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

[DND_Reborn]

I may very well steal this. Thanks!

Enjoy. Like I said it is basically just a variation of d20 SW's system.

One thing we didn't do but I would suggest if you want to include it, is make it so going to 0 Wound Points also imposes a level of exhaustion.

 

[clearstream]

No. it comes down to the results ACTUALLY defining any narrative. Your narrative of ant bites is 100% on you. The system in no way needed it or even encouraged it. You decided that that's the narrative. Fine and dandy. There's no problem with that. But, you can't point to the system doing this.

Adding horsey noises when my knight takes a queen doesn't make chess a simulation of an actual knight kidnapping or killing a queen. Your narrative, at best, is inspired by the mechanics, but, in no way is actually tied to the mechanics because any other narrative can be substituted and it is equally valid.

This puts the burden on the game system to supply descriptions as output along with numbers, but I think we want to go further than that. I think we probably want to say that the descriptions shape future choices and resolutions otherwise they're empty fluff, which we might as well provide ourselves.

No, I don't think that follows. Again, using the dodge example, you don't need any follow up to that. The character dodged the attack, avoided all harm, and now can act in any fashion.

So what I want to resolve is if a good definition of simulationist would require that results of mechanics shape further choices and resolutions, or if it is enough that it narrowly dictates the fluff. The reason I feel that is at issue goes as follows

• Let's suppose that it's sufficient that the mechanics narrowly dictates fluff
• Therefore we're saying that no future choice or resolution depends on that fluff

That seems to me a very weak version of simulationist. What seems at issue is that a game designer pre-authors fluff for us. Nothing coming after needs it. They just decided that's the narrative.

Description is fiction ("clouds"). Numbers is mechanics ("boxes"). The difference between a RPG and (eg) chess is that it involves engaging in, and generating, a shared fiction. So the fiction matters!

The fiction matters, yes, but there seems to be a proposed (putative) "simulationist" preference for fiction that the game designers pre-author over that we author as we go. If @Hussar's point is right (and supposing I'm putting it fairly) then that fluff is fiction that won't matter. To me that feels like a strange sort of concept because surely when we next test our fictional position it should be able to matter... but that will be true whether the fluff was pre-authored, or authored by the group.

The appeal of pre-authorship/mechanical determination, over authorship, is (in my view) a combination of "playing to find out" and "being subject to rules rather than whim". It's probably also worth considering that when the major simulationist RPGs were designed, the sorts of techniques for channelling/constraining/building on "whim" found in systems like Apocalypse World or even Burning Wheel hadn't been fully worked out or understood.

Again, I'm not seeing the "playing to find out" in pre-authored fiction. I can (and usually do) sit down before joining the game and read the book. Pre-authored fluff can't surprise me: I can't play to find out what it is because it's right there in the text.

That's a very good point about available techniques. I've been trying to think what TTRPG would be worth designing (as there is so much interesting design being done at present)? Maybe in each epoch what is worth designing may be inspired by available techniques (including glimpsed techniques that that aren't yet settled) and unsatisfied urges. Apparently the C&S designers were inspired by EPT (an unsatisfied urge for something that felt more real, perhaps), but certainly in their 1st edition they were grappling with techniques. (And they lacked the furniture of PbtA or FitD etc.)

The salient contrast was D&D, where not only is the fiction "whim" but it doesn't affect subsequent resolution.

I'll just note for the D&D comments here and by others that they don't represent what is entailed by the game text. Particulary in regard to the abilities mechanics. An ability check should only be made when the fiction drives it, it should take inputs from the fiction affecting resolution (at minimum the DC), and it gives outputs to the fiction affecting future choices and potentially resolutions.

It's true that losing a few hit points can be vague in terms of affecting subsequent resolution. Down the line, those few hit points lost might affect tempo crucially, but that is not guaranteed. That's also true of taking 1 concussion, or 1 hit point to an arm location. The difference is how noticeable, immediate, and compelling (on play) the increments are, and the extent to which they narrow options for saying what follows. (Which is kind of fascinating, because I take "say something that follows" as a foundational rule of RPG.)

Actually, I don't think they're a problem at all if you're willing to acknowledge them as an in-setting reality. Consider Earthdawn: it reifies a rather large number of D&D tropes, but they're things that actually exist as referenced in-setting. To pick the example we keep going around, people do have enhanced hit points above what a human can take, because all characters are magical adepts and their bodies are supernaturally reinforced; they can absolutely be meat points because they aren't supposed to be in any sense normal people.

