Why use D&D for a Simulationist style Game?

[Tony Vargas]

Right again. Most people agree that 4E was designed toward genre conceit rather than rules-as-physics.

Rules as physics is more about the attitude you approach the game with - and a certain amount of plain, simple de-facto reality - than the rules themselves.

The reality is that the game rules - however abstract, consciously 'narrativist' or whatever, or even non-existent in the case of freestyle RP - /are/ the de-facto laws of physics of the game world. There's no escaping it. Whether you worry about those laws of physics not resembling some realistic or verisimilitudinous laws of physics is down to attitude.

Play 4e and lampshade it's de facto laws of physics, and you have something a bit like Discworld, where the value of pi happens to be 4.

Do the same with 3e and you have Order of the Stick.

Take either and assume the laws of physics (and/or magic) that the characters in-game are aware of or believe in are not /exactly/ those of the game, though, and you can have a something a bit like a typical fantasy setting - a bit /more/ like an heroic fantasy setting where the PCs actually /are/ the heroes, in the case of 4e.

 

[pemerton]

hps is one of the little jewels of the D&D sacred-cow collection.

I've got nothing against it - I'm in my 6th year of GMing a campaign using a combat system (4e) built around hit points.

I just don't think it's a sim mechanic.

 

[pemerton]

The reality is that the game rules - however abstract, consciously 'narrativist' or whatever, or even non-existent in the case of freestyle RP - /are/ the de-facto laws of physics of the game world. There's no escaping it.

I don't agree with this. There's no way, in a game of The World, The Flesh, and The Devil, that the notion of a W/F/D die, or of red and black symbols on the GM's die are part of the "physics" of the gameworld.

Another example is from HeroQuest revised. One job the GM has is to impose penalties on player checks using broad descriptors in circumstances where that descriptor overlaps with another player's PC's narrow descriptor. So, for instance, if PC A is "Strong", and PC B is "Able to lift heavy objects with ease", then in a check that involves lifting the player of A takes a -3 penalty. This penalty doesn't reflect anything in the gameworld. It is a metagame device to stop A's broader descriptor overshadowing B's narrower, more colourful descriptor.

Play 4e and lampshade it's de facto laws of physics, and you have something a bit like Discworld, where the value of pi happens to be 4.

Sure, you can ignore "genre blindness", have NPCs comment that whenever B is around A finds it harder to lift rocks, etc. But (assuming you want to play a serious game) why would you lampoon your own game like that?

As long as you don't, you can maintain physics of the gameworld which are quite independent of the game rules themselves.

 

[evileeyore]

That is NOT sim vs narrative.

I didn't say "narrativist". I said "gamist". D&D (as a rules system) is more worried about whether the door opened or not (gamism) than how you opened the door (sim) to the extent that the "how" isn't a part of the rules, nor is the state of the door afterwards, aside from it being "open".

In any meaningful sense GURPS gives me exactly as much nothing as D&D.

False. GURPS roll results will indicate the HP status of the door, whether it is open or not, as well as how much damage the PC (or his weapon or shield if used) has taken.

Fantastic I used my foot and so I did statistically .7 more damage then the shoulder bash, I opened the door! Yay. Now I turn and look at the door. Which component failed? Was it the hinges, the latch, the frame, the structure of the door?

At this point GURPS informs the ST of which of those things based on the prior decision of which was weakest. This is more information than D&D provides.


You call it "granularity" but miss out on what the actual difference was: D&D didn't care. None of this made an ounce of difference in the gamist pursuit of "Open The Door". Those things mattered for GURPS. Is GURPS gamist? Of course. It has win states. It has rules to move one towards those win states. However it a simulation of the physics that gets you there. D&D skips the physics and hands you your "Win/Lose" state, the DM supplies all the narrative*, and invents any simulation.


* Which is not "narrativist". It's just narration.

At any level of sim, I can utterly break your pretense of system based verisimilitude by insisting on asking a question the rules don't cover and forcing the GM to invent a narrative.

Sure. It's just so much easier with D&D. Like radically easier.*

How much HP is "meat"? GURPS answers this with "All of it". Was that sword swing a wound or did it just "shave some luck off"? GURPS answers this (hint it's never "luck"**), but it might not be a "wound". Is your character bleeding? GURPS answers this. Did the sword thrust skewer an interneal organ? Again...


* Though I have a gamist/narrativist system that goes one step farther than D&D. FFG's Star Wars. It doesn't even bother with a thin veneer of verisimilitude. It's as gamist as 4e D&D, a zero sim game.

** Okay. It could be. With the right Powers or Options being used. But generally it's not.

The whole point of a rules system is to provide a resolution mechanic which is more rigid than "Because I said so." and less effortful than calculating it out using hard physics right down to the Higgs field and Planck time.

False on both counts. "Because I said so" is a fine rule in a purely Narrative driven game. And you've never played SEEKRIEG I see... I can't prove it, but I swear Planck's Constant has to be involved those claculations somewhere... *grumble mumble* scientific calculator my butt *grumble mumble*


Now, you might mean "I want the whole point to be" which is perfectly cromulent statement.

And therefore any level of sim, short of that will have some point where the system uses shorthand and the GM must wing it if you peer closer.

