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

[Thomas Shey]

Every single preference anyone has could be used for gatekeeping. That term is being thrown around in situations where it isn't warranted.

Yeah, the only time I use that is when people try and turn it into a tool to call what someone is doing "not an RPG", because I very much think that is gatekeeping, but trying to use terminology to define what you want and are looking for is a perfectly valid use of same.

 

[Cruentus]

Good. It’s a useless distinction used primarily for gatekeeping, I think it ought to be dissolved.

Gatekeeping of what? That people want to discuss the difference between the two types of gaming, and potentially might find more interest on one side of the continuum or the other? This constant throwing around of "gatekeeping" as a way to block discussion about things that people might disagree on is particularly annoying. One might argue that by dissolving the distinction, you are in effect gatekeeping.

Back OT, I've gone back and forth on 'realism' versus 'gamism', even though I know both overlap. I've tried a number of different systems, and the more "realistic" ones, have bounced off my aging brain: Stormbringer, WHFB RPG, Pendragon and Paladin, etc. I love the concept of the systems, but can't quite figure out how to actually run the game.

In the DnD sphere, I've looked at ASoIaF d20, which had nice rules for aging, feats for gaining to hit and damage (lots of feats), little magic; and Basic DnD, 2e, Wolves of God, Beyond the Wall, and none of them are 'simulationist', but more or less provide the kinds of boundaries, approach, whatever that I might be looking for in a game: for ex, I tried a 5e Dark Ages Britain style game which failed spectacularly. I'm playing in a Wolves of God game, that is built to do just that, and having a blast. It was easier to get into the style of the game without being a contortionist and fighting the 'system', so to speak. Contrast to when we played Stormbringer, and when two half competent swordsmen went at it, the fights took hours - attack, parry, attack, dodge, attack, parry, and so on.

Finding that line between simulation and fantastical/heroic can be tough. The biggest element is having the right set of players who also buy in fully to the idea and the approach, and are willing to really wrap their arms around a simulationist approach. But I realize that is only a niche within our niche of RPGs.

 

[dave2008]

@DND_Reborn
You as asked about my house rules. So I have provide a link to a PDF with the rules were are currently using and some we have used and/or are considering. If you don't want to download the PDF, I can DM them to you directly. Just let me know.

Dave2008's House Rules

PS - These are mostly combat related. I don't feel the need to simulate realistic economies or anything else really. We pretty much handle everything outside of combat with roleplaying.

EDIT: update the link to not be access restricted!

 

[Vaalingrade]

Edit: Oops, replied to something way earlier in the thread.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Good. It’s a useless distinction used primarily for gatekeeping, I think it ought to be dissolved.

Interestingly, the only time I see this used for gatekeeping is to keep any discussion of narrativism out. There's also a pretty distinct difference in play agendas -- what you want from the game -- between these two things. Narrativist play is very much not at all concerned with simulation of anything at all, except perhaps genre/concept.

 

[Charlaquin]

Okay. Some people find value in the distinction, purely for describing their own preferences.

What would you recommend they use instead for talking about "I am interested in telling stories through gaming, through tools that encourage the kind of narrative events that interest me," vs "I am interested in a world that acts by consistent, cognizable rules that one can reason about organically, as one would do in the real world, in order to predict future consequences."?

I don’t think these two things are in conflict with one another. Consistent, cognizable rules that one can reason about organically to predict future consequences are beneficial to the goal of telling stories through gaming. The distinction here is that one approach wants to simulate reality and the latter wants to simulate the conventions and tropes of a certain fictional genre. And most RPGs aim for somewhere in the spectrum between, using familiar reality as a baseline and deviating from it as appropriate for the genre being emulated.

 

[Charlaquin]

Interestingly, the only time I see this used for gatekeeping is to keep any discussion of narrativism out.

Yeah, that’s pretty consistent with my experience as well. Generally I’ve seen people use the term “narrativism” for mechanics they dislike and want to keep out of D&D, and “simulationism” for the particular brand of selective realism they favor. But personally, I don’t think there’s anything categorically different about the mechanics the terms are used to gatekeep out and the mechanics that they’re used to prop up.

There's also a pretty distinct difference in play agendas -- what you want from the game -- between these two things. Narrativist play is very much not at all concerned with simulation of anything at all, except perhaps genre/concept.

You dismiss the notion of simulating genre, but I think that’s very much something many people want to do with so-called “narrativist play.” That said, I don’t disagree with what you’re saying here. There are definitely different agendas that people of various cultures of play pursue. I think the arbitrary distinction of “narrativist” vs “simulationist” games obfuscates the more meaningful underlying distinction between play agendas, and artificially limits what game mechanics people are willing to consider using in service of their play agendas. Ostensibly “simulationist” games often have mechanical tools that could be useful to the play agendas of groups who may think of themselves as “narrativist” and vice-versa, but they often go overlooked because of the in-group/out-group effect of the labels.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Yeah, that’s pretty consistent with my experience as well. Generally I’ve seen people use the term “narrativism” for mechanics they dislike and want to keep out of D&D, and “simulationism” for the particular brand of selective realism they favor. But personally, I don’t think there’s anything categorically different about the mechanics the terms are used to gatekeep out and the mechanics that they’re used to prop up.

