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

[Neonchameleon]

It kills the hobby of D&D and everything dominant in it up until the 21st century. It's turning the hobby of games and RPGs in particular on their head and refusing to treat games as games. To hold that viewpoint myopically makes older games appear poorly designed and confused, namely because they were never designed to be collaborative storytelling in the first place.

This is, of course, false.

I assume storygames may track a few incidentals

And this gives the whole game away. "I assume ... may". You are guessing here based on your preconceived ideas of what Storygames are. Which bears no resemblance to the ones I actually play.

 

[3catcircus]

Is it just me, or has thread devolved into a big circle jerk over game theory that, frankly, isn't worth the electronic bits it is written in?

The Forge, Ron Edwards, storygames, theoretical game bulls*$#. Who gives a f&^%!

Should 5e be closer to 3.5 or closer to OD&D in how detailed the game mechanics are. Because, that is really what we are talking about when it comes to game vs. simulation.

Do I need rules for situation "x" or should the DM be allowed to make a ruling on what is reasonable?

Should falling more than 10 feet provide a chance for your PC to break something, be paralyzed, or even kill you vs. the 1d6 per 10 feet?

Should hp be revamped to reflect physical damage and include a more believable wound and injury module, with chances to die from wound infections, or should it be luck/karma/whatever fake-o points?

Should there be a chance that mixing multiple potions leads to the possibility of causing an adverse reaction or give you an upset tummy?

Should an 18 strength mean you can really lift 600 lbs off the ground or drag 1500 lbs? What about the person with a 10 (average) strength who can allegedly drag 500 lbs. Or should attributes be properly scaled using human factors?

Should spellcasting result in the possibility of "backlash" for failures or induce fatigue rather than using slots?

 

[howandwhy99]

Does this mean that, if the DM doesn't create the scent/texture/whatever of goblin dung before play, it's inadmissible as an object in the game? If not, why not? If it is admissible, how does the DM determine what its qualities are?

Nothing the players can capably express to the DM is inadmissable just like in a situational puzzle. But it may not be in the game prior to them making the attempt to smell/feel/whatever the goblin dung. Features not in the game are put there by the players by making the attempts (also like situational puzzles). But it is important the DM clarifies with the player via question and answering as to the specifics of their attempts. If there were no dung in the game before, find out what it is until all specifics are settled in pre-existing game content.

(These are pretty basic questions about DMing and I have my own answers to them, but I feel like I have to ask - because I may not understand why the DM makes the choices that he or she does. They're pedantic questions but I want to make sure that I'm not missing anything.)

Okay, but as I understand it the DM stops making choices after the campaign begins though.

(What I was thinking is that canny players, writing down what goblin dung is like, can then tell the difference between a goblin and a hobgoblin/gnoll/ogre lair.)

Making an observation of the two might end after long study with recognition ability for the PC.

That seems to me to be what the DM's job is; figure out how these creatures fit in the game environment. The role of something like the Monster Manual is to make the DM's job easier. I'm trying to make my own game and I'm going through the monsters - I'm giving each type of monster a specific smell, so that canny players can identify the type of smell and think, e.g., "There must be oozes ahead."

If you want to have scent be a more important element to the game (have more to it), then categorizing them like this might help. I'd suggest tracking what the PCs know so you can relay details like that. Then if they see someone they've met before (or smelled before as the case may be), the PC recognizes them and the player is informed as to who they are - whether they actually are that person or a doppelganger or so on. (Which means Doppelganger shapechanging should include everything that is mimicked, including scent).

Do you think I'm wrong in my description of the DM's job in this specific state?

No, I don't think you're wrong. I think each game is different and each DM is different.

The DM has predetermined outcomes from a generated gameboard/multiverse. That can easily includes goblins and dung. How all of the environment "fits together" isn't so much a relationship map (though any map might be called that) as it is a result of previous game states from the start of the multiverse. The code/rules in question for how everything occurs and operates afterwards defines those relationships every bit as much as all past and present game states.

Would you agree that the point of the Monster Manual is to do this work for the DM ahead of time?

