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

[Hussar]

When you use "fudging" to mean "makes a call," it devalues any use of the term because making a call is what has to happen, while fudging -- which using a mechanic and then choosing a different (non-mechanical) outcome because you don't like the result AND usually keeping this secret from other participants -- doesn't ever have to happen.

No, fudging means choosing a result based on what the fudging person wants, rather than because the mechanics say so.

So, fighter runs up to the opponent and attacks. Next, the wizard asks if he can cast fireball so it hits two opponents but not the fighter. In TotM, that answer has as much to do with whatever the DM feels like at the time rather than anything remotely associated with mechanics. Since TotM play means that no one has any real idea, other than in the broadest sense - melee range, ranged attack range is about it - the answer is pretty much whatever the DM feels like making up at the time.

Thus, fudging. The DM decides that the fireball will hit the ally, not because there's any actual evidence that it will, but, because the DM wants to increase the difficulty of the challenge and doesn't want the wizard to end the fight just yet. Or, maybe the DM just wants to get on with this fight because it's not really all that important, so, he decides, sure, why not? The wizard can hit the two targets without hitting the fighter.

IOW, the answer to "Will this fireball hit my ally" is largely dependent on factors that have nothing to do with in game fiction or simulation or anything like that and everything to do with what the DM feels like at the time. After all, in exactly the same set up next session, it could easily go the other way.

Note, at no point does the DM TELL the players about this. The decision making process is kept entirely secret, thus satisfying your definition for fudging, chooses to ignore the mechanics (not using any sort of representation to clarify the battle) and hinges entirely on the DM choosing an answer based on what the DM wants at the time. So, no, I'm not devaluing the use of the term. I'm applying your term pretty much exactly as you defined it. The only part missing is maybe using a mechanic and choosing a different non-mechanical outcome. But, since we've already in very vague territory with very little mechanical heft anyway simply by choosing TotM, a little variance is understandable.

 

[Hussar]

I never said otherwise. Just that I prefer using a grid. The flexibility to choose along with what options to use was a good choice for the game.

Sure, you prefer to use a grid. But 5e isn't assumed to use a grid. After all, 11 and pixelated circles don't exist in 5e. The grid in 5e is even weirder than the grid in 4e because in 5e, when I move diagonally, I don't count 11 - I can move 6 squares diagonally with no problems. But, if I cast a spell or use any sort of area affect, then I have to use a straight up circle that isn't actually correct on the grid.

It's this weird mishmash of Euclidian and non-Euclidian geometry, and, apparently, this is better for simulation? If you valued accuracy, why are you using the 5e system? It's less accurate than 4e was. At least in 4e, everything was wrong by the same amount. But, I can escape a web faster by moving diagonally than by moving orthogonally in 5e. It's just totally bizarre.

And this doesn't bother you?

 

[Paul Farquhar]

EDIT: I can't try and explain or justify the weather control. How would that even work? Although it's on the TL charts, in our game it's never come up.

Seeding clouds to make it rain is a basic form of weather control. Terraforming is weather control at it's most extreme. It's a standard SF trope though. For example, the 1967 Doctor Who story The Moonbase involves a weather control station on the moon.

 

[Hussar]

I'd have to agree there. Weather control seems to be one of those SF things that you see all the time. Star Trek has it. I believe Star Wars does as well. Heck, Dune's entire premise is basically molded around the idea that you can make it rain. It's a pretty common SF trope.

 

[Hussar]

A though does occur since we're talking about definitions though. @Ovinomancer, I think that when someone says the DM makes a call, I generally picture something like choosing a DC for an action or deciding whether or not to apply advantage (or disadvantage) or whether or not someone can hide. I'm really not thinking that "make a call" includes rewriting reality so that we suddenly teleport a PC 10 feet to the left so that he's now inside the area of effect, rather than standing on the other side of the monster.

But, in any case, I should apologize. I was summoning you with that before to tweak your nose and have a bit of a laugh. I wasn't meaning to pick an argument. Granted, I suppose, I've now done it twice, but, the first time it wasn't meant at all. It just seemed to fit the conversation that was being had. This time, I did mean it as a poke. Friendly poke. As in, "ha ha, this is a thing we disagree about.... "

Humor is hard.

 

[Oofta]

Sure, you prefer to use a grid. But 5e isn't assumed to use a grid. After all, 11 and pixelated circles don't exist in 5e. The grid in 5e is even weirder than the grid in 4e because in 5e, when I move diagonally, I don't count 11 - I can move 6 squares diagonally with no problems. But, if I cast a spell or use any sort of area affect, then I have to use a straight up circle that isn't actually correct on the grid.

It's this weird mishmash of Euclidian and non-Euclidian geometry, and, apparently, this is better for simulation? If you valued accuracy, why are you using the 5e system? It's less accurate than 4e was. At least in 4e, everything was wrong by the same amount. But, I can escape a web faster by moving diagonally than by moving orthogonally in 5e. It's just totally bizarre.

