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

[DND_Reborn]

Ah. While that's interesting in terms of making other things actually contribute to the "non meat points" part of hit points, it still doesn't answer what's going on with a given hit.

Well, it does in a fashion as the player dictates what hit points are spent and thus how the hit is dealt with. But it isn't systematic at all, it is still just fluff really as the player decides.

That was more the purpose of the system I stopped working on--it was much more about resolving the hit.

You know, I just had a thought... Maybe such a system could work if I expanded it and made it so hit points always came from abstract source with the greatest amount first? I'll have to think about that. Then, it would be systematic and drive the narrative, instead of the other way around.

 

[Hussar]

It does, however, add to time overhead, which is why its relatively rarely used (yes, I know the whole BRP family does it, but its also one of those things that gets routinely complained about by people new to it).

That's typically the trade off. Gamist systems have the advantage of speed. Sim systems have the advantage of information. You can't really have both. The faster your system works, the less information it will generate. A coin flip system of win/lose gets you the same information that you get with D&D combat - but a heck of a lot faster. Not terribly satisfying though, so, we add a bit more game stuff around the coin flip and make it more fun.

But, at no point is it simulating anything. There's just not enough information being generated by the system.

 

[clearstream]

I'd argue that it's not HP specifically that's the problem. You certainly can have sim systems that grant numerical values to various elements (whether a Body/Stamina divide system, or a HP location system like in Battletech or I'm sure there are a thousand others). It's that in D&D, HP loss doesn't tell you anything. The mechanics are not tied to any information other than the loss of HP. It's a number that goes up as you level up (again, not really simulating anything other than D&D itself - the idea that killing orcs makes us harder to kill is pure gamism) but never actually informs anything that happens in the game.

A question here is whether it is the numbers and not the descriptions that count? And if the descriptions do count, how does it matter that they are not pre-authored.

HP in combination with other systems certainly can tell us more about what is happening in the fiction as it happens. As I mentioned upthread, Battletech uses a Hit Location System with specific results for attacks. An attack that does not penetrate armor only does armor damage, and the value of the armor of that location is decreased after a hit. Missile barrage attacks are grouped into smaller sub-groups, with each subgroup striking a different location, simulating the idea of a barrage, rather than a concentrated attack like you would get from an directed energy weapon. Once you get through the armor at that location, you begin damaging internal systems in that location, potentially destroying weapons or even limbs, which again, have additional effects.

IOW, from beginning to end, I can tell you exactly what happened to that Mech and why it's now a smoking ruin on the battlefield.

I'm very familiar with Battletech and I feel you make a strong point here.

A criticism could be that at the point that the mechanics are so complicated and granular, and the descriptions pre-authored, the game is better as a videogame.

Do you recall the Mechwarrior supplement? There seemed to be an idea that Battletech could be an RPG. We played it only as a wargaming campaign.

THAT'S what a simulation system looks like. It seems to me that people who are arguing for D&D as a sim system haven't actually played a simulationist system before. The truly funny thing is, if you were to suggest D&D as a sim system to people who exclusively play simulation games, they'd giggle at you. The only people who think that D&D is a sim game are people who play D&D and don't play sim games.

The counter-criticism is that such a simulation system is in the end not an RPG. Or not a good one.

In the past I have been hugely into simulationist games, and so I feel you aren't quite addressing the problem I'm tackling. I think that there are some games we want to call simulationist. Games that had a distinctive feel for us in play. Cruncher, more realistic, the satisfaction of exploring a real place. Often one we could learn more about outside the game.

And yet, to my observation it is really hard to find a robust definition of simulationist that cleanly separates these games from other games. HP and Levels don't do so.

 

[dave2008]

Sorry for any confusion. It is more about having PCs have most of the HP from their best ability modifiers. A rogue with high DEX and INT would derive most of his or her HP from reflexes and focus, in addition to those provided by skill (the HD).

In other words, such a PC would dodge most physical threats and use their concentration to block out mental threats, the "skill" part for a rogue might involve parrying attacks, knowing the opponents next move or weakness, etc.