Oh heck yeah. Everything in the adventure modules, campaign settings, monster manuals, treasure collections, well, any published material, is designed to assist DMs to more easily run their games. Think of them like components to be added to the Dungeon! boardgame. They include more: Monsters, Treasures, and Dungeon Levels, though those terms are rather broad for D&D. And everything is rooted in mathematical game theory, so DMs can convert them to their particular code for any given campaign. Even if that game content is eerily similar to elves with pointy ears and wizards with gem-affixed staves. The point is: Nothing in the game isn't content that can't be perceived or interacted with without being tied into the entirety of the game board through all game time.

Anyway, thanks again for the time you've taken to respond.

Thank you. And it's good to talk to someone interested.

 

[howandwhy99]

It's an insult to people who actually have been or are oppressed to conflate your issues with game design theories with actual marginalization.

To everyone else who has been systematically marginalized and had what they loved redefined into what they don't care fore, I'm guessing sympathy abounds. I certainly care for those who are in similar positions.

You don't like the way just this conversation is phrased? That should hopefully find us some common ground.

 

[howandwhy99]

Nothing the players can capably express to the DM is inadmissable just like in a situational puzzle. But it may not be in the game prior to them making the attempt to smell/feel/whatever the goblin dung. Features not in the game are put there by the players by making the attempts (also like situational puzzles). But it is important the DM clarifies with the player via question and answering as to the specifics of their attempts. If there were no dung in the game before, find out what it is until all specifics are settled in pre-existing game content.

[MENTION=386]LostSoul[/MENTION], I forgot to include an example. Otherwise it may appear players know when they are and when they aren't adding content. Like discerning odds, cooperation/competition, focus on goals, accomplishment, and everything else in the game, the magic of engaging with the game includes not knowing if you made it all up, some, or none of it. (Though I think it's more complicated than that. Always both, might be a better answer.)

So the example,

P: "My PC whittles out a spork with his knife from a piece of stick."
DM (knowing the PC, cutting, the knife, and sticks are all in the game): "What do you mean spork?"
P: "Here, let me draw you a picture" / "a cross between a spoon and fork" / "Here, catch"

Yes, the DM is free to basically confirm that they both probably know what a spork is. DMs don't have to play dumb. It's to clarify the altering of game content. Technically the spork's still a carved stuck, but the geometric shape of a spork is going to allow different actions with it than your standard broken tree branch will.

Do we need to know this stuff before most any campaign? The base design the DM operates from, yes. But sporks probably don't have anything to do with any of the predetermined roles provided for (at least not any D&D classes I know of). But players might include them when defining the campaign world before beginning the game. Or they might want a custom class that does someone use them later in the campaign, but when starting over with a new PC.

 

[Hussar]

Since it is an actual rule, I don't see how that could be true. The contradiction embedded in that statement seems inherent to me.

I usually don't see it brought up in a neutral context.

Indeed, looking at this example here, [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] has stridently defined that choosing whether or not a skill challenge is an appropriate venue for mechanical reasoning is not "DM fiat", but the last time this issue came up, you rather derisively maintained that choosing whether or not a Diplomacy check was an appropriate mechanical resolution for a situation was "DM fiat". IOW, taking an opposite position on exactly the same thing. Either the two of you have contradictory definitions of this term, or you're both using the same definition (i.e. mine).
/snip.

No, that was never the issue. The issue was that you had decided a priori that Diplomacy cannot possibly succeed in a situation where it was reasonable that it could. You, by fiat, rejected the possibility that the PC could influence the reactions of an NPC in order for the PC to get what he or she wanted.

And you did so to gain a specific result - ie. denial of access to the king.

That, right there, is DM fiat.

Now, in this case, of course it was argued about, derisively or not, because it gets to the heart of differing play styles. I would hate to sit at that table. It would suck all the fun out of the game for me to know that at any time, for any reason, the DM can and will simply invalidate my actions because he or she wants a specific outcome that is different from what I want. The rules say I should be able to do this and what I'm doing is fairly reasonable, but, because the DM wants a different outcome, I cannot do it.

To me, this is the worst kind of DM fiat and is pretty much railroading to boot.

 

[Lanefan]

And the Dungeon World advice literally tells you to leave blanks on maps to be filled in by the player.

(side note) we once had a player in our games whose in-character motto was "Where the map is blank, I'll go." He caused a lot of map drawing! (/side note)

Were you aware that D&D 3.5 had in its basic set the Sunrod? An item that costs 2GP, weighs 1lb, and sheds bright light for 6 hours. Such an item was designed with one purpose in mind, and only one. To make needing to be sure you take enough torches with you irrelevant. Pathfinder and 4e are more extreme - in both games the Wizard can, if they so wish, cast Light for free.

