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

[Ahnehnois]

Because that's railroading by definition.

No, that's not the definition. Railroading implies taking choices (or apparent choices) away from players through restriction or subversion, which you can't do if they never had (or reasonably believed they had) those choices to begin with.

That's one of the reasons I picked the whole audience with the king example in the first place. A reasonable player would not expect success from this action (barring some extraordinary circumstances; it's a generic example), so he's not being railroaded if he tries something like that and quite predictably fails. Nor is a fighter being railroaded if he asks the DM to cast a spell and the DM tells him he fails, nor is a rogue being railroaded if he attempts to climb a wall of solid ice and fails. Sometimes, things just aren't possible.

If there's a mismatch of expectations such that the player and the DM had a genuine and substantial difference on how reasonable they thought the action was, that's what talking is for.

If the players try and fail, then I've got no beefs. That's the important part. I have zero issue with failure. Failure is great. Failure is the source of all sorts of exciting moments. But, if the situation is predefined as failure or success by the Dm, then I have no interest in playing it out.

As I noted above, the player will generally not know when or how his successes and failures were determined.

But even setting that aside, the contrary is an impossibility. Many, many things are pre-determined in everyone's games. Assuming you play D&D, that includes yours. Most likely, you're simply habituated to your own style of DMing enough that you don't see how many things you've dictated in the game, but unless you run a game with no plans whatsoever, you are predetermining quite a few significant outcomes.

Is that clear enough? I would absolutely hate a baseball game where I know that one team or the other will win in the end.

Which, of course, is not what we're talking about.

We're talking about a game where the umpire has decided that he will call pitches about an inch below the strike zone as strikes, and pitches within the top of the zone as balls. The batter takes a pitch, thinks it's low, and gets a call against him, and complains to the umpire. And then the umpire calls it again the next time. And the next time. For both teams. Sure the umpire has predetermined the strike zone for that game, but he hasn't determined its outcome at all. The players still determine where the pitch is thrown, and what happens as it crosses the plate, and what happens on the bases and while the ball is in play.

In case you're not familiar with baseball, this is exactly how it is played. A strike is not defined by the ball being in the location that the rules describe as a strike, it's defined by an umpire calling it a strike. Despite the rules being as they are, every umpire has a different strike zone, and various other quirks to the calls he makes (hopefully consistent and fair to both teams, but sometimes not), and players are always complaining about it. And just like in D&D, they lose. And just like in D&D, it generally works out fine.

And that's exactly what I'm doing when I'm DMing: calling balls and strikes.

A game where the outcome is determined would be more like a published plot-driven adventure, or a game that strictly follows encounter building guidelines (though even then, there is some wiggle room).

 

[Bugleyman]

Psst...simulation is a lie.

 

[Ratskinner]

I can't account for that.

Maybe just something I've noticed. I'm not even sure it bothers me, except to illustrate how dependent on the HP mechanics itself, rather than the fiction, we generally are. I mean, consider a game like Talisman...should D&D be closer to that? I dunno. It seems like we try for something more (or presume it), but D&D has trouble getting there.

To me, the reason it isn't that way is simply a question of bookkeeping workload. A division of labor in which the DM has to track all this stuff is impractical for DMs who are usually pretty busy. So at times, the rules (or conventions associated with them) "cheat" a little and expand the role of the player beyond that of simply making decisions for his character, in the name of making the game more playable. And then, the player is implicitly expected to forget whatever knowledge he has that isn't in-character, which is of course a real challenge.

Very much so, and the thing that bothers me about it is simply that, if (and that's a big if) D&D is trying to be a lot more than Talisman or OotS, then...well there's a lot of more recent mechanics that can reflect that better than HP.

 

[Hussar]

/snip


And that's exactly what I'm doing when I'm DMing: calling balls and strikes.

A game where the outcome is determined would be more like a published plot-driven adventure, or a game that strictly follows encounter building guidelines (though even then, there is some wiggle room).

No, you aren't. You've declared that every single pitch, no matter where it is, will be a ball or a strike, before it's even thrown.

That's what I'm arguing against. Every time you use fiat to over rule the mechanics of the game and declare a specific result, that is precisely what you are doing.

And it's a play style I'm not interested in. Smaller strike zone? Sure, no worries. At least the chances still exist to pitch a strike, even if the chances are reduced. No strike zone at all? No thanks.

See, you have to realise, I play D&D without any secrets mechanically. The players see all my die rolls, the know pretty much automatically what mechanics are being used and most of the time they will have a fairly close estimate of their chances of success or failure before they attempt something. I believe that giving the players as much information as possible allows them to make informed decisions which, in turn, leads to better games.

But, that's just me. But, since I want a game where everything is as transparent as possible, your style simply won't work for me. Which is probably why you see me as being negative when I use the phrase fiat. Fiat is something I try my hardest to never use, because I do see it as detrimental to my experience. And over ruling the resolution mechanics in order to dictate some outcome is the opposite of what I want in a game.