But people get soggy about doing that in D&D; a normal fighter is supposed to be just a highly trained guy for many people, so you can't just define his hit points as superhuman durability.

Earthdawn isn't simulationist (or if it is, then 5e is). Interesting point about people getting soggy though. Do you mean that if everyone playing D&D would just harden up and say something like - down to CON hit points it's vitality, and after that wounds - or better yet if that was written into the game text, then your view of D&D hit points would change?

 

[Hussar]

The fiction matters, yes, but there seems to be a proposed (putative) "simulationist" preference for fiction that the game designers pre-author over that we author as we go. If @Hussar's point is right (and supposing I'm putting it fairly) then that fluff is fiction that won't matter. To me that feels like a strange sort of concept because surely when we next test our fictional position it should be able to matter... but that will be true whether the fluff was pre-authored, or authored by the group.

Note, fluff as" fiction that doesn't matter" is very much NOT my definition of fluff. But, that's the one that I've been handed.

 

[clearstream]

Note, fluff as" fiction that doesn't matter" is very much NOT my definition of fluff. But, that's the one that I've been handed.

So the fluff - or let's say fiction - does matter. Why then does it matter when it's pre-authored by game designers, but not when a group author it as they go?

 

[Hussar]

Honestly, I think the best way to define simulation is to compare how you would resolve an event in all three of the main approaches - gamist, sim and narrativist.

So, let's have a thought experiment. A character finding and removing a trap. Pretty straightforward, bog standard action.

1. Gamist approach:

Player declares he's looking for traps, rolls dice to succeed or fail. If he succeeds, he finds the trap, then rolls dice to remove it. The nature of the trap, the details of the trap, what he's doing to find the trap or remove it don't really matter. They can be completely ignored. Traps are essentially like you find in something like the old Baldur's Gate game where you click the find traps button and a red outline appears where the trap is, then you try to remove it. There's no narrative here, particularly. You certainly can narrate the event, but, again, it doesn't really change anything.

2. Narrative approach:

Player declares he's searching. That indicates that the player is now interested in finding something here. A success might mean he finds something without any complications. A failure might find something or might result in the DM adding something to find that just blew up in the character's face. A lot of this is going to depend on the system, table, players and GM. Of the three, I think that nar games create the most idiosyncratic games because there are just so many different inputs to cover.

3. Sim approach:

Player declares he's looking for traps. Now, in earlier D&D, before you had thieves abilities, the player would actually have to declare what he was doing, how he was looking, where he was looking, etc. So, there's a strong element of sim here. There's a pretty direct correlation between the player's declarations and the narrative of the game. Later RPG's tended to gamify this a bit more because the whole Mother May I nature of declarations was typically deemed as too much of a PITA. So, again, you might get a system where the hidden trap has Hiding HP (I'm making this up as I go, please be kind ) and the character has Searching HP. A contest ensues as to whether the player can find the trap and disarm it. If the trap wins, the trap is set off. Again, there's a pretty clear line of progression here where the actions by the player can be directly narrated and won't be countered by future events. The whole Process Sim approach. Note, there are other approaches here that might work as well.

In any case, the three approaches (and of course you can certainly hybridize these as well) have advantages and disadvantages. The Gamist approach is fast. You get results very quickly. At the cost of not really generating any sort of narrative other than whatever the group decides to plaster on after the fact. The Sim approach has the advantage of generating a narrative. We know (within certain limits) what's going on. We can make narrations that are tied directly to the game and know that these narrations very likely can't be retroactively rewritten. The Nar approach has the advantage of being very creative and engaging. It has the disadvantage of being very creative and engaging. Sometimes I just want to roll dice and get on with it. Futzing about watching Dave and the GM waffle back and forth about some quantum trap can be fun, but, can also be well, a whole barrel of not-fun.

But, when all's said and done, none of the different approaches are superior. They're just tools.

 

[Hussar]

So the fluff - or let's say fiction - does matter. Why then does it matter when it's pre-authored by game designers, but not when a group author it as they go?

Because the fluff that you are authoring is not tied to the game in any meaningful way. You're basically making horse noises when the knight takes the queen. Nothing in the game is actually informing your narration. You can certainly choose to narrate it in a particular way, but, the game itself doesn't care at all. You could not narrate it at all and the game would play exactly the same.

