Why use D&D for a Simulationist style Game?

[Bluenose]

Trying to wheel this thread back around, and avoid the low level edition warring that seems to be brewing here.

I look at a simulation as a model for describing what happens when you do something. Newtonian physics might be an abstraction, sure, but, it does describe pretty well why someone might yell at me from across the room when I break wind, even silently. (Well, it might be Newton's fault, or it might be that bean burrito I had last night, or possibly a collusion of both. )

OK, but that's about results - not necessarily about the process by which you arrive at those results.

In any case, a simulation model in order to actually BE a simulation model has to tell you how something happened. And we do see this in arguments over D&D. The idea of rules as physics for example means exactly this. The rules model what happens in the game world.

No, I don't agree. I think it has to give results that are within the plausible range for the genre the game is in and there's no need to show how those results are arrived at. If that means the player or GM describing how something happens, then that's something I'm perfectly happy to do.

Earlier it was mentioned that the multiclassing rules are good simulations. Really? Simulating what? Bob the fighter carves his way through a bunch of orcs, gets the pie and goes back to the Keep. He has killed and looted and done enough stuff that the game judges him to be second level. Upon gaining second level, he takes a level in Wizard/Magic User (take your pick, depending on edition). What happened in the game world? He has done absolutely no training, and has had no contact with any wizards, yet, now he somehow gains the abilities that would normally take years of training to gain. After all, had he started out as a first level wizard, he would have had to spend many years becoming that wizard. But, he spends two weeks killing orcs, and that makes him a magic user? How?

It's probably not so significant a factor with editions other than 3e, since that sort of multi-classing/dual classing is much less common (indeed, it's entirely prohibited in all versions of Basic D&D). I'd certainly never have permitted a character to do that without requiring that the training rules be used, even in a game where I was waiving them for normal levelling up.

Though of course Classes and Levels aren't exactly poster children for simulation of anything in particular, at least when done in the D&D style.

 

[TrippyHippy]

It seems that you yourself have strong views on how people should design and play RPGs. Is the difference between you and the Forge that you have a popular majority on your side?

No, I don’t. I have strong views on what I enjoy or not, but I don’t accept a one-size-fits-all theory that tries to categorise why I like games or not. As such, I have no prescribed views on how people should design or play games.

I’m sorry, but your post was just too long to answer all of your points. Of the bits I edited out - I agreed with some bits, disagreed with others - but found that a bulk of it was moving away from the salient points I was wanting to address. I will note that many of the quotes you cite were made later on and written in hindsight. Moroever, you are selecting quotes from a vast amount of online discussion - some of it was fine and dandy, but there was also an element of condescension, sometimes just implied, from some that was less than magnanimous towards particular games and groups.

The issue over citing things like Heroquest, Ghostbusters, Ars Magica, Toon, Paranoia, RuneQuest, Vampire or indeed Joe Blogg’s D&D house rules from 1978 is that people were considering narrative devices and techniques way back throughout the hobby. Always. They just didn't make a big thing about them.

For example, I used to be of the mind that Ars Magica ‘innovated’ the idea of ‘troupe play’, until another player pointed out that he had been doing the same sort of thing with Traveller for years. Now, very little of this is written about in the rulebooks - but the nuance of the premise (creating collectively owned spaceships and managing their maintenance like a business) does indeed lend itself towards rolling up multiple characters and creating a soap opera out of it - with multiple narrative angles for different selected characters on a scenario-by-scenario basis. Understated, perhaps - but there nevertheless. It is to AM’s credit that the author explicitly denounces any claim that the game’s ideas are somehow exclusive to it, and it’s this sense of humility which is lacking in games such as Sorcerer, et al.

