D&D General D&D isn't a simulation game, so what is???

[Cadence]

4e? Oh, you mean 4X game - Explore, Expand, Exploit, Exterminate. Games like Civilization, or Stellaris.

That makes much more sense!!

But, your first question is much more pertinent. If the simulation cannot actually tell you any information about what is being simulated - ie generate some form of narrative - then in what way is it a simulation? The whole point of simulation is to tell you something about the thing that is being simulated. Otherwise, it's not a simulation.

Why does information need to come with a narrative though? If a game tells me it's 26 degrees out when the party wakes up, is that not information unless the rules tell me how to narrate frostbite?

 

[Hussar]

Well, it depends. When you say simulation, do you really mean, "genre sinulation"? To me those are two different things, and some degree of reality simulation is what I'm looking for, and what my house rules for 5e work toward.

Genre simulation is a completely different kettle of sahuagin.

What does genre simulation mean?

Isn't it just... genre? D&D doesn't simulate the fantasy genre - it IS fantasy genre. If I then use 5e rules to play an SF game, it's not simulating science fiction - it's just is a science fiction game.

 

[Hussar]

That makes much more sense!!



Why does information need to come with a narrative though? If a game tells me it's 26 degrees out when the party wakes up, is that not information unless the rules tell me how to narrate frostbite?

26 degrees? Many that's nice and war.... Ooooh, you mean Fahrenheit.

But, here's the thing - what's frostbite in D&D? There's no rules, AFAIK, for frostbite in D&D. You can certainly ad hoc something and come up with something. Sure. But, the mechanics are silent about frostbite. Any effects of frostbite that happen have nothing to do with the mechanics of the game other than what you add.

And, I'd point out, you're changing the issue somewhat. Say we have a weather table in the game, or the DM simply decides the weather, no problem. We know what happens when it's really cold, so, we can generate a narrative based on the in game fiction. It's cold, so, you might get frostbite. No probems. We can certainly invent mechanics, and even use existing mechanics to guide that.

But, when we actually use the mechanics of D&D - ie the actual D&D system - we cannot answer any questions. What happened in that combat? We have no idea. We can make up some sort of result that the table agrees on, but, at that point, it's purely freeform and has nothing to do with the system. You cannot claim something that the system doesn't do is part of that system. Your loss of 5 HP from an attack has no actual information attached to it other than a little floating -5 appeared over your character's head.

Again, it's not a simulation if it doesn't actually carry any information. If it doesn't tell you anything, a system cannot be called a simulation. Flipping a coin is not a simulation.

 

[Cadence]

For me, I have no problem with the term. A game like the above mentioned HarnWorld is very much leaning towards being able to tell the players something about the in game fiction when you invoke the mechanics. In other words, it's actually simulating something. Doesn't have to be something real at all. The point of a simulation isn't to simulate reality - it's to tell you what happens when you input specific parameters. You tell the simulation that X and Y are true, and it tells you that Z happens because of that.

That's kinda where I tripped earlier and talked about how. How would be answered by a more detailed simulation. The more detailed the simulation, the more How gets answered. But, at the very basic level, a simulation has to answer what.

((Note, this isn't specifically addressed to you @Charlequin - I'm just riffing off of this hereafter))

We could simply flip a coin for combat. Heads you win tails you lose. Now, no one would call that a simulation. Why not? After all, it has all the same results as D&D combat. The only difference is granularity. In D&D combat, you have a few more coin flips (with a rather funny looking coin ) but, you arrive at the same level of information as a simple coin flip. Nothing in the system actually tells you anything about what happens.

Compare to a system with hit locations. Now, at the very least, you can say where an attack hit. But, then you run into the next problem - one attack doesn't track 1:1 to 1 swing of the sword. It's meant as an abstraction of any number of actions that could occur in a round. But, let's ignore that. At least with hit locations, we can at the very least have mechanics that kinda/sorta tell us what happened in that round.

Knowing dead yet vs not dead yet is still information. But yes, very granular.

But, as you note, everything is granular. How do you narrate the arm injury in a way that can't be contradicted next round if the IRL medical person at the table pushes for precise information?

But, as it stands, when you enter the D&D combat mini-game, from the time initiative is rolled to the time the combat ends, every character in that combat, PC or NPC, exists as a sort of cloud of possibilities without any real form. No narrative can be generated during play that can't be immediately contradicted in the next round. There's nothing actually being simulated.

What kind of narrative are you viewing as being able to be contradicted?

And, of course, how close the person is to death is being simulated. Isn't it? That it isn't what you want simulated doesn't make it not a simulation.

 

[Cadence]

.
Again, it's not a simulation if it doesn't actually carry any information. If it doesn't tell you anything, a system cannot be called a simulation. Flipping a coin is not a simulation.

How close you are to death is information. Just because it isn't the information you want doesn't make it not a simulation. [Edit: And after I finish typing I realize I'm being more repetitive than usual, sorry!]

Flipping coins (or using binomial distributions, say) is used to simulate lots of things...

 

[Hussar]

Knowing dead yet vs not dead yet is still information. But yes, very granular.

But, as you note, everything is granular. How do you narrate the arm injury in a way that can't be contradicted next round if the IRL medical person at the table pushes for precise information?