However, if the flavour - I really do hate the term fluff, it's so dismissive - is tied to the mechanics in some way - a Wound/Vitality system say - then you cannot just narrate anything you feel like. If the character takes vitality damage and no wounds, your narration should not include anything referencing being physically harmed (presuming there is a hard divide between vitality and wounds). In character is missed, dodges or parry's an attack, the narration has to follow one of those three outcomes.

Like I said, I can say that your ant bitten character died of embarrassment and there's nothing in the game to contradict that. In a sim system, there would be.

 

[clearstream]

Because the fluff that you are authoring is not tied to the game in any meaningful way. You're basically making horse noises when the knight takes the queen. Nothing in the game is actually informing your narration. You can certainly choose to narrate it in a particular way, but, the game itself doesn't care at all. You could not narrate it at all and the game would play exactly the same.

That's true of say RQ hit locations. I could make horse noises while applying those decrements - and the game still plays the same. You're still not identifying what is special about pre-authored words to say?

However, if the flavour - I really do hate the term fluff, it's so dismissive - is tied to the mechanics in some way - a Wound/Vitality system say - then you cannot just narrate anything you feel like. If the character takes vitality damage and no wounds, your narration should not include anything referencing being physically harmed (presuming there is a hard divide between vitality and wounds). In character is missed, dodges or parry's an attack, the narration has to follow one of those three outcomes.

Like I said, I can say that your ant bitten character died of embarrassment and there's nothing in the game to contradict that. In a sim system, there would be.

What's in the game is our fiction. The character doesn't die of embarrassment because that's what any of us built up - declaration-by-declaration, resolution-by-resolution, narration-by-narration - as we played.

 

[Hussar]

That's true of say RQ hit locations. I could make horse noises while applying those decrements - and the game still plays the same. You're still not identifying what is special about pre-authored words to say?

Because you are ignoring the results of the mechanics. Excuse me by the way, I'm not an RQ player, so, I am not familiar with the game's mechanics. But, if the mechanics tell you that you hit that bad guy's arm, then you have to narrate some sort of damage to that arm. The narration should fit the mechanical results and you wouldn't narrate that as someone stumbling backwards and twisting their ankle painfully.

What's in the game is our fiction. The character doesn't die of embarrassment because that's what any of us built up - declaration-by-declaration, resolution-by-resolution, narration-by-narration - as we played.

But, none of your narrations was ever tied to the resolutions. They were entirely invented. That's the point you keep ignoring. Losing 5 HP doesn't MEAN anything. You can tie any narration you like to it. The mechanics in no way actually link to the narration you are making. The only reason you have a narration at all, is because you chose to have it and you chose that specific narration because it seemed right to you. The system in no way actually informed your narration because nothing in the system actually carries any information outside of the system.

All losing 5 HP means is you have lost 5 HP. There's no other information there. And because there is no information there, there is no way to say that X happened and not Y. Part of any simulation is that it also tells you what didn't happen as well as what did. If I miss the attack, there is nothing in the system to explain why or how I missed. Did I clang off the armor? Did I hit the shield? Did the creature dodge? Did I just whiff? Did I not make an attack at all and simply bided my time to look for an opening? Who knows? All of those narrations are valid because there's no simulation there to invalidate any of them.

 

[clearstream]

1. Gamist approach:

Player declares he's looking for traps, rolls dice to succeed or fail. If he succeeds, he finds the trap, then rolls dice to remove it. The nature of the trap, the details of the trap, what he's doing to find the trap or remove it don't really matter. They can be completely ignored. Traps are essentially like you find in something like the old Baldur's Gate game where you click the find traps button and a red outline appears where the trap is, then you try to remove it. There's no narrative here, particularly. You certainly can narrate the event, but, again, it doesn't really change anything.

This is way off the mark. To be gamist doesn't amount to an automatic rejection of consequential fictional positioning. Rather it means that if the law of the land is that fictional positioning is going to be consequential, then the gamist manages their relationship with fictional position optimally. (Where optimal is that which is most aligned with their chosen goals.) A gamist wants to know everything about the trap, because they're going to use that to beat the trap.

The biggest difference you'll find is that a gamist is likely to expect to be able to use each tool you've given them sincerely. So if on their character sheet you've given them a tool that says - press button to remove trap - then they press button. If on the other hand, you've said - describe to live - then they describe.

[EDIT A gamist design is one in which concerns like challenge and balance are prioritised, because a gamist values multiple viable options to employ against meaningful challenges.]