With regards to 4E and ‘arrogant design’, my point with all these games was that they created a theory based buffer for themselves that actually inhibited critical analysis. In the case of 4E, the whole GNS argument was that the game was made more ‘coherent’ by establishing a specific outlook for playing it. Without delving into edition warring, the problem I have is that by making the game rigidly stick to this agenda, it actually just served to disenfranchise players. Yet, the game design itself is somehow exempt from criticism insofar that it reached it’s stated goals and ‘purpose’.

It encapsulates my entire viewpoint about The Forge games too - it became near impossible to simply say, “I don’t enjoy playing Dogs in the Vineyard”, or The Burning Wheel, or whatever, without becoming embroiled in debate with people who were basically saying the reason you don’t like it is ‘you’re the wrong type of player!’, or ‘you’re not playing it right!’ or even more simply ‘you don’t get it!’. The whole GNS theory to me was just a bogus way of deflecting criticism rather than encouraging it.

Do I think there has been any positive influence from these games? Sure. I’ve already cited Marvel Heroic as a game I admire a lot, and I also think Fiasco is brilliant. But there has also been a shift in the language of these games too - again, less interested in making claims of influence or revolution, or what type of game it represents, or demanding ‘rules as written’ play, and just getting on with the creative fun of the game itself. That is what I respect.

 

[Hussar]

Maybe you're asking the wrong questions of it.



The rules don't have to answer every possible simulation-oriented question under the sun. But how does Bob get to be able to cast a cone of cold as a multi-classed wizard/<something else>? He starts out on his magical journey as a neophyte caster and learns weaker magic before he can master more powerful magic. His skills build as he gains in level until he's finally able to master that particular spell and - like a single classed wizard - he doesn't get to take shortcuts (which is where 4e cuts out a lot of the ambition toward simulation). What the rules aren't doing is explaining all of the details between here and there. That's up to the player and DM.

You seem to be getting hung up on the label simulation and think it has to be at some particular level of granularity. But it doesn't. Any expectations of granularity are entirely imposed by the assumptions of the viewer.

But, it's not that the rules aren't explaining all the details between here and there. it's that it's not explaining ANY of the details between there and here. You haven't described a simulation of anything other than a model of the model. The growth from beginner caster to higher level caster is pretty much a purely D&D thing in the first place, but, also, that growth isn't actually detailed at any point.

Basically, your simulation is only simulating playing D&D. It's certainly not simulating any sort of experiential growth since the PC doesn't actually have to do anything other than gain levels to gain that particular spell. And his gaining levels don't actually have to have anything to do with gaining that particular spell.

Simulations have to model SOMETHING or they aren't simulations. There is nothing actually being modelled here. My wizard gains Cone of Cold simply through gaining X number of levels, which, in themselves are a gamist construct that doesn't actually model anything.

We gain levels because gaining levels is fun and gaining levels lets us do more things with our characters. We're not simulating anything by gaining levels. Again, if we look at more simulationist style games, gaining experience typically means that you have to spend points on things that you did while gaining that experience, or finding someone to teach you new stuff and then spending the points.

You don't get to automatically gain new knowledge in game without actually going through the motions of explaining how you gained that knowledge. Not in a simulation style game.

 

[Hussar]

OK, but that's about results - not necessarily about the process by which you arrive at those results.



No, I don't agree. I think it has to give results that are within the plausible range for the genre the game is in and there's no need to show how those results are arrived at. If that means the player or GM describing how something happens, then that's something I'm perfectly happy to do.



It's probably not so significant a factor with editions other than 3e, since that sort of multi-classing/dual classing is much less common (indeed, it's entirely prohibited in all versions of Basic D&D). I'd certainly never have permitted a character to do that without requiring that the training rules be used, even in a game where I was waiving them for normal levelling up.

Though of course Classes and Levels aren't exactly poster children for simulation of anything in particular, at least when done in the D&D style.

But, if there is nothing to show how those results are reached, then what's being simulated? What is the model? I miss an attack, which means that my opponent does not lose HP. None of that has any impact on the game world. I hit on an attack, my opponent loses HP. We still have no idea what's actually happened in the game world.