Sure. That's why I place GURPS at about 60% sim (and 40% gamist) and D&D between 15-25% sim (and 75-85% gamist).

Though, boith games have "editions" (Optional Rules in GURPS case) that inject plentiful amounts of narrative mechanics.


My only point in this thread is this: D&D is a poor choice for simulationism. Unless you're simulating a D&D world* and then it does it better than any other game system ever.

* See Order of the Stick for a radically meta take on this premise.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I don't agree with this. There's no way, in a game of The World, The Flesh, and The Devil, that the notion of a W/F/D die, or of red and black symbols on the GM's die are part of the "physics" of the gameworld.

Of course they are. They're just a deep, impenetrable layer of those laws that anyone trying to puzzle them out from the inside is never going to figure out.

Another example is from HeroQuest revised. One job the GM has is to impose penalties on player checks using broad descriptors in circumstances where that descriptor overlaps with another player's PC's narrow descriptor. So, for instance, if PC A is "Strong", and PC B is "Able to lift heavy objects with ease", then in a check that involves lifting the player of A takes a -3 penalty. This penalty doesn't reflect anything in the gameworld. It is a metagame device to stop A's broader descriptor overshadowing B's narrower, more colourful descriptor.

So A and B would never notice that they performed differently in eachothers' mutual absence than when both are present?

Sure, you can ignore "genre blindness", have NPCs comment that whenever B is around A finds it harder to lift rocks, etc. But (assuming you want to play a serious game) why would you lampoon your own game like that?

As long as you don't, you can maintain physics of the gameworld which are quite independent of the game rules themselves.

Oh, I'm in agreement, here. It's easy to ignore the laws of physics - people did it for thousands of years, even when dealing with real laws of physics.

And lampshading can be a hoot.

 

[Bluenose]

Really, hps is one of the little jewels of the D&D sacred-cow collection. Along with, clunky though it is, leveling. They're things that those 'fantasy heartbreakers' trying to 'improve' D&D often ditch - and end up with death spirals and static, boring characters, instead.

For the least-Sim bit of D&D rules, I'd suggest Initiative and non-simultaneous action. And that's also a sacred cow, which 4e partly devoured with it's off-turn actions. I'd love to see someone try and defend turn-based combat as a mechanic that simulates what's actually happening, which I don't think even OotS has touched on.

 

[pemerton]

For the least-Sim bit of D&D rules, I'd suggest Initiative and non-simultaneous action.

I think that it's up there with hit points, yes.

And even pre-3E D&D, which tended to have slightly more continuous action within the (1 minute) round, still has initiative and an action economy that (in my view) can't be set out in simulationist terms.

 

[Imaro]

Did he chop off your arm? Did you bleed out? Did he decapitate you? Was it death by a thousand small cuts? Did he stab your left big toe and make your head explode like a blood fountain?

You don't know based on the rolls (okay, sure, if dealt 1 damage to you with each "attack roll" then death by a thousand cuts might be pretty accurate). All you can know is vaguely the speed at which you went from Perfectly Healthy to Dead. And that's right in the Gamist wheelhouse.

I never argued it was a perfect simulation that takes into account all possibilities (In fact I don't think anyone has)... However @Hussar claimed we don't know anything from the mechanics which is the point I was addressing... Not sure how you showing we don't know some things is the same as stating we don't know anything...

EDIT: For the record I agree with [MENTION=1879]Andor[/MENTION] in that your examples are more about granularity and specificity than any clear line of simulationism vs. not.

 

[Imaro]

Sure. That's why I place GURPS at about 60% sim (and 40% gamist) and D&D between 15-25% sim (and 75-85% gamist).

Though, boith games have "editions" (Optional Rules in GURPS case) that inject plentiful amounts of narrative mechanics.


My only point in this thread is this: D&D is a poor choice for simulationism. Unless you're simulating a D&D world* and then it does it better than any other game system ever.

* See Order of the Stick for a radically meta take on this premise.

I'm curious if your 15-25% sim D&D takes into account the various rules options that arose in 3.x, or even stuff like the Skills & Powers/historical splats in AD&D 2e? I mentioned the optional 3.5 rules earlier because I think it's a pretty important point.

I also am curious what percentage narrativist would you say D&D is?

Finally if these optional rules can get D&D to 60% or more sim then is it still a poor choice for simulationism, especially given such factors as the size of it's fanbase, familiarity with rules, availability, etc.?

 

[Imaro]

For the least-Sim bit of D&D rules, I'd suggest Initiative and non-simultaneous action. And that's also a sacred cow, which 4e partly devoured with it's off-turn actions. I'd love to see someone try and defend turn-based combat as a mechanic that simulates what's actually happening, which I don't think even OotS has touched on.

Yes there are rules that aren't simulationist in D&D (as well as in Runequest, GURPS, etc.) I don't think anyone has claimed it is a pure sim, and I've even commented that it being "incoherent" is actually part of the appeal of D&D... the issue is whether these things are so blatant/widespread/etc. that they cause a problem for those looking for a majority sim-play experience... I don't think 2-3 rules (hit points, initiative, and well I can't think of another offhand that's been brought up) out of all the rules in D&D are enough to ruin that for most people.