Why use D&D for a Simulationist style Game?

[Imaro]

In any event you keep asking question, and I see no sign that you are listening to the answers so I think I'm going to bow out of this thread. Enjoy the game, in whatever way you like to play it.

Yeah, I feel the same way about this thread, that there's no real desire for understanding of why... only a reason to try and prove people wrong. well about to go grab a 5e PHB... Peace!!

 

[evileeyore]

Because the heal skill can be used by the faithless with the same result...

Just because the character has rejected ZOD doesn't mean ZOD has rejected the character..

 

[Hussar]

A cure light wounds spell works on the faithless as well. What's your point?

A character takes damage from slashing or piercing or bludgeoning, all for the same HP damage. What difference is there between those three wounds? Do they heal at different rates? Do they have different effects on the character? AFAIK, they don't. Taking 7 HP of bludgeoning, piercing or slashing damage makes absolutely no mechanical difference.

So, [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION], in your opinion, what's the point of having the three damage types? I mean, that was a 3e addition to the rules. Apparently we managed to play D&D for twenty years without it. So, what did adding those three damage types add to the game and what impact did they have on combat mechanics?

And, again, what falling? In my example, the character didn't fall, he stumbled back. Sorry, the example was unclear, and that was my bad. I meant that he stumbled back away from the attack, and got scared. HP contain morale - the will to keep fighting - do they not? I'm pretty sure that the definition of HP does include that concept at least in some versions of D&D.

In AD&D, the loss of HP caused morale checks, so, there is definitely a correlation between HP and morale.

 

[Savage Wombat]

In AD&D, the loss of HP caused morale checks, so, there is definitely a correlation between HP and morale.

I wouldn't include this in your example - the obvious implication is that an injured or threatened foe might flee, not that morale composes a portion of your HP total. Pemerton's repeated use of Phantasmal Killer works better.

 

[Tony Vargas]

In AD&D, the loss of HP caused morale checks, so, there is definitely a correlation between HP and morale.

Well, except that PCs had hps, but didn't check morale.

 

[Bluenose]

First I define Narrativist as "Having mechanics to place the power of scene Narration in the Players hands". It's why I've been seperating "narration" (what the DM does all the time) from "narrativist" in my arguments.

OD&D, AD&D, BECMI, 3e = Basically none. The PCs have little to no narrative control outside their own characters actions, much of which may require actual skill checks. While I do understand that by GNS Theory this still means they have some Narrative control, I'm not counting it.

4e = I'm not sure. I think there were some narrative powers, but little of it exist outside combat and mostly serves the gamist side of the house. I'm willing to accept I may be wrong in labeling 4e "little to no narrativism".

5e = There is a clear Narrativist Mechanic in the Inspiration points. Not sure how much it'll play in 5e, we'll see.

GURPS = I've been remis in mentioning that GURPS has a strong Narrativist mechanic in EXP expenditure in game. It's fairly broad in the narrative powers it places in PCs hands, but it requires ST/Player negotiation and is limited by how many EXP the Player wants to spend (and GURPS awards far, far less EXP than D&D does, like 5 points per session).

It doesn't come into play often, so I tend to forget it until something extreme comes up (like impending character death).

Would you class Action Points (either the 3e "I get a bonus to this roll" or the 4e "I get an extra action" version) as Narrativist or as Gamist?

I'm amused to note that Inspiration Points are already being talked about as terrible metagaming in some places, btw. At least one person claims they're horribly anti-Sim, because trying harder when things that matter to you are involved is already taken into account by the die roll and you shouldn't get any bonuses for it.

 

[Hussar]

Well, except that PCs had hps, but didn't check morale.

Shhhh. Quiet. NPC's and pcs are identical dontchaknow. Pointing to their differences is taboo.

And [MENTION=1932]Savage Wombat[/MENTION] - I dunno. You lose hp, your morale fails and you run away. Sure sounds like you Eleanor out of morale.

 

[evileeyore]

Would you class Action Points (either the 3e "I get a bonus to this roll" or the 4e "I get an extra action" version) as Narrativist or as Gamist?

