical hits and sneak attack and all that).

You may choose to not describe those in a way that's directly observable, but it's still "observable" through its interactions with other sources of hit point damage. The effects of an arrow that "hit" when nobody was looking can be still be observed indirectly, when the victim drops from damage that would have been barely insufficient to drop the victim if she hadn't been previously "hit" by the arrow.

Personally, I choose to describe things in the most direct way possible. When I play, a successful attack is always visible as such to anyone watching, and almost always elicits a grunt or a yelp of pain. I also play hit points as observable to anyone who looks (at least as a rough estimate - down to half, about ten percent, barely standing, etc). This isn't strictly necessary by any means, but one of the primary jobs of the DM is to let the players know what their characters observe within the game world, and keeping such a simple translation for every game mechanic makes it much easier to keep everyone on the same page; it's much less work all around to just say that someone is hit and subsequently damaged (optionally describing the hit and damage in greater detail), rather than sorting through the myriad of alternate explanations and then explaining that this time the thing that I described as a narrow miss comes out of hit points instead of AC.

It also has the nice side-effect of keeping all player information within the realm of PC information. When the characters can see how injured they are, it allows them to make the same decisions as the players when it comes to casting Cure spells or drinking potions or whatever. When I describe a direct hit that fails to make a dent or draw a response from the enemy, the PCs and players can both learn that the enemy is somehow immune to the damage dealt. It cuts down on confusion.

 

[Ratskinner]

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 that I can say it categorically, but I would tend to think so. Fate is well understood to be rather limited to genres where the characters are pro-active and competent (especially good for "pulp-action"). It tends to "fall flat" when trying to emulate a genre...like slasher horror, or police procedural...where the "heroes" either aren't competent or aren't active. Fiasco, as well, is designed to facilitate a specific kind of multi-threaded wacky caper movie...it would take a big re-working to make it do something else (although the genre trappings are near-superfluous, Fiasco works for scifi, fantasy, modern, etc.)

I think though, that the manner in which the two types of system would be limited tend to go in perpendicular dimensions. That is, "simulation" games are strict about enforcing a genre (usually because you have these fiddly bits that correspond directly with genre-trappings). Whereas narrative games tend to facilitate a particular type of story, and don't care too much about the genre-trappings. Of course, that's just IME/O.

 

[Neonchameleon]

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?

Narrativist systems are good at reproducing a certain type of narrative, and if you want to produce another one you either hack/houserule it pretty severely or reach for another system. On the other hand this is generally a much smaller problem for narrativist systems than for simulationist ones because narrativist tend to be much much lighter (with as far as I'm aware the sole exception of Burning Wheel)

That said, with the sole exception of Fate (which is much much more traditional than its reputation) I've yet to run into a narrativist system I'd want to play more than a dozen sessions of in a row. The epic campaign seems to belong to trad simulationist systems in part thanks to the way they have a lot of heft to them that make them much harder to learn. But in that dozen sessions you're going to go a long way, and IME further than in twice as many sessions of D&D, WoD, or GURPS.

 

[Campbell]

Speaking personally it's not that I don't care about simulation. For me it's more that I value other things more. I tend to experience things on a more emotional level. My greatest concern when playing a role playing game are relating to the characters as (fictional) people as well as the visceral excitement of victory and defeat. For example when I watch other media I don't mind plot holes if they lead to a more compelling shot or authentic dramatic scene. That's where the focus is for me.

I'll also add that 4e is far from my favorite game. It's the most compelling D&D game. These days I'm beginning to wonder if I'm even all that interested in D&D, besides tangential interest as an RPGer. It's really threads like this that I feel treat the greater hobby with a broad brush that tend to reel me back in.

 

[Chaltab]

The really important part is that the average number of arrows to drop someone is an objective part of the game world (for whatever definition of "hit" you want to use). Whether that's a scratch, or a direct impact against armor, or extremely-close shave - or even if it's left undefined - as long as the reality of the arrow is mechanically reflected as d8 damage, and the state of the character is mechanically reflected as a number of hit points, then it will be true that it takes about the same number of arrows to go from full to zero (barring outside variables, like critical hits and sneak attack and all that).

You may choose to not describe those in a way that's directly observable, but it's still "observable" through its interactions with other sources of hit point damage. The effects of an arrow that "hit" when nobody was looking can be still be observed indirectly, when the victim drops from damage that would have been barely insufficient to drop the victim if she hadn't been previously "hit" by the arrow.

If arrows always did flat damage, perhaps. But they don't. As long as the d8 is bigger than the Dexterity bonus to damage, there's significant swing in the damage an arrow does. Critical hits add even more swing. And unless the recipient can actually tell the difference between Twin Strike and Biting Volley then it sure seems like sometimes arrows do way more damage than normal, for no apparent reason.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

And unless the recipient can actually tell the difference between Twin Strike and Biting Volley then it sure seems like sometimes arrows do way more damage than normal, for no apparent reason.

I've said it like three times now, but objective facts remain true regardless of whether or not they're observed. Whatever the relationship between successful hits and falling unconscious from HP loss, a 2[W] power objectively has more of an impact than a 1[W] power. It doesn't matter whether the recipient or any other observer can tell the difference.

My specific example with the arrows was regarding every edition prior to 4E, where a longbow arrow deals a flat d8, and it was just for the sake of describing a mechanically-consistent damage source. If you want to measure hit points in "average number of Biting Volleys as performed by Ranger 7 Sally", then that would be equally consistent (albeit less easily understood).

 

[Hussar]

But what possible in game explanation would there be for gaining levels and this HP? Bob can take 5 arrows and the sixth puts him down. Some time later, Bob can now take six arrows.

How do you explain this in game?