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

[pemerton]

You've got me curious now which systems realistically simulate bird flight, and if they are ones I might enjoy?

Burning Wheel attempts to. I suspect its speeds are still on the slow side. Rolemaster's are too.

Accuracy, inaccuracy, or silence on bird flight does not necessarily (and in most cases won't) impinge on gamism or narativism.

It has significant implications for gamist (= "step on up") play, which is why it is normally slower than reality: because if characters can shape-shift into birds and thereby get to fly (not just move, but fly) then that has implications for the balancing of shape-shifting over other abilities that players have to choose between in building and playing their PCs.

 

[DND_Reborn]

You've got me curious now which systems realistically simulate bird flight, and if they are ones I might enjoy?

Well, I am working on one for 5E, where flight speeds are much greater, and rules about flying creatures movements (I might borrow some from prior editions), but I do want to keep it simple enough to appeal to possible 5E use.

The issue is basically this: systems were compromised in realism for the sake of simplicity in 5E's design. I get that. But IMO much of it was too simplified--to the point it really is not plausible (for me)!

Most birds fly (cruise) between 20-30 mph, and many can obtain top speeds of 60-90 mph (although some are slower of course!). In the case of the manticore, a fly speed 50 is just silly. Even dashing it would barely be moving quickly enough to stay aloft. Now, creatures which are given hover would not need to worry about that, but most flying creatures can "hover" IME. They can "fly roughly in place" by a series of bobbing up and down while flapping, etc.--but that is not really the same thing as true hovering IMO.

It is something I am working on and if I devise a (relatively) simple system which is 5E compatible I will certainly share it. For ground-based creatures, I think I am almost at an "acceptable" point of speeds vs. real-life. Will it be perfect? Of course not! But my hope is that it will be better (in terms of realism) than what 5E currently offers.

And, of course, I am still interested in other systems in general over the next few weeks--time permitting.

 

[pemerton]

I understand that a simulation need not conform only to the rules of our own reality. Rather, as I have understood the term, simulation requires that it have rules--whatever those rules are--and those rules are ultimately never violated.

<snip>

That is where simulation gets is association with "realism," or rather groundedness, to use my not-quite-identical term. A game (or any medium) that fails to be sufficiently grounded, either by failing to resemble the audience's perception of the real world ("realism") or failing to explain itself sufficiently so we develop an intuitive awareness of its rules, will fail to be a simulation. Even if it is otherwise very good at establishing the chain of material causation (or "more detailed," as you put it), a lack of groundedness is a fatal flaw from a simulation standpoint, and "like the real world" is the low-hanging-fruit of writing grounded things.

What examples of RPGs do you have in mind?

I think the notion of simulation that @Hussar has put forward is fairly straightforward, has a reasonably stable pattern of usage over time in relation to RPGs (around 10 years ago on these boards it was often called "process simulation"; Ron Edwards, around 20 years ago, called it "purist-for-system simulation"). The basic idea is that when the mechanics of the system - action resolution mechanics, and perhaps also PC build mechanics, and perhaps even content-generation mechanics like encounter checks or world-building tools - are used to create new fiction, they correlate to, and in some fashion model, the in-setting causal processes that (within the fiction) are the causes of the new stuff.

In RQ we see this in the combat system and the PC advancement system (ie learn by doing). In Classic Traveller we can see this not only in the PC build system (it models in-fiction lifepaths) but in the encounter system, and even the framework for rolling up alien animal species. (The contrast here with D&Disms like hit points, or very traditional wandering monster checks, is clear.)

There is no particular need for inviolate rules as part of the fiction - just that the mechanics, when used, map out the in-fiction causation to which they correlate. Because the in-fiction causation is not going to be spelled out in the sort of detail that an engineer might typically hope for, it will often trade on the players' common sense about things (eg we see this in Traveller's animal gen rules: thinner atmospheres have fewer, and lighter, fliers). Maybe that's what you mean by "groundedness"? But it doesn't particularly depend on inviolate rules. RQ's learning-by-doing, for instance, is based on random rolls not inviolate rules, but it still achieves the simulationist RPGer goal of having the character's development, in in-fiction causal terms, being modelled by the rules for PC build. Contrast the complaints one sometimes sees, that D&D permits the grafting on of mutliclass levels with no in-fiction explanation for where that character development came from.