Heck, the words you use to describe the DM - boss (or I think it was good boss), leader, that sort of thing, is the complete opposite of how i see my role as DM. I'm not the boss of the table, nor am I the leader. I am the facilitator and referee, but, I have absolutely no stake in the success or failure of the players, other than trying to make sure that they are having a good time. Outside of that criteria, nothing else really matters to me. World building, immersion, anything else, is subservient to "Are the players having a good time". Because, for me as DM, that's how I enjoy the game - knowing that the players are walking away from the table saying, "Damn, that was fun."

 

[Ratskinner]

I dunno, I've read a lot of Shadowrun novels where people get seriously injured and it doesn't significantly impact their ability to act (and then they either get magical healing, spend a week in bed, or die from further wounds).

I also recently started the Dresden Files, and he's shown a remarkable ability to get shot and set on fire and thrown through fences - without letting it impact his performance, but with adequately describing the pain and the effort required to keep going on in spite of his wounds. Of course, he also passes out from his wounds, or gets KO'd outright, on a fair number of occasions.

All in all, I would say that Hit Points do a fantastic job of emulating the wounds that happen in the relevant fiction. (Thankfully, I have little basis in reality with which to offer comparison.)

I hear this argument (or ones that are similar enough) a lot, and...I actually don't think its true. Admittedly, I think its true for a certain subset of the fiction that D&D draws on (although I'm unfamiliar with the Shadowrun novels, I'm not sure they count as genre sources, what with deriving from another game system in a different fantasy sub-genre). I think when it comes to something like the Dresden Files*, I actually flat out disagree. In the novels, we will read scenes when the protagonist is injured (or otherwise hampered) and we are regularly treated to descriptions of how he is hampered or how he is overcoming or working around those injuries and hindrances. To me, that means that the nature of the those injuries, and the hero's struggle against them is important, and not just handwaved away as they must be and regularly are under a HP system. The hero persists and triumphs, in spite of the hindrances that his injuries present, rather than simply ignoring them. It does impact his performance in ways that have dramatic impact.

I like your phrase there: "with adequately describing the pain and the effort required to keep going on in spite of his wounds" and I think its very important. The HP system may show us the result of that, but I truly rarely witness any actual recognition of that at table. Wounds and their narrative consequences are commonly handwaved away. That is, we don't see Harry Dresden triumph "without letting it impact his performance" in the novels. In fact, we often are treated to detailed descriptions of how his various injuries do limit his performance. That's counter to (at least my typical experience) with HP, where we don't get to witness (via any rules) the hero experiencing or responding to those injuries. That's something I see in games like Fate, but not in games using a D&D style HP system.

Is that a necessary expediency at the table? It seems to be commonly presumed so, but I think games like Fate and Cortex+ show that its not actually all that necessary.

To be fair, that doesn't reflect all the fiction that D&D draws on (I won't claim to have read it all.) I know that some of that fiction features heroes for whom injuries are merely color. However, that's only one narrative vein, and it seems (to my eyes) to feature in a minority of the genre sources.

*spoiler:

Spoiler

In the series is gets revealed that Dresdenverse wizards actually have some kind of supernatural regeneration/healing ability, but its rather slow compared to say, Wolverine.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

In the novels, we will read scenes when the protagonist is injured (or otherwise hampered) and we are regularly treated to descriptions of how he is hampered or how he is overcoming or working around those injuries and hindrances. To me, that means that the nature of the those injuries, and the hero's struggle against them is important, and not just handwaved away as they must be and regularly are under a HP system. The hero persists and triumphs, in spite of the hindrances that his injuries present, rather than simply ignoring them. It does impact his performance in ways that have dramatic impact.

But do the injuries ever really cause the protagonist to fail? I mean, protagonists have a pretty low failure rate in general, at least for the important things. I've never seen a case where the pain and injury from one of those previously-incurred wounds causes the hero to miss with his last-chance desperation move and then the bad guy wins. It certainly seems like heroes don't suffer wound penalties. It seems like wounds are just window dressing to make the scene more dramatic, without really impacting anything unless someone is killed (or knocked unconscious).

If you're talking about the "feeling" of the scene, though, then it might be some combination of easy healing and the fact that D&D is a team game (where most novels have a main protagonist). We really care about the condition of the protagonist, because the fate of the world usually comes down to him, where all PCs are equally important and the survival at least one PC is usually enough to quickly reverse the injuries of all other PCs.

Although actually, the times when the game really does get that dramatic is during a tough boss fight, when all but one of the PCs is down and the last survivor is low on HP.

Of course, you could also just play it as luck/skill/fatigue, and all of the PCs are perfectly fine until they collapse from a single hit, like a bunch of chumps. They're both consistent, even if I never really seen that done in any of the books.

 

[billd91]

Sure, if my player claims that he can sprout wings and fly, then, no, that's a bad player. But, why the automatic assumption of bad play by the players? Have you actually met players you consider to be good players who would do what Bill91 is claiming?

Yet, according to Ahneoisis, I could clean up, make a good presentation, and still automatically fail because he has decided, beforehand, that nothing I can do will succeed. THAT'S the issue that I have.