What good is a model that doesn't actually tell us anything?

Like I said, I like simulationist games. Spent far, far too many hours playing Star Fleet Battles way back when. I totally get the point. I enjoy them. But, again, I'm just baffled by the idea that someone would pick up the D&D rules, any edition, and think, "Hey, here's something I can really use to model what it would be like to live and adventure in a fantasy world". It's a really foreign concept to me.

 

[BryonD]

Like I said, I like simulationist games. Spent far, far too many hours playing Star Fleet Battles way back when. I totally get the point. I enjoy them. But, again, I'm just baffled by the idea that someone would pick up the D&D rules, any edition, and think, "Hey, here's something I can really use to model what it would be like to live and adventure in a fantasy world". It's a really foreign concept to me.

And I think it because you are bringing preconceived notions into it.
I've also played Starfleet Battles. And I've played D&D with a lot of people who have NOT played SFB and a few people who have. But the vast majority of people I've played with fall into the highly "pro-simulationist" camp. And I don't think any of them want anything close to the level of precision. In high school we even discussed a Star Trek campaign and the use of SFB for ship to ship combat was brought up and laughed off as absurd. It was completely obvious to us that that degree of accuracy would be counter-productive to the RPG experience. That wasn't remotely a complaint about the merits of SFB battles as a great tactical war game or remotely an retraction of our dedication to "simulation" role playing (though we didn't use that term). It was simply an obvious understanding of scale and context.


And that is the key distinction. There is no value in comparing degree of accuracy of simulation when the point at hand is whether to have simulation or not. GURPS may have a vastly better lock picking simulation than 3E. And a LARP game with a operation-style buzzer puzzle might be an even better simulation. A game that requires the player to recite random Shakespeare quotes for his character to open locks is not going to get the "simulation" label from me. Just because I can rank tiers of "simulation" doesn't mean any the games that fall under "simulation" don't deserve it, nor does it mean that saying the Shakespeare game falls outside that label. And if your game says that the DC of a lock is based on your character level, then it also falls outside that label.

When a game embraces "anti-sim" elements, it is fair to consider that game to be something other than simulation. Whereas a game that earnestly pursues simulation should probably be called simulation, even if there is a better alternative out there.

I don't recall ever being in these "simulation" debates prior to 4E. I do recall being in debates, even pre 3E in which GURPS, for example, was compared to 2E as either a "much better model" or "far too tedious", depending on which side a person's tastes ran to. But the concept would be "my sim is better than your sim". It wasn't until 4E came along that the overt reject of sim in a range of game elements reframed the debate. (Not remotely saying non-sim games didn't exist, I'm saying 4E brought the debate into the forefront of the community)

It is like we used to argue over whether dates or strawberries are the better fruit. Now someone throws a can of Coke on the table, gets upset that their Coke isn't accepted as a fruit so claims that clearly a date isn't a fruit because strawberry. It doesn't make sense.

A lot of people like game that are dedicated to attempting to consistently model something and yet still provide a good foundation for role playing. SFB level of detail is not remotely needed for that. But there is a lot of room for being between SFB and abandoning the persistent commitment to sim. If in the context of RPGs you say you get it because SFB, then you don't get it. If you want to get it, you should try letting go of your preconceived notions and honestly looking from others point of view. Or just decide it doesn't matter to you. Either way, you may still decide it doesn't work for you, but you might actually get it.

 

[Hussar]

And I think it because you are bringing preconceived notions into it.
I've also played Starfleet Battles. And I've played D&D with a lot of people who have NOT played SFB and a few people who have. But the vast majority of people I've played with fall into the highly "pro-simulationist" camp. And I don't think any of them want anything close to the level of precision. In high school we even discussed a Star Trek campaign and the use of SFB for ship to ship combat was brought up and laughed off as absurd. It was completely obvious to us that that degree of accuracy would be counter-productive to the RPG experience. That wasn't remotely a complaint about the merits of SFB battles as a great tactical war game or remotely an retraction of our dedication to "simulation" role playing (though we didn't use that term). It was simply an obvious understanding of scale and context.