 

[pemerton]

A simulation has a reference: S is a simulation of R. One value of S is that it can answer questions (make predictions) about R.

<snip>

I proposed another approach, which is to take S to be a simulation of some R. So that answers in S are one's way of knowing that R. I justified that in part by saying - it's all pretend anyway.

It's not a simulation if you're making up the salient fiction as you go along.

This is what makes Dungeon World not a simulationist RPG, and what makes Burning Wheel not a simulationist one once the GM starts framing scenes and narrating consequences, although the PC sheets and the process of PC build have a lot in common with classic simulationist systems (RM, RQ, Traveller).

Conversely, RM and RQ aspire to have all the salient fiction yielded by the processes of action resolution. And the more they fail to meet that aspiration, the more they fail their design goal; whereas DW does not have any such design goal - it expressly embraces the notion of the GM making up fiction as part of making soft and hard moves within the parameters of permission granted by the game system.

 

[dave2008]

Well, I am working on one for 5E, where flight speeds are much greater, and rules about flying creatures movements (I might borrow some from prior editions), but I do want to keep it simple enough to appeal to possible 5E use.

The issue is basically this: systems were compromised in realism for the sake of simplicity in 5E's design. I get that. But IMO much of it was too simplified--to the point it really is not plausible (for me)!

Most birds fly (cruise) between 20-30 mph, and many can obtain top speeds of 60-90 mph (although some are slower of course!). In the case of the manticore, a fly speed 50 is just silly. Even dashing it would barely be moving quickly enough to stay aloft. Now, creatures which are given hover would not need to worry about that, but most flying creatures can "hover" IME. They can "fly roughly in place" by a series of bobbing up and down while flapping, etc.--but that is not really the same thing as true hovering IMO.

It is something I am working on and if I devise a (relatively) simple system which is 5E compatible I will certainly share it. For ground-based creatures, I think I am almost at an "acceptable" point of speeds vs. real-life. Will it be perfect? Of course not! But my hope is that it will be better (in terms of realism) than what 5E currently offers.

And, of course, I am still interested in other systems in general over the next few weeks--time permitting.

Take a look at what I did for a cheetah. I think something like that could work for flying creatures.

---

Feline Speed (2/ Short Rest). When the cheetah takes the Dash action it can move at 10 times its speed (500 ft.) during this movement. Additionally, if the cheetah succeeds on a DC 10 Constitution check at the end of its turn, its ability to use Feline Speed recharges.

BONUS ACTIONS
Feline Agility. The cheetah takes the Dash action.

---

Basically the speed listed at the top of the stat block is a combat speed, what they can do while engaged in combat. For flying creatures it would probably be a hover speed. I then gave it traits that increase its speed.

I also gave dragons the following trait:

---

Overland Flight. When a dragon is not engaged in an encounter and has flown in a straight line for at least 2 rounds, it can move at 10 times its flying speed.

---

 

[clearstream]

Burning Wheel attempts to. I suspect its speeds are still on the slow side. Rolemaster's are too.

EDIT: It strikes me that the answers are always - and I believe necessarily and helpfully - incomplete. Which RPG differentiates a merlin from say a condor? Which concerns itself with merlin acceleration and deceleration? It's radii to turn, pitch and yaw? It's ability to hold a course in gusts of various knots? What wind speed gives it sufficient lift to glide? I don't recall an RPG where such details were all simulated. Going back to my "it's all pretend anyway" point - RPG designers are always, always picking what is worthwhile to simulate. Even in those games dubbed simulationist, it is not how extensively or precisely they simulate the real-world that is best about them.

I played RQ for years, and that wasn't because crushes to chest felt especially realistic compared to alternatives like the DQ crit table entries, or D&D hit points. It was the fascination with Glorantha, rune magic, Mistress Race trolls. The scale of giants. Cults. Dream dragons. Most of which simulated ideas, not (real world) realities.

It has significant implications for gamist (= "step on up") play, which is why it is normally slower than reality: because if characters can shape-shift into birds and thereby get to fly (not just move, but fly) then that has implications for the balancing of shape-shifting over other abilities that players have to choose between in building and playing their PCs.

That's a good observation. Flight speed isn't the only lever for balance, but it is a lever. And those with gamist agendas often (but do not always) value balance.

