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

[pemerton]

I don’t think it’s a good word for it at all because it implies distinct categories, which is just not how it works. All of those games simulate things, they just have different priorities in terms of what they simulate and how.

What does Torchbearer simulate?

When I roll the dice for combat in T&T, what is that simulating?

When I Spout Lore in Dungeon World and throw my 2d6, what is that simulating?

 

[DND_Reborn]

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

Because it is an unfortunately side effect of the player knowing the PC is at 1 hit point, and for the character just knowing they were fortunate to survive such a fall and next time they might not be so lucky.

Take the first part out, where the player doesn't know, and suddenly loss of hit points must be described more to represent the mounting danger the PC faces.

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.

Actually, it annoys me less than a lot of the other things in 5E (and prior editions). Back in AD&D, for a while, I didn't let the players know their PCs' hit points. I tracked it all--the damage they took--how much they healed--everything. So, every hit became a narrative proportionate to their maximum HP. 5% was a dodge or parry, 10% a graze, 20% a cut, 33% a painful wound and bleeding, 50% a broken bone, wounding, and more. And so on...

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?

Again, this is the side effect that the player knows the HP, not that the character is more or less aware of it, depending on the narrative of their hp loss. It is only meaningful to the player because of the number, they see the risk, but the character is typically blissfully unaware.

Given you example, what is a hit or first round loss of 95% to the PC? Are they potentially stunned? Do they suffer disadvantage due to injury? I would imagine so much damage might be from a critical hit, so perhaps a decent roll on the lingering injuries table (your hand is lobbed off!) might enforce something or a failed DC 15 CON save followed by a 1-3 will reduce the PC to 0 hp?

There is more that could be done--but often doesn't happen or isn't used...

 

[Cadence]

Because it is an unfortunately side effect of the player knowing the PC is at 1 hit point, and for the character just knowing they were fortunate to survive such a fall and next time they might not be so lucky.

Take the first part out, where the player doesn't know, and suddenly loss of hit points must be described more to represent the mounting danger the PC faces.


Actually, it annoys me less than a lot of the other things in 5E (and prior editions). Back in AD&D, for a while, I didn't let the players know their PCs' hit points. I tracked it all--the damage they took--how much they healed--everything. So, every hit became a narrative proportionate to their maximum HP. 5% was a dodge or parry, 10% a graze, 20% a cut, 33% a painful wound and bleeding, 50% a broken bone, wounding, and more. And so on...


Again, this is the side effect that the player knows the HP, not that the character is more or less aware of it, depending on the narrative of their hp loss. It is only meaningful to the player because of the number, they see the risk, but the character is typically blissfully unaware.

Why would the character not be roughly aware of something just because it wasn't described in detail?

If there are fatigue rules in th game, are the characters blissfully unaware that they're in danger of getting another point of fatigue until it happens?

For combat, would you let the characters know about their current state if the rules said <5% is a dodge or parry, 5-20% is a minor bruise or cut, 21-40% is one that will hurt tomorrow...

Or do things need to give penalties before the players can RP them?

If yes, how big of a penalty? (Is a -1 much of anything? Disadvantage on everything is huge, but that just gives us three states instead of two...)

 

[DND_Reborn]

Why would the character not be roughly aware of something just because it wasn't described in detail?

If it isn't described, how could they be???

If there are fatigue rules in th game, are the characters blissfully unaware that they're in danger of getting another point of fatigue until it happens?

It depends on what, if anything, fatigue rules do. Take exhaustion in 5E for example. I think it is one of the better and underutilized mechanics of the game. It is a way of representing fatigue or injury in a meaningful and concrete manner with direct impact on the game mechanics.

PCs in 5E are aware of the death-spiral of exhaustion because of its impact. But the PCs have no awareness of being at half HP unless the DM's narrative of how they go there tells them. Even then, it has no impact on their capabilities or effectiveness.

For combat, would you let the characters know about their current state if the rules said <5% is a dodge or parry, 5-20% is a minor bruise or cut, 21-40% is one that will hurt tomorrow...

It depends on just how the system was developed and what impact, if any, it had.

Or do things need to give penalties before the players can RP them?

But there isn't much really to RP with this stuff without some mechanical impact.

If yes, how big of a penalty? (Is a -1 much of anything? Disadvantage on everything is huge, but that just gives us three states instead of two...)

Again, it depends on the system. A system with -1 for each 20% hp loss might work, for example, or it might not.

 

[Cadence]

If it isn't described, how could they be???


It depends on what, if anything, fatigue rules do. Take exhaustion in 5E for example. I think it is one of the better and underutilized mechanics of the game. It is a way of representing fatigue or injury in a meaningful and concrete manner with direct impact on the game mechanics.

PCs in 5E are aware of the death-spiral of exhaustion because of its impact. But the PCs have no awareness of being at half HP unless the DM's narrative of how they go there tells them. Even then, it has no impact on their capabilities or effectiveness.


It depends on just how the system was developed and what impact, if any, it had.


But there isn't much really to RP with this stuff without some mechanical impact.


Again, it depends on the system. A system with -1 for each 20% hp loss might work, for example, or it might not.

I've always just assume everyone I've played with assumed their characters were accruing minor wounds as their characters hp went down and were roughly aware of that status.