I'm vaguely aware of these and, truth be told, find them rather sad. Oh sure, in 1e at 3rd or 5th character level (depending on class) you could get access to Continual Light, but at least there'd be a couple of adventures where you had to worry about resources (torches, oil for lanterns, etc.) and-or the finding of a decent light source would be a big deal. The benefit of this would be to set the tone early that resources can't be taken for granted and at least some caution needs to be used in expending them.

Trying to throw both AD&D 2E and White Wolf (who literally called their GM the "Storyteller") out of the RPG hobby, as you are, is a direct attempt to shatter the hobby. Dragonlance started coming out almost exactly thirty years ago. That was when the battle you are trying to fight actually took place. When the Dragonlance Saga (the first Adventure Path) came up with the Obscure Death Rule and a near-reset after each module to get you all on track (something no Storygame I'm aware of has)

I was never a big fan of the D-lance adventures in part for just this reason.

The majority these days is split between modern editions of D&D.

... unfortunately.

And the sort of people who talk about Storygames as something that we ourselves do are actually talking about option C. Games which superficially look like the type of game often seen in the 2E era but where the story is not pre-plotted in advance; following the rules of the game and playing them as hard as possible will lead to and intensify a story of the type you were expecting, but there's no clue where everyone is going to end up when the hurley burley's done.

That sounds like my game, to some extent - sure I have a story in mind when it starts but I've no idea if that'll end up being the story that gets told in the end.

==========================================================================
And here's a series of questions well worth answering:

The Forge, Ron Edwards, storygames, theoretical game [stuff]. Who gives a [...]!

Not me, to a large extent, though the theory can be fun to kick around in discussion.

Should 5e be closer to 3.5 or closer to OD&D in how detailed the game mechanics are. Because, that is really what we are talking about when it comes to game vs. simulation.

Closer to OD&D or 1e.

Do I need rules for situation "x" or should the DM be allowed to make a ruling on what is reasonable?

Sort of neither. You need reasonably comprehensive *guidelines* that each given DM can modify or shape to her tastes and those of her players. And this "guideline" aspect needs to be made loud and clear on every page of the PH, to pre-emptively shut down the rules lawyers.

Should falling more than 10 feet provide a chance for your PC to break something, be paralyzed, or even kill you vs. the 1d6 per 10 feet?

Yes, to a greater or lesser degree. (and see next question)

Should hp be revamped to reflect physical damage and include a more believable wound and injury module, with chances to die from wound infections, or should it be luck/karma/whatever fake-o points?

Yes and yes; in that there should be 2 types of h.p., one for each issue noted.

One is fatigue points, representing luck, fatigue, nicks, scratches, minor bruises etc. that are relatively easy to patch up and don't generally incapacitate the victim. FP go up with level as always.

The other is body points, always representing actual physical injury. Harder to heal by any means. BP are locked in at roll-up and only ever change thereafter in the most unusual of circumstances. Most adventuring types have about 2-5 BP.

Your h.p. total is your FP + BP. And yes, this means 1st-level types will have a few more total h.p. than the original game would have it; the difference becomes less relevant as levels advance.

Should there be a chance that mixing multiple potions leads to the possibility of causing an adverse reaction or give you an upset tummy?

Absolutely! And there should also be a chance that mixing them gives some unexpected benefit; or have nothing untoward happen at all. There also must be a strong note in either case that mixing the same potions on different occasions is not in the least guaranteed to produce the same effect twice.

Should an 18 strength mean you can really lift 600 lbs off the ground or drag 1500 lbs? What about the person with a 10 (average) strength who can allegedly drag 500 lbs. Or should attributes be properly scaled using human factors?

I'm not so fussed about this one, in part because the weights of items in D&D have always been out to lunch as well. And I don't mind the Hercules archetype in play.

Should spellcasting result in the possibility of "backlash" for failures or induce fatigue rather than using slots?

Slots (or spell points) are fine, but all spells need to be made *much* more interruptable than 3e/4e have them (look to 1e for what I mean here), and interruption needs to be given the possibility of interesting/humourous/useful/nasty/deadly side effects. Ditto for magic items; they need to be made breakable, with possible consequences when that magic is released in unexpected ways.