FWIW, I did have a much more complex system at one point where using your ability scores to grant "bonus hit points" (instead of just CON) determined how your PC dealt with a threat and worked against what type of damage you were taking, but at the time it was too complex to really work out. The neat side was it made it so certain characters were better at defending against or mitigating certain damage based on the abilities.

I thought about using an aggregate at one point. Add up all your ability scores, divide them by six, and use the result to determine hit points.

 

[clearstream]

That's typically the trade off. Gamist systems have the advantage of speed. Sim systems have the advantage of information. You can't really have both. The faster your system works, the less information it will generate. A coin flip system of win/lose gets you the same information that you get with D&D combat - but a heck of a lot faster. Not terribly satisfying though, so, we add a bit more game stuff around the coin flip and make it more fun.

That's seems blind to the incremental information state changes that 5e combat delivers.

But, at no point is it simulating anything. There's just not enough information being generated by the system.

The problem is that 5e is formally simulating something. The system generates information. Initiative is information. Every roll is information. Movement and resultant ranges are information. Conditions and exhaustion are information. Current post-decrement HPs are information. 5e is a simulation, but being a simulation does not equate with being "simulationist" in the way we are interested in that term.

@pemerton is arguing I think for a qualitative rather than quantitative difference in the information generated. I think that is the kind of argument more likely to prove powerful, because quantity just feels like quibbling. It's subjective as to what counts as enough. Would a massive amount of information about the disarray of your hair really make your combats more simulationist? (We both know in our hearts that it would, but I hope you see my point.)

 

[Hussar]

A question here is whether it is the numbers and not the descriptions that count? And if the descriptions do count, how does it matter that they are not pre-authored.

The descriptions don't count if the descriptions are entirely made up and any description can be equally true.

I'm very familiar with Battletech and I feel you make a strong point here.

A criticism could be that at the point that the mechanics are so complicated and granular, and the descriptions pre-authored, the game is better as a videogame.

Do you recall the Mechwarrior supplement? There seemed to be an idea that Battletech could be an RPG. We played it only as a wargaming campaign.

That's a whole 'nother kettle of fish that I'm not interested in. Arguments about whether something is fun or not aren't really all that useful.

The counter-criticism is that such a simulation system is in the end not an RPG. Or not a good one.

In the past I have been hugely into simulationist games, and so I feel you aren't quite addressing the problem I'm tackling. I think that there are some games we want to call simulationist. Games that had a distinctive feel for us in play. Cruncher, more realistic, the satisfaction of exploring a real place. Often one we could learn more about outside the game.

And yet, to my observation it is really hard to find a robust definition of simulationist that cleanly separates these games from other games. HP and Levels don't do so.

There won't be any hard and fast definition. These are genre definitions. At best you can define them by the centers or by what they aren't. You certainly can't draw a line and say, Yup, anything on this side of the line is a sim and anything on that one isn't. And, since they are all games, they are obviously going to have elements in them that allow them to be played as games.

 

[Hussar]

That's seems blind to the incremental information state changes that 5e combat delivers.


The problem is that 5e is formally simulating something. The system generates information. Initiative is information. Every roll is information. Movement and resultant ranges are information. Conditions and exhaustion are information. Current post-decrement HPs are information. 5e is a simulation, but being a simulation does not equate with being "simulationist" in the way we are interested in that term.

The system only generates information about the system itself. It's entirely self-referential. You cannot look at the information generated and use it in any way, other than within the system itself. Initiative has no actual narrative meaning unless you think that everyone just stands around with this sort of weird stop start action. It's a game artifact. Conditions are kind of information, but, are generally only information inside the system. After all, how do I knock a snake prone? Prone is a condition. What, exactly, is radiant damage? Why does electrical damage not cause burns? So on and so forth.

@pemerton is arguing I think for a qualitative rather than quantitative difference in the information generated. I think that is the kind of argument more likely to prove powerful, because quantity just feels like quibbling. It's subjective as to what counts as enough. Would a massive amount of information about the disarray of your hair really make your combats more simulationist? (We both know in our hearts that it would, but I hope you see my point.)