And this doesn't bother you?

I'm sorry. It's early and I haven't finished my caffeine yet. When I use a grid diagonals count 5-10-5. If you cast a fireball, I pull out an old wire template that you can get from paizo. It's not 100% accurate but it's closer. So I have no clue what you're talking about.

For my home game I use a hex map which has it's own issues with 10 ft hallways, but we make it work. Beyond that? Why are we still beating this dead horse started by a comment about degrees of simulation? No game will ever have perfect simulation, it would require a supercomputer to crunch all the variables.

 

[Krachek]

Although I've enjoyed playing and tweaking 5E D&D, we all know it is not a simulation game. But it got me wondering, since I have heard of many other RPGs but not played many "fantasy/D&D-style" RPGs, maybe members here might know of an RPG that IS more of a simulation game?

A recent encounter with a manticore, which although it "fled" we managed to take it down after 3 (or 4 maybe) rounds of pot-shots (mostly at disadvantage due to the range), got me thinking about the "flaws" in the design of 5E--such as a flying creature's speed.

So, any suggestions for a swords & sorcery medieval fantasy style RPG that is more of a simulation than D&D???

Any RPG style game should not be good at simulation, but rather be good at role play.
if you find one it would be a Simulation game, wrongly called a RPG.

 

[clearstream]

Sure, you prefer to use a grid. But 5e isn't assumed to use a grid. After all, 11 and pixelated circles don't exist in 5e. The grid in 5e is even weirder than the grid in 4e because in 5e, when I move diagonally, I don't count 11 - I can move 6 squares diagonally with no problems. But, if I cast a spell or use any sort of area affect, then I have to use a straight up circle that isn't actually correct on the grid.

It's this weird mishmash of Euclidian and non-Euclidian geometry, and, apparently, this is better for simulation? If you valued accuracy, why are you using the 5e system? It's less accurate than 4e was. At least in 4e, everything was wrong by the same amount. But, I can escape a web faster by moving diagonally than by moving orthogonally in 5e. It's just totally bizarre.

And this doesn't bother you?

When I use a grid it doesn't bother me, because I understand the representation to be symbolic or impressionistic. These creatures are roughly here and here. That one can get to roughly there. I don't take measured distances between miniatures on a gridded playmat to be actual distances in the game world. Rather I count them as statements about relative positioning sufficiently good that we can focus on whatever our other motives for play might be.

I liked @pemerton's concept that "The key feature of simulationist mechanics is that they model/express the in-fiction causal processes." Although my take-away from that is probably more to deny that simulationism is an agenda of play at all, and say it is rather a means or methodology. I feel morally certain many will disagree.

It's worth noting that a simulation is not a simulation just because it has fewer or more dimensions and variables. It's a simulation because it represents X well enough that a prediction about X based on the simulation is likely to be true of X in a way that matters to our interests. A simulation's greatest value lies in how effectively it reduces in the work to compute the prediction without harming the accuracy (or usefulness) of the prediction beyond some tolerance. That's true of games too, and one reason I believe that simulationist RPG titles didn't ultimately dominate.

What would bother me is if diagonals were 1:1 for some creatures, and correctly ratio'd for others, with no context to account for it. That would fail as a simulation because predictions about X will turn out to be only sometimes true of X, and given no context to account for it we have no way to distinguish between the cases.

 

[Manbearcat]

I'm sorry. It's early and I haven't finished my caffeine yet. When I use a grid diagonals count 5-10-5. If you cast a fireball, I pull out an old wire template that you can get from paizo. It's not 100% accurate but it's closer. So I have no clue what you're talking about.

For my home game I use a hex map which has it's own issues with 10 ft hallways, but we make it work. Beyond that? Why are we still beating this dead horse started by a comment about degrees of simulation? No game will ever have perfect simulation, it would require a supercomputer to crunch all the variables.

You could trivially end this by typing some iteration of:

"Firecubes are not a part of the imagined space/fiction of any version of D&D. I don't know why people arbitrarily map one game artifact meant only to facilitate play onto the actual shared imagined space of play while forgiving/contorting themselves to justify/ignoring dozens and dozens of other game artifacts."

You should probably put a shrug emoji at the end of it for authenticity though!

 

[Oofta]

You could trivially end this by typing some iteration of:

"Firecubes are not a part of the imagined space/fiction of any version of D&D. I don't know why people arbitrarily map one game artifact meant only to facilitate play onto the actual shared imagined space of play while forgiving/contorting themselves to justify/ignoring dozens and dozens of other game artifacts."

You should probably put a shrug emoji at the end of it for authenticity though!

Or ... I could just state what my preference is and that it doesn't affect anyone else and they should do what works for them. Unfortunately that isn't good enough.