If you're thinking of a DCC-like system where any spell can fail and all casters eventually end up looking like twisted wrecks, that's overkill.

Lan-"mixing potions is like mixing drinks - fun at the time, but the hangover will kill you"-efan

 

[Hussar]

Lanefan, I'd agree with this:

Should 5e be closer to 3.5 or closer to OD&D in how detailed the game mechanics are. Because, that is really what we are talking about when it comes to game vs. simulation.
Closer to OD&D or 1e.

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/newreply.php?p=6301962&noquote=1#ixzz3271ISMGm

Except that I want more comprehensive basic rules than 1e gave. 1e, IMO, suffers from some holes in the mechanics for basic actions - how far can I jump/swim is a good start. OTOH, 1e also suffers from some extremely tedious rules - Weapon vs armour, initiative rules, which need to be cleaned up.

Give me the 1e style, loosey goosey rules with a few "general" rules a la Savage Worlds and I'm a happy camper.

 

[Ahnehnois]

No, that was never the issue. The issue was that you had decided a priori that Diplomacy cannot possibly succeed in a situation where it was reasonable that it could.

Reasonable to who? You? Were you the DM in this scenario? The DM determined that it wasn't a situation that was amenable to that particular skill use. It is exactly the same thing.

Now, in this case, of course it was argued about, derisively or not, because it gets to the heart of differing play styles. I would hate to sit at that table. It would suck all the fun out of the game for me to know that at any time, for any reason, the DM can and will simply invalidate my actions because he or she wants a specific outcome that is different from what I want. The rules say I should be able to do this and what I'm doing is fairly reasonable, but, because the DM wants a different outcome, I cannot do it.

That's where you're wrong. The rules don't say that. They don't say that you, as a player are entitled to anything whatsoever. If you think one thing is appropriate, and the DM thinks something else, you lose.

Which is fine, because you don't play a PC in D&D expecting to be able to determine when or how your abilities will be applicable. That (at least according to [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]) is for the DM to decide.

None of this has any bearing on the degree of agency the players have in the plot at large. While the resolution mechanics and the outcomes they generate are inextricably linked (rendering any hard distinction between them meaningless), the narrative is not composed solely or even mostly of a series of mechanical resolutions. The players get to play their characters, and that's enough. It's not railroading, or fiat, or anything other other than basic D&D-style roleplaying 101.

 

[pemerton]

Yes, the DM is free to basically confirm that they both probably know what a spork is. DMs don't have to play dumb. It's to clarify the altering of game content. Technically the spork's still a carved stuck, but the geometric shape of a spork is going to allow different actions with it than your standard broken tree branch will.

"Game content" here seems synonymous with "content of the shared fiction". The player and GM are both imagining the character having in his/her possession a carved wooden implement with the specified shape.

No such implement exists in the real world.

This is different from chess, which has no moves analogous to introducing an imaginary wooden spork as a feature of play.

Nothing the players can capably express to the DM is inadmissable just like in a situational puzzle. But it may not be in the game prior to them making the attempt to smell/feel/whatever the goblin dung. Features not in the game are put there by the players by making the attempts (also like situational puzzles). But it is important the DM clarifies with the player via question and answering as to the specifics of their attempts. If there were no dung in the game before, find out what it is until all specifics are settled in pre-existing game content.

This is very hard for me to interpret.

If there is no dung in the game, how can the players make any sort of attempt in relation to dung? I don't see how they could do anything other than ask around for dung, and the GM tell them that there isn't any.

Think of boardgames, card games, wargames, sports, and puzzles. Rules define mathematical objects and conform a space (cards, dice, fields, equipment, etc.) to represent those objects.

Sports do not involve abstract or imaginary objects. A sports field is a really existent concrete object. And playing a sport is not exclusively, I would say not primarily, pattern recognition. I know many mathematicians from top US universities. As a generalisation, they are not great sports players, but do make for good chess and go players.

I would also say that the spork in your examples does not operate as a mathematical object. It operates as an imagined spork. The uses to which a player might put it, during the course of play, are not ascertained by geometric reasoning. The skill of a D&D player coming up for useful uses of a spork (or iron spike, or 10' pole) has very little in common with the skill of learning how to play a good chess opening.