And that is the key distinction. There is no value in comparing degree of accuracy of simulation when the point at hand is whether to have simulation or not. GURPS may have a vastly better lock picking simulation than 3E. And a LARP game with a operation-style buzzer puzzle might be an even better simulation. A game that requires the player to recite random Shakespeare quotes for his character to open locks is not going to get the "simulation" label from me. Just because I can rank tiers of "simulation" doesn't mean any the games that fall under "simulation" don't deserve it, nor does it mean that saying the Shakespeare game falls outside that label. And if your game says that the DC of a lock is based on your character level, then it also falls outside that label.

When a game embraces "anti-sim" elements, it is fair to consider that game to be something other than simulation. Whereas a game that earnestly pursues simulation should probably be called simulation, even if there is a better alternative out there.
/snip

Just a point of order - In AD&D, the DC to pick a lock was entirely based on your character level. Are you now claiming that AD&D embraces "anti-sim" elements?

My problem is, you're claiming that D&D "earnestly pursues simulation", at least I think you're claiming that. Is that correct?

Where? Where is D&D earnestly pursuing simulation of anything? That's the point I'm trying to discover here. D&D, AFAIC, does not, and never has, earnestly pursued simulation. There might have been some simulationist veneer glued on here and there, but, of all of the things that people claim make D&D D&D, Vancian casting, levels, 6 stats, the combat system, none of it comes anywhere near trying to model anything. Where are these models that are trying to earnestly pursue simulation.

Look, I totally agree that a Star Fleet Battles level is not what I want either. Snore fest. Totally agree. But, the models have to simulate something don't they? They have to be able to tell us something about the game world. But, all the combat system tells us is when something is alive or dead. And even that's iffy. All the level system tells us is that if I kill enough orcs, I learn how to speak Elven. Bwuh? Even the six stats don't really tell us much. What does a 14 Int mean? What does a 9 Cha mean?

Sure, I can peg interpretations to stuff, but, most of it is artificial fabrications with virtually no connection to the actual model. My fighter has taken 14 damage. What does he look like? Well, he looks like anything I want him to look like since the system doesn't give a single indication of what he actually looks like. Can my 10 Int character come up with detailed, intricate plans? Why or why not?

On and on. The models don't tell us anything. They aren't really modelling anything. The mechanics are not there to model anything because they can't. The mechanics can't answer any questions, because they are not really earnestly pursuing simulation.

 

[Andor]

But, it's not that the rules aren't explaining all the details between here and there. it's that it's not explaining ANY of the details between there and here. You haven't described a simulation of anything other than a model of the model. The growth from beginner caster to higher level caster is pretty much a purely D&D thing in the first place, but, also, that growth isn't actually detailed at any point.

Basically, your simulation is only simulating playing D&D. It's certainly not simulating any sort of experiential growth since the PC doesn't actually have to do anything other than gain levels to gain that particular spell. And his gaining levels don't actually have to have anything to do with gaining that particular spell.

Well actually (depending on the edition) that's true only if you wish it to be true. Execpt for 4e (I just looked in the DMG and couldn't find anything, might have missed it) the requirements for training are left up to the GM with several suggestions made. Essentially that level of granularity is left up for the table to decide based on their preferences. Actually D&D does that a lot. The rules are explicit where they need to be explicit to resolve conflict. (Where they model outcomes rather than exact interim states, although the modeling is still more precise than a game like HeroQuest.) Outside of conflict resolution the Gm is handed a bunch of dials which he can set as desired. If you want to track nitty gritty details of diet, encumbrance and upkeep, you can, although it is not mandated and most do not.

But, if there is nothing to show how those results are reached, then what's being simulated? What is the model? I miss an attack, which means that my opponent does not lose HP. None of that has any impact on the game world. I hit on an attack, my opponent loses HP. We still have no idea what's actually happened in the game world.