What kind of narrative are you viewing as being able to be contradicted?

And, of course, how close the person is to death is being simulated. Isn't it? That it isn't what you want simulated doesn't make it not a simulation.

"How close a person is to death" is a meaningless statement. It carries no information outside of the game state of HP. It doesn't tell us ANYTHING.

It doesn't need to be precise information. A very detailed simulation, sure, would answer that question. A less detailed simulation probably wouldn't. But, D&D isn't simulating anything at all. It's pure abstraction with binary states - live or dead.

That orc hits you for 5 HP of damage. What happened? A simulation could, at least in broad strokes, tell you ANYTHING about what happened. D&D cannot even tell you if that orc actually made physical contact with you or not. After all, HP=Luck as well as other stuff. So, when you say the orc scratches you and the player says, "nope, no he didn't. He missed and flowers sprouted out of my left cheek" you cannot actually contradict that player. Nothing in the system allows for any sort of narration. All narration is free form. And, not even necessary to play the game.

 

[Micah Sweet]

What does genre simulation mean?

Isn't it just... genre? D&D doesn't simulate the fantasy genre - it IS fantasy genre. If I then use 5e rules to play an SF game, it's not simulating science fiction - it's just is a science fiction game.

The Powered by the Apocalypse games are genre emulation. Each is designed to feel like a particular type of story as their highest priority. That's the sort of thing I mean.

 

[Cadence]

.
Again, it's not a simulation if it doesn't actually carry any information. If it doesn't tell you anything, a system cannot be called a simulation. Flipping a coin is not a simulation.

How close you are to death is information. Just because it isn't the information you want doesn't make it not a simulation.

Flipping coins (or using binomial distributions, say) is used to simulate lots of things....

"How close a person is to death" is a meaningless statement. It carries no information outside of the game state of HP. It doesn't tell us ANYTHING.

So you don't change how your character plays based on how many HP they have left? Your character doesn't react differently when they're hit for 1% of their base HP vs. 90% of it, in one swing of the enemy?

It doesn't need to be precise information. A very detailed simulation, sure, would answer that question. A less detailed simulation probably wouldn't. But, D&D isn't simulating anything at all. It's pure abstraction with binary states - live or dead.

For each location on the body, what does the wound location system say in particular? (If my arm is hit what are the possible ways it is affected?)

That orc hits you for 5 HP of damage. What happened? A simulation could, at least in broad strokes, tell you ANYTHING about what happened. D&D cannot even tell you if that orc actually made physical contact with you or not. After all, HP=Luck as well as other stuff. So, when you say the orc scratches you and the player says, "nope, no he didn't. He missed and flowers sprouted out of my left cheek" you cannot actually contradict that player.

I'm pretty sure a lot of people on this board would never invite such a player back again if they thought that was a vaguely appropriate or rational response.

I assume any narration that moved them roughly 5hp worth more to death would be acceptable though.

Nothing in the system allows for any sort of narration. All narration is free form.

So it allows for a wide variety of narrations...

And, not even necessary to play the game.

Is narration required with a hit table? If my arm is hit do I narrate it as external bleeding or internal? Ligament damage or just a sprain? A flower sprouting painfully from the bone? Any of those?

 

[DND_Reborn]

How close you are to death is information. Just because it isn't the information you want doesn't make it not a simulation.

While I understand your point, in 5E you really aren't closer to death. In terms of everything your character can do, having 1 hp out of 100 is no different than 50 or 100... You suffer no fatigue, no bleeding out, nothing. You could have 100 hit points, fall hundreds of feet for 99 points of damage, get up and walk away at normal speed. The only thing you would have to do is be more careful about falling again--that is until you had a chance to rest for 8 hours in which case you could do it again.

Now, the DMG has lingering injuries on critical hits, going to 0 hp, or failing a death save by 5 or more, but until that natural 20 happens or you go to 0, nothing. There are also rules for massive damage, but the odds of that even having any impact is so small it is virtually pointless to bother with.

The loss of hit points is meaningless outside of taking damage. Due to the abstract nature of 5E, those hit points could be luck, skill, divine favor, endurance, or other factors.

 

[Cadence]

While I understand your point, in 5E you really aren't closer to death. In terms of everything your character can do, having 1 hp out of 100 is no different than 50 or 100... You suffer no fatigue, no bleeding out, nothing. You could have 100 hit points, fall hundreds of feet for 99 points of damage, get up and walk away at normal speed. The only thing you would have to do is be more careful about falling again--that is until you had a chance to rest for 8 hours in which case you could do it again.

Why would you bother to be more careful if it was meaningless?

The loss of hit points is meaningless outside of taking damage. Due to the abstract nature of 5E, those hit points could be luck, skill, divine favor, endurance, or other factors.

True, and I can completely understand your annoyance with that abstraction! It is pretty much the most abstract one can be about combat, short of not even letting the players know there own hitpoints.

But I would find it odd if people in 5e who say they are meaningless play that way. If you are hit for 95% of your base HP in the first round by a single attack, does your character react differently than of the hot had been for 1%? If you're down to 10hp do you not use different tactics than if you were at 90hp?

(On the other hand, someone playing a combo deck in MtG might not change anything at all based on their life total or the damage they are taking).