Me, I'm assuming good faith by everyone at the table. It seems that Bill91 is the one here assuming bad faith. Players ignoring context within the game would be pretty bad players. But, apparently, it's perfectly acceptable for the DM to simply manipulate the scenario to gain whatever outcome the DM wants, and that's perfectly acceptable?

Well, I suppose it is to some groups. To me, it's not. If coming in covered in dirt makes it impossible to see the king, would it still be impossible if I cleaned up and tried again?

My basic question is, is there a series of actions the group could attempt which would result in a chance to see the king? If the answer to that is no, then I have no interest in playing that game.

Bad faith? What the heck are you talking about with bad faith? Players can make their choices irrelevant by making mistakes in good faith too. But that doesn't let them off the hook. Some plans simply won't work. Deciding that some avenues are closed off doesn't make the game a railroad nor does it require bad faith nor does it mean that GM is manipulating the situation to get the result he or she wants. You make a lot of assumptions and you know what happens when you ASSume.

 

[Hussar]

You are missing the point. If the pc's fail, can they try something else? Or will every plan fail? Because that's what Ahn is advocating. The DM straight up deciding beforehand that nothing the players attempt can ever succeed.

 

[Anthony Terry]

I didn't stop to read all 40 pages of the thread so apologies if I'm going over points previously made but surely the answer to this is quite obvious, now in 2014, unfortunately they have to focus on a game. The core rule books players handbook / monster manual should be pretty much identical to how they have been for the previous two editions and should entirely be focused on a balanced platform for people to enjoy the game with. The Dm's guide however should give guidance on nothing but how to edit these rules to suit your own ideas and settings and should be more of a guide to creating a dungeons and dragons themed fantasy world.

Along side this they should release up to 3-4 key fantasy settings, one of these being greyhawk and probably a popular 3.5/4ED setting also. In each of these fantasy settings it can list new rules to suit more what u'd expect from the type of fantasy roleplaying you've come to expect from does sewttings over the years (something nearly all DM's on here will do any way and people need to realise the amount of money that could be made if some one saves me the amount of work that goes into this).

Now many of you would say this would just generate more books for you to buy, yes it would, tough ? For a product like this to be viable by the very nature of our market they have to make it generic and non-setting based to ensure the market stays as large as possible and unfortunately due to the internets influence this means a more rule based game that everyone can follow and enjoy opposed to the at times crazy influences of a traditional high fantasy wizzard / cleric / druid

 

[Ahnehnois]

No, you aren't. You've declared that every single pitch, no matter where it is, will be a ball or a strike, before it's even thrown.

No, not every pitch. Just one. And only if it's thrown a particular place. And only given that this place is roughly the location of the batter's head.

Again, the whole point of the example was to show something that is obviously an inappropriate request from the player. In the original context, it was about explaining why neither Charm nor Diplomacy is an example of player "fiat", because they don't allow you to directly change the world around you.

The important thing to keep in mind here is that objectively, the request by the players should fail, and there shouldn't be a roll, according to the rules themselves (it's an impossible check). The question is whether they have an entitlement that grants them the ability to overrule the rules because they feel it's appropriate. And whether if they don't get what they want, they have been wronged in some way.

See, you have to realise, I play D&D without any secrets mechanically. The players see all my die rolls, the know pretty much automatically what mechanics are being used and most of the time they will have a fairly close estimate of their chances of success or failure before they attempt something. I believe that giving the players as much information as possible allows them to make informed decisions which, in turn, leads to better games.

That's your prerogative. It's contrary to most of the DMing and GMing advice I've read; particularly D&D has established a culture of "behind the screen" and in 3.5 there was ample text about specifically what rolls you're supposed to keep secret in order to limit the players' metagame knowledge.

But if you've got a different agenda, then different techniques are fine.

I'm not sure how you limit metagaming (I'm assuming that isn't a concern), but as my discussion with [MENTION=6688937]Ratskinner[/MENTION] above alludes to, many of us feel there have already been too many compromises in that regard. That is, that players have too much metagame knowledge and authority simply because it makes the game easier to run.

I am the facilitator and referee, but, I have absolutely no stake in the success or failure of the players, other than trying to make sure that they are having a good time. Outside of that criteria, nothing else really matters to me. World building, immersion, anything else, is subservient to "Are the players having a good time". Because, for me as DM, that's how I enjoy the game - knowing that the players are walking away from the table saying, "Damn, that was fun."

Not that fun is bad, but I think that something as vague and as downstream as that is a pretty tough end to meet without having some more concrete process and goals leading up to it.

Beyond that, though, I never really saw fun as the goal; maybe a goal, but not an inherent one or the most important. The phrase "Tyranny of Fun" comes to mind. Roleplaying is about an experience. If the characters are doing something fun, the game should be fun. If they're doing something that's not fun, I'm at a bit of a loss as to why the players should be yukking it up in the background. Most of the fiction that inspires D&D fiction isn't much fun. LotR certainly isn't. Nor is Lovecraft. Conan, maybe.