I can see the value in a system that gives gradually increasing penalties as you go.

It seems strange to me to insist that "hit for five" doesn't give the character any sense at all of their danger/safety based on their current HP unless the DM narrates if it was a scratch or a cut or a bruise or a parry, or let's them know if they're starting to feel winded. It seems kind of akin to a DM making a character act out their social interactions instead of just saying their impressive looking barbarian tried to intimidate the clerk.

I'll be interested to see what the individuals in my last few groups thought about their characters' knowledge of HP.

 

[pemerton]

That is kind of the point of @Charlaquin's statement, the simulation game that suits depends on what the person looking for in simulation wants to see simulated. Or may be more accurately the game they want is one that does have the friction points that bothers them.

When I play Torchbearer, nothing is being simulated. On a failed check, the GM can narrate a twist. That can be whatever the GM thinks fits the situation - a tool breaking, falling down a suddenly-opening pit, being swarmed by monsters, etc.

When a conflict is resolved, the outcome is determined via negotiation, with the terms set by the degree of points-depletion of the winning side (the more points they lost before winning, the more severe the compromise has to be). This isn't simulating anything - it's constrained negotiation over the contents of the shared fiction.

The earliest game I know of to feature negotiated resolution to conflicts is In A Wicked Age, but maybe there are earlier examples. In any event, it's not simulation.

Contrast Rolemaster, where every action resolution process prescribes in more or less detail what is actually happening in the fiction.

 

[pemerton]

I would rather play a game where "hits" are actual hits and you might survive a few hits before you died, but one hit might also kill you. Combat should be avoided whenever possible, and a man with a drawn sword is actually dangerous.

I would strongly recommend Rolemaster (or something from that family, like Against the Darkmaster or HARP) or Runequest (or something from its family).

 

[pemerton]

HP loss is still non-zero information isn't it? It says how close to death the player is

Yes. It's metagame information. It doesn't tell us anything about the fiction.

 

[Umbran]

A simulation has to tell you ANYTHING about what is being simulated. Is that a fair thing to say?

I mean, that depends on what you mean by "about what is being simulated".

A decent simulation gives you things that look like the thing that is being simulated, in some sense. That does not give you any information about the mechanisms that create the thing in the real world.

For instance - In TV studios, they often use bright lights, sometimes tens of thousands of watts of light. They can be quite warm. Imagine filming a TV commercial, in which a character has an ice cream sundae. DO you think that sundae is holding up in the studio for hours? No. If the actor doesn't have to actually eat it, they can use a facimile, which is a visual simulation of an ice cream sundae. Similarly, the stuff they pour in slow-motion on cereal in cereal commercials often isn't actual milk. It is something that seems like milk on the screen.

When I say the simulation doesn't tell us about how the world works, it is this: Neither the fake ice cream sundae, nor the fake milk, informs you about how cows are involved in the real thing. It just acts like we want these dairy products to act for the purposes we need. Knowing how the fake milk and fake ice cream are made does not necessarily tell you anything about the real milk in the fridge.

Or, you can make a bot, a simulation of a person, who can hold up their end of a conversation in text. It can be done with clever context searches of large databases (or, the internet as a whole, even, iirc). That doesn't necessarily tell you how your human brain carries on conversation.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I've always just assume everyone I've played with assumed their characters were accruing minor wounds as their characters hp went down and were roughly aware of that status.

That is certainly one way to look at HP and perfectly acceptable.

But because HP represents so many abstract things, do any of the losses have to be minor wounds at all? That 5 damage attack was "dodged" or "parried" maybe and expended HP are energy to avoid it so it wasn't actually a serious hit, because otherwise those 5 hp could KILL (compared to the commoner with 4 hp total...). Such "energy" can be quickly recovered by resting (short or long), or restored by magic (healing) so the PC feels revitalized. It would be easier to argue recovering such hit points instead of those "minor wounds" healing overnight...

I can see the value in a system that gives gradually increasing penalties as you go.

Such a system could have value, but then argues is the granularity worth the bookkeeping.

For as much simplicity as I could suggest the following if I continued with D&D:

OPTION 1:

A straight -1 penalty for each 20% reduction in hp. Yes, this requires a bit of bookkeeping, but not too much IMO. You list your maximum (100%) hp, 80%, 60%, 40%, and 20%. If you are between 81-100%, no problems. At 61-80% you have a -1, at 41-60% a -2, and so on.

OPTION 2:

Have a damage threshold equal to 20% hp. Each time you lose that many hp, you gain a level of exhaustion.

It seems strange to me to insist that "hit for five" doesn't give the character any sense at all of their danger/safety based on their current HP unless the DM narrates if it was a scratch or a cut or a bruise or a parry, or let's them know if they're starting to feel winded. It seems kind of akin to a DM making a character act out their social interactions instead of just saying their impressive looking barbarian tried to intimidate the clerk.

Well, someone needs to narrate it, either the DM or the player. Otherwise, you just don't know other than the numbers...

I narrate a lot depending on the damage and hp of the target. A hit for 5-10% might be a parry by shield, but the PC "feels" the impact and strain on the arm and shoulder from taking the blow. A hit for 20% might be a cut to the side, painful and perhaps links of armor are rended, etc.