I will emphasise - "in most cases". Where no one can turn into a hawk or aims to employ the power to do so with a gamist agenda, the accuracy, inaccuracy or silence on hawk speed will not impinge. In saying "most", by way of salient evidence I have recorded all characters over several years of D&D campaigns and druids that could turn into a flying creature like a hawk were present for 26 out of 134 sessions. Druids were 2/24 characters. The actual number of sessions where natural flying speeds mattered is about 14, because after that the druid accessed forms with no real-world parallel.

 

[clearstream]

It's not a simulation if you're making up the salient fiction as you go along.

On the one hand, I'm sympathetic to just disapplying "simulation" in such cases. It's fine with me to say that an S=R relationship is required to count S a simulation. And R must be an extant R.

On the other hand, the experience as Tolkien famously described it can feel like discovering a real place that one just doesn't know everything about yet. It might well be that the R in question is an internal R. A world one wants to speak about, and doesn't yet know all the words to do so.

This is what makes Dungeon World not a simulationist RPG, and what makes Burning Wheel not a simulationist one once the GM starts framing scenes and narrating consequences, although the PC sheets and the process of PC build have a lot in common with classic simulationist systems (RM, RQ, Traveller).

I don't see Burning Wheel as simulationist, even though it does have quite a weight of rules that aim to simulate something envisioned to have happened in the real medieval world.

Possibly Traveller aims to simulate a far future and in most respects fails epically to produce anything plausible: I always took the game to aim to simulate the far future of space operas. To quibble, given the absence of the present or even past existence of the far future Traveller simulates, it should be ruled out as a simulation. (Or we need to loosen the terms we might have committed to above.)

RQ is really one of the more perfect simulationist games. Bushido, and EPT might be others. Land of the Rising Sun, and C&S set out to. As did probably Aftermath. All of those games included elements that simulated nothing, or it might be better to say the references for parts of what they simulated was fiction.

Conversely, RM and RQ aspire to have all the salient fiction yielded by the processes of action resolution. And the more they fail to meet that aspiration, the more they fail their design goal; whereas DW does not have any such design goal - it expressly embraces the notion of the GM making up fiction as part of making soft and hard moves within the parameters of permission granted by the game system.

Interesting observation! I really need to think on that.

 

[Lyxen]

You have got to be kidding. People tore 4e a new one, up one side and down the other, over not being 1-2-1 on the diagonals, that it was incredibly awful and immersion-breaking that you could get so much more benefit out of running diagonally than rectilinearly.

And they were right, it's ugly, and don't start me on the firecubes...

Now you're telling me 5e DOES still use it, and nobody complains about it? That's...that's....ugh. That is incredibly infuriating.

5e does NOT do it. 5e's game is TotM without grid. IF people are using a map (which they don't have to), and if they are using a grid on top of that map (which they even less have to), then they have a number of additional options, including that one. But I've never see anyone use it.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

What examples of RPGs do you have in mind?

I'm afraid this isn't a thing I seek very much in gaming (as noted above) and thus I don't have many good examples. I know that 3e and its descendants are thought of as "simulationist," but I don't personally think they do very well at achieving that end. However, when you said...

There is no particular need for inviolate rules as part of the fiction - just that the mechanics, when used, map out the in-fiction causation to which they correlate.

...but then in your second post said...

It's not a simulation if you're making up the salient fiction as you go along.

That's what I mean by "the rules are inviolate" (or effectively so, allowing an out for careful use of "the rules have changed" situations). The "inviolate" rules here are the processes by which events propagate or are carried out. They must be internally consistent and reliable. If they are not internally consistent for any reason, even if that reason is "to make a more entertaining experience," that is bad.

 

[Ovinomancer]

And they were right, it's ugly, and don't start me on the firecubes...



5e does NOT do it. 5e's game is TotM without grid. IF people are using a map (which they don't have to), and if they are using a grid on top of that map (which they even less have to), then they have a number of additional options, including that one. But I've never see anyone use it.

While playing on a grid is a variant rule, I'm not sure you can claim it's not the majority use choice -- most of the major streams of D&D use the grid (and usually nifty terrain). That aside, the rule for the variant is clearly that diagonal movement is only 5'. There's an optional rule in the DMG to do other things, but the baseline is that diagonal movement is not different from rectilinear movement. And it's also not commented on very much at all.