Again, and I keep coming back to this, it's not a difference of vague information vs large amounts of information. It's a difference between small amounts of information and none at all. The 5e combat system doesn't generate any information that isn't self-referential. Even things like "being closer to death" doesn't have any actual meaning. What does "being closer to death" look like? Feel like? How do you narrate that I am now 10% closer to potentially dying. Note, that even being knocked down doesn't mean that I'm dying. I might, true, but, I also might stand up next round with 1 HP without any outside intervention.

IOW, any narration you make can be immediately contradicted.

It's not hard to make a system that is actually somewhat more simulationist. Like I said, even something as simple as adding armor as DR plus a wounds/vitality system goes a long way.

 

[clearstream]

The only information is that the character is closer to losing the fight. We don't know why. We don't know whether, and if so how, they are physically hurt. We don't know which wound is the potentially mortal one. Etc.

So my question on that is - we do know how because as we went along we said how. When the ants bit, they were described using bitey language. Afterward, the group would expect M (had M survived) to talk about their enflamed bite marks, torn clothes etc. We do know the state of the character now, because of the fiction we authored in response to cues from the system.

Perhaps we say then that the group is being simulationist, but not the system. But what is special about pre-authorship? Or to put it another way, what takes ICE beyond pre-authorship? There are results on that table like 1 concussion that seem to suffer the same fault you level at 5e HP (these were not giant warrior ants, only giant ants). For ants against chain, there are about 140 possible outcomes (counting criticals). There's no way of knowing whether the Beak/Pincher table is realistic, as we lack a data set of real-world beak/pincher attack results to compare its predictions with, but is it realistic to say that when giant ants bite a person in chainmail there are only 140 ways that can go?

What I'm getting at is, is the test for simulationist in the end a threshold for granularity? And what about the mussed state of my character's hair? Where is the necessary - some might say crucial - detail on that? Does it come down to sufficient granularity of results on matters we care about?

 

[clearstream]

The system only generates information about the system itself. It's entirely self-referential. You cannot look at the information generated and use it in any way, other than within the system itself. Initiative has no actual narrative meaning unless you think that everyone just stands around with this sort of weird stop start action. It's a game artifact. Conditions are kind of information, but, are generally only information inside the system.

This is very much at odds to how I observe the game being played. Initiative is how promptly and decisively everyone acts. It takes facts from and inserts facts into the fiction. We don't envision stop/start action, but we do envision that the Alert character is very prompt and decisive.

I think many RPG's will feel empty of content if we choose to say nothing at all other than what is pre-authored.

After all, how do I knock a snake prone? Prone is a condition. What, exactly, is radiant damage? Why does electrical damage not cause burns? So on and so forth.

Sure, all simulations have edge cases. Occasionally we fight snakes. Very, very rarely someone lands something on one that should apply the prone condition. If it's a giant snake rearing up over the party that might matter: GM guides the group. If tracking burns is important to your game - sure - but where is the tracking for my mussed hair? I have to know I'm still presentable even mid-fight.

I'm teasing but also, you choose burns I choose hair. Surely if lacking what you want means not counting as simulationist, then lacking what I want should count the same. Or if not, why not?

Again, and I keep coming back to this, it's not a difference of vague information vs large amounts of information. It's a difference between small amounts of information and none at all. The 5e combat system doesn't generate any information that isn't self-referential. Even things like "being closer to death" doesn't have any actual meaning. What does "being closer to death" look like? Feel like? How do you narrate that I am now 10% closer to potentially dying. Note, that even being knocked down doesn't mean that I'm dying. I might, true, but, I also might stand up next round with 1 HP without any outside intervention.

All simulations only generate self-referential information. That is the only possible information they are able to generate. It is always up to the recipient of that information to do the rest (to decide how to interpret and act on it.)

 

[clearstream]

BTW I think it is okay if to count as simulationist a game must offer sufficient granularity of results on matters we care about. What one might call the "weak definition". I was simply hoping for a strong definition.