Sure you do. Joe hit Ellen with a sword and Ellen now has a diminished capacity to take more damage. Whether that is because she has a bruise, a scratch or a gaping wound is unknown. It also doesn't matter. Why would it? The rules contain no system for precisely simulating surgical repair, it's just a generic medicine check or (more likely) magical healing. So what is gained by knowing if Joe's epee punctured her spleen or her gall bladder? I mean, you can point to RM with it's manifold lists of healing spells for each and every bodily system, but frankly I never saw the point as the game never actually tells you when you need which one. So what is gained?

Like I said, I like simulationist games. Spent far, far too many hours playing Star Fleet Battles way back when. I totally get the point. I enjoy them. But, again, I'm just baffled by the idea that someone would pick up the D&D rules, any edition, and think, "Hey, here's something I can really use to model what it would be like to live and adventure in a fantasy world". It's a really foreign concept to me.

It can be a lot of fun and occasionally horrifying to indulge in the exersice. Consider for example a 3.x based world which used the training by level rules for character advancement including expenses. Now also assume that the world is not mysteriously stuffed with monsters with bulging sacks of loot. What is the outcome?

The inhabitants of that world know about high level characters and their potential power. The nations of that world will want such characters, but they are a considerable expense and require constant trials (adventures) to keep progressing. What happens?

One of the likely outcomes is actually the same as the social structure of the ninja camps in Naruto. Small bands of absurdly powerful people who are mostly dedicated to the training of the next generation of absurdly powerful people and who continually hire themselves out for a variety of task to keep bringing in the XP and cash they need to keep the ball rolling. I'm tinkering with an entire campaign world based off that insight.

 

[Hussar]

Well actually (depending on the edition) that's true only if you wish it to be true. Execpt for 4e (I just looked in the DMG and couldn't find anything, might have missed it) the requirements for training are left up to the GM with several suggestions made. Essentially that level of granularity is left up for the table to decide based on their preferences. Actually D&D does that a lot. The rules are explicit where they need to be explicit to resolve conflict. (Where they model outcomes rather than exact interim states, although the modeling is still more precise than a game like HeroQuest.) Outside of conflict resolution the Gm is handed a bunch of dials which he can set as desired. If you want to track nitty gritty details of diet, encumbrance and upkeep, you can, although it is not mandated and most do not.



Sure you do. Joe hit Ellen with a sword and Ellen now has a diminished capacity to take more damage. Whether that is because she has a bruise, a scratch or a gaping wound is unknown. It also doesn't matter. Why would it? The rules contain no system for precisely simulating surgical repair, it's just a generic medicine check or (more likely) magical healing. So what is gained by knowing if Joe's epee punctured her spleen or her gall bladder? I mean, you can point to RM with it's manifold lists of healing spells for each and every bodily system, but frankly I never saw the point as the game never actually tells you when you need which one. So what is gained?

But, again, what does that actually mean? Diminished capacity to take more damage? Diminished how? Again, I don't need anything precise, but, "I'm down 14 HP" isn't imprecise, it's actually fairly meaningless since loss of HP only means that you have less HP, nothing else.

I'm not looking for granularity. I'm looking for a model that actually says something about the game world. "I lost 14 HP" has no real correlation in the game world since no one in the game world knows what a HP is and there is no mechanical link between HP loss and physical effects.

It can be a lot of fun and occasionally horrifying to indulge in the exersice. Consider for example a 3.x based world which used the training by level rules for character advancement including expenses. Now also assume that the world is not mysteriously stuffed with monsters with bulging sacks of loot. What is the outcome?

The inhabitants of that world know about high level characters and their potential power. The nations of that world will want such characters, but they are a considerable expense and require constant trials (adventures) to keep progressing. What happens?