2. Narrative approach:

Player declares he's searching. That indicates that the player is now interested in finding something here. A success might mean he finds something without any complications. A failure might find something or might result in the DM adding something to find that just blew up in the character's face. A lot of this is going to depend on the system, table, players and GM. Of the three, I think that nar games create the most idiosyncratic games because there are just so many different inputs to cover.

Again, this seems off the mark to me. Robin Laws has one take on narrative approaches, which amounts to - satisfy the needs of narrative over those of simulation. The trap ought to have a narrative purpose and solving it ought to drive the narrative forward. A player will in many narrativist-influenced systems have resources - plot points of some kind - that puts the decision of whether this trap is overcome in their hands.

[EDIT A narrativist design will put at issue not whether or not the trap is overcome, but at what cost. Because the game isn't concerned to simulate a trap.]

3. Sim approach:

Player declares he's looking for traps. Now, in earlier D&D, before you had thieves abilities, the player would actually have to declare what he was doing, how he was looking, where he was looking, etc. So, there's a strong element of sim here. There's a pretty direct correlation between the player's declarations and the narrative of the game. Later RPG's tended to gamify this a bit more because the whole Mother May I nature of declarations was typically deemed as too much of a PITA. So, again, you might get a system where the hidden trap has Hiding HP (I'm making this up as I go, please be kind ) and the character has Searching HP. A contest ensues as to whether the player can find the trap and disarm it. If the trap wins, the trap is set off. Again, there's a pretty clear line of progression here where the actions by the player can be directly narrated and won't be countered by future events. The whole Process Sim approach. Note, there are other approaches here that might work as well.

The player still has to declare what they are doing, in 5e. That's per the game text. That aside, here you seem to be talking about a fiction-first or skilled-play approach (possibly) but not a simulationist approach.

[EDIT What counts as a simulationist design is what we're debating. I think that a simulationist design wants the trap to seem in play alike to a real-world reference point for traps. We have a vein of discussion that is prioritising mandated narration. I'm not sure yet if that is right.]

 

[clearstream]

Because you are ignoring the results of the mechanics. Excuse me by the way, I'm not an RQ player, so, I am not familiar with the game's mechanics. But, if the mechanics tell you that you hit that bad guy's arm, then you have to narrate some sort of damage to that arm. The narration should fit the mechanical results and you wouldn't narrate that as someone stumbling backwards and twisting their ankle painfully.

When the ants bit M, I narrated biteyly. That fit the fiction and the mechanics. Hit points helped us track the accumulation of bites over time. All the mechanics ever tell me is to decrement some values, maybe apply an ongoing or deferred effect or condition. There can be words associated with that. What I am asking is why it matters that the game designers pre-authored those words.

Concretely, are you saying that if Arms Law or RQ did not have the pre-authored words - but were unaltered mechanically - they would stop being simulationist? That's an okay thing to say - I'm not criticising it - I'm just asking if you can define why adding the pre-authored words back into those mechanics changes things?

But, none of your narrations was ever tied to the resolutions. They were entirely invented. That's the point you keep ignoring. Losing 5 HP doesn't MEAN anything. You can tie any narration you like to it. The mechanics in no way actually link to the narration you are making. The only reason you have a narration at all, is because you chose to have it and you chose that specific narration because it seemed right to you. The system in no way actually informed your narration because nothing in the system actually carries any information outside of the system.

Not entirely invented, no. We always said what followed. That's a point you keep ignoring. When M lost 5 HP as a result of an ant biting M we said something that followed: enflamed, torn skin etc. Now you could say that the enflamed, torn skin had to have ongoing consequences. But if you don't want to say that, then your pre-authored narrative is no more meaningful than a horse braying.

All losing 5 HP means is you have lost 5 HP. There's no other information there. And because there is no information there, there is no way to say that X happened and not Y. Part of any simulation is that it also tells you what didn't happen as well as what did. If I miss the attack, there is nothing in the system to explain why or how I missed. Did I clang off the armor? Did I hit the shield? Did the creature dodge? Did I just whiff? Did I not make an attack at all and simply bided my time to look for an opening? Who knows? All of those narrations are valid because there's no simulation there to invalidate any of them.

Thre is other information there because the 5HP is lost in context. It's not "Oh, look at that, I suddenly have 5 fewer HP". It's "Have at you varlet, and that, yes! What, no, ouch - she thrusts a fork in my bicep you say?" So we have the information of the attack roll, the damage roll, the weapon being used, the intent it was used with, and the fiction we wove on the fly.