You dismiss the notion of simulating genre, but I think that’s very much something many people want to do with so-called “narrativist play.” That said, I don’t disagree with what you’re saying here. There are definitely different agendas that people of various cultures of play pursue. I think the arbitrary distinction of “narrativist” vs “simulationist” games obfuscates the more meaningful underlying distinction between play agendas, and artificially limits what game mechanics people are willing to consider using in service of their play agendas. Ostensibly “simulationist” games often have mechanical tools that could be useful to the play agendas of groups who may think of themselves as “narrativist” and vice-versa, but they often go overlooked because of the in-group/out-group effect of the labels.

No, I just think that if we're using simulation that broadly, the problem is in using simulation that broadly and not in there not being a difference between narrativist techniques and simulation techniques, and most certainly not between the two agendas.

If my goal is to faithfully simulate a process such that I have cause and effect built into the system, then this is a rather different prospect from a game that doesn't establish cause and effect except as narration to what the system says. Take the D&D attack roll process. The attack is declared. You first check to make sure all of the prerequisite for the attack are in place -- is the range right, is LOS right, is there something else preventing the attack like condition? You then proceed to the attack roll, which is modelling your PC's ability to be successful martially against the opponents AC which is modelling their ability to avoid attacks. If successful, you proceed to a damage step, where the qualities of your weapon and the attack roll (did you crit) and your physical attributes are checked against the physical traits of the target (do they have resistance/immunity from that form of damage). Then hp are ticked down. The attack process is pretty simulationist up until the fact that hp aren't.

Contrast to Blades in the Dark. You declare an attack. The fiction is checked to see how dangerous this action is and the Position for the roll is set (this sets the range of how bad outcomes are if you fail). Then the nature of the declaration is compared to the fiction and the Effect of the roll is set (this sets the range of outcomes if you succeed). Then you roll the dice, which are fixed for that action and don't check anything in the fiction at all. The player can also leverage all kinds of other things here, gaining extra dice to roll to look for success or even increasing the Effect of the outcome or reducing the Position to something less dangerous. You can trade Position for Effect, taking a step of more danger for more impact. The outcome says if the action is successful (apply the Effect), mixed (apply the Effect and the consequence from the Position) or failed (consequence from Position). However, the outcome fictions aren't dictated by the mechanical outcome. A consequence for missing may be that the opponent hurts you back or that more bad guys show up or that you lose your weapon (and end up in worse Position moving forward). There's no effort to simulate a process here, but rather put constraints on what can be said and then see who gets the say.

There's a difference between trying to simulate something and not caring about simulations but finding out where the drama is.

 

[pemerton]

Good. It’s a useless distinction used primarily for gatekeeping, I think it ought to be dissolved.

Huh? How is it "gatekeeping" to point out that (say) Rolemaster and Agon use radically different mechanical processes, and radically different relationships between mechanics and fiction, to produce different play experiences?

This is like saying it's "gatekeeping" to contrast Jackson Pollock's techniques with those of Michelangelo.

 

[pemerton]

I don’t think these two things are in conflict with one another. Consistent, cognizable rules that one can reason about organically to predict future consequences are beneficial to the goal of telling stories through gaming. The distinction here is that one approach wants to simulate reality and the latter wants to simulate the conventions and tropes of a certain fictional genre. And most RPGs aim for somewhere in the spectrum between, using familiar reality as a baseline and deviating from it as appropriate for the genre being emulated.

What you post here doesn't describe Dungeon World, or Agon, or even Burning Wheel.

Knowing that I am about to throw 2d6 to resolve my Hack & Slash in DW play doesn't allow me to "predict future consequences". If I fail, I won't know what the hard move is until the GM narrates it.

In Burning Wheel, if I have to negotiate a compromise in a Duel of Wits the resolution that preceded the negotiation will inform the negotiation, but does not even come close to settling it.

The key function of mechanics in RPGs is not to determine, or to allow the prediction of, consequences. It's to distribute permissions and/or obligations to add to the fiction, and perhaps to set parameters around those permissions and obligations. Only in some cases - Rolemaster is always my paradigm - do those parameters amount to some sort of simulation.

EDIT: there's some overlap here with Ovinomancer's post just upthread:

If my goal is to faithfully simulate a process such that I have cause and effect built into the system, then this is a rather different prospect from a game that doesn't establish cause and effect except as narration to what the system says.

<snip>

Contrast to Blades in the Dark.

<snip>

There's no effort to simulate a process here, but rather put constraints on what can be said and then see who gets the say.