One of the likely outcomes is actually the same as the social structure of the ninja camps in Naruto. Small bands of absurdly powerful people who are mostly dedicated to the training of the next generation of absurdly powerful people and who continually hire themselves out for a variety of task to keep bringing in the XP and cash they need to keep the ball rolling. I'm tinkering with an entire campaign world based off that insight.

Heh, that sounds like fun.

------------

A side thought occurs about lock DC's. 3e is actually the only edition where DC's for skills is completely external to the PC. In 1e, thief skills were absolute - you had an X% chance of success based on your level. There was no modifier AFAIK. In 2e, your success for skills (non-weapon proficiencies) were based on your base 6 stats. A high stat person would succeed more often than a low stat person, but, there were no modifiers external to the character. 4e suggests that DC's be linked to level, although, they go a step further and suggest that the scenario reflect the level of the character. It's not that locks change DC depending on the level of the character but rather a higher level character will typically only find more difficult locks (or whatever it is you are trying to do).

Only 3e actually had objective DC's for the game world.

I suppose, thinking about it, that's a good place to start for model. If the DC for doing something is baselined, then you have a workable model of reality. So, I can see this as a decent sim style point in the game.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Up to this point, your post was doing pretty good.

Games that instead embrace that anti-sim spirit have never been remotely successful for me.

I'm pretty sure that styles that don't require as much or as successful sim as you prefer don't define themselves solely by their opposition to your style - as you have just done in dubbing them 'anti-sim.' I don't think it's at all helpful for you even to discuss that imagined, diametrically-opposed point of view. For one thing, people who actually know what their various styles are about are going to violently disagree with you, and you just might construe any defense of other styles as an attack on sim.

 

[billd91]

A side thought occurs about lock DC's. 3e is actually the only edition where DC's for skills is completely external to the PC. In 1e, thief skills were absolute - you had an X% chance of success based on your level. There was no modifier AFAIK. In 2e, your success for skills (non-weapon proficiencies) were based on your base 6 stats. A high stat person would succeed more often than a low stat person, but, there were no modifiers external to the character. 4e suggests that DC's be linked to level, although, they go a step further and suggest that the scenario reflect the level of the character. It's not that locks change DC depending on the level of the character but rather a higher level character will typically only find more difficult locks (or whatever it is you are trying to do).

Only 3e actually had objective DC's for the game world.

I suppose, thinking about it, that's a good place to start for model. If the DC for doing something is baselined, then you have a workable model of reality. So, I can see this as a decent sim style point in the game.

Whether or not the difficulty of a lock is objective depends a bit on your perspective. In 3e, yes, the DCs are expected to be set entirely outside the PC trying to pick the lock. But, if you turn the math around, that's also the case in 1e/2e. It's just that in 1e/2e, the difficult of a lock is treated as uniform - there is no gradation between qualities of the lock (officially in the rules, though there were cases in which modifiers did appear) and so the only variable is skill of the lock picking thief - determined by level/points invested (for 1e/2e), class, race, and restrictive armor worn in meeting that difficulty.

And with non-weapon proficiencies, the possibility of there being potential modifiers is explicitly called out. They are, for the most part, just left to the DM's discretion. Tracking is a notable exception and includes several modifiers based on objective criteria.

3e, I think, definitely made the setting of difficulties much more codified and objective from the standpoint of the written rules. From a conceptual standpoint, it was easier to explain and justify the DCs to questioning players. I'm not entirely convinced that the system was actually easier to use, particularly in giving the player the tools they wanted to estimate their chances of success. Estimating a 1e theif's skill chances or a 2e character's non-weapon proficiency use chances was simple and intuitive. If I had a 40% chance to move silently, then 4 attempts out of 10 I would succeed. If my target on a NWP was 15 or lower, I succeeded in 15 out of 20 tries. That was a lot easier than estimating my ability move silently in 3e with its opposed rolls even if unifying the system with the d20, stat mods, and skill ranks had a certain elegance.