Gamist. It's a "results orientated" mechanic, not a "controls the narrative" mechanic.

Note, just because I lazily lump Inspiration Points under the "Narrativist" hood (as well as In Play EXP Expenditures in GURPS), doesn't mean that's all they can affect in my judgement. Both can purely affect die rolls, which is gamist, both can inject player narration. They do double duty, but for lazy conveince I toss the N label at them.

I r lazy game philosopher.

I'm amused to note that Inspiration Points are already being talked about as terrible metagaming in some places, btw. At least one person claims they're horribly anti-Sim, because trying harder when things that matter to you are involved is already taken into account by the die roll and you shouldn't get any bonuses for it.

I laugh at them and draw mustaches on their avatars, that's about the level of respect I have for that way of thinking.*

Now, if someone hates it in and tosses it from their games, that's their biz.



* In GURPS "trying harder" is incorporated into the rules via Fatigue expenditure (called Extra Effort - this is for physical actions only though**). You can get a small bonus to a die roll but risk injuring yourself. Granted D&D has always treated HP as Fatigue, so this solution might not work as well here.

** For any "extra effort" type bonus GURPS allows for EXP Expenditure to affect die rolls. But this is a costly solution over the long run. But then when it's a "character death or spend a few EXP" situation... the cost is justified.

 

[Greg K]

So, [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION], in your opinion, what's the point of having the three damage types? I mean, that was a 3e addition to the rules. Apparently we managed to play D&D for twenty years without it. So, what did adding those three damage types add to the game and what impact did they have on combat mechanics?

The damage types existed in 1e and 2e.

I don't have access to my 1e PHB so I can't say one way or the other if it specifically makes any mention of damage types. I wouldn't be surprised if the weapon vs. armor table was taking damage type vs armor via the bonus and penalties to hit.

However, different damage types mentioned with different effects do appear in the Monster Manual skeleton entry:

Skeletons "suffer only one-half damage from sharp and/or edged weapons (such as spears, dagers,swords). Blunt weapons such as clubs, maces, flails, etc. score normal damage)".​

For 2e: Weapons are listed with a Damage Type (or multiple types) in the PHB" B=Blunt, P=Piercing, and/or S=Slashing. The damage type could alter a weapon's effectiveness against different armor types if using the optional weapon type vs. optional type.
Despite the optional effectiveness vs. armor, the damage type again has varied effectiveness against some monsters. From the 2e Skeleton entry:

"The fact that they are mostly empty means that edged or piercing weapons (like swords, daggers, and spears) inflict only half damage when employed against skeletons. Blunt weapons, with larger heads designed to break and crush bones, cause normal damage against skeletons."​

So even if people ignored the weapon vs. armor table in 1e and the optional weapon type vs armor rule from 2e, certain monsters were affected differently by different weapon damage types in the 20 years before 3e.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I'm amused to note that Inspiration Points are already being talked about as terrible metagaming in some places, btw. At least one person claims they're horribly anti-Sim, because trying harder when things that matter to you are involved is already taken into account by the die roll and you shouldn't get any bonuses for it.

I'm not sure whether it's meta-gaming, but I still think it's weird.

I mean, it seems kind of heavy-handed whenever the game mechanics tell you how your character is supposed to feel about something. If it's my character, then I should know how she would react to whatever situation, without the game needing to tell me. But there's also strong precedent for non-magical abilities that make a character afraid (going all the way back) or inspired (going back at least as far as the 3.0 bard). So clearly that's not the issue.

I think the part that gets me is the choice. The part where you actually choose how that inspiration manifests. The character is inspired, and we all agree on that, but that inspiration manifests in exactly one die roll of your choice.

And like I said, I'm not entirely sure that it's a meta-game thing. I can see how it's something that the character is aware of. I'm just not sure if the choice makes sense as something that the character would be aware of. I don't know that the character can decide that it really wants to resist this one spell, or just really make sure that this next attack actually lands. It seems like something that would just happen​.