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

[clearstream]

Simulationist is a quality afforded to a game by how strongly it fits the above. It is not generally useful to call D&D simulationist, even though we cannot rule out a group inferring its references and emphasising correlations so that it plays as a simulationist game in their sessions.

One obvious next question is, what defines the alternative? Does one say something like

A ludist design is one whose models and rules preponderantly take inputs and produce results well suited for play; so that ease, enjoyment and creativity are maximised for players.

I use ludist rather than gamist, due to gamism's existing connotation of interest in meaningful challenges.

 

[DND_Reborn]

D&D is a simulation. Only it's not reality it simulates, because our reality does not involve obviously working sorcery (hence it's "reality" and not "fantasy".) What D&D simulates is fantasy, a world of folklore and tales and such where magic is obviously real, and where magical creatures like your manticore can exist with their three heads and magical capabilities... which (may) include flying — with a physiology that in reality would be impossible (let alone capable of any kind of flight, unless you gave it bird bones and a truly huge wingspan.)

Which is why I asked: a swords & sorcery medieval fantasy style RPG that is more of a simulation than D&D???

I know well enough D&D simulates things. It just does much of it very poorly IMO. We accept it because either it gives us a level that we can accept or because we know of nothing better.

While I do understand what you're looking for, I think your request is paradoxical, self contradictory.

Then we would disagree vehemently on that.

You want simulation and sorcery/fantasy in the same sentence?

Yes.

(My answer would be Warhammer FRP 2nd edition, though. A lot more realistic than D&D, overall. Until it comes to magic. Which isn't realistic in any system.)

Thanks, I will add that to the list.

Finally, I hope everyone understands I don't expect or think "magic" will be "realistic", but it can still simulate comparable things IRL. It can also be low-scale/low-power, which is also my personal preference.

 

[Thomas Shey]

D&D is a simulation. Only it's not reality it simulates, because our reality does not involve obviously working sorcery (hence it's "reality" and not "fantasy".) What D&D simulates is fantasy, a world of folklore and tales and such where magic is obviously real, and where magical creatures like your manticore can exist with their three heads and magical capabilities... which (may) include flying — with a physiology that in reality would be impossible (let alone capable of any kind of flight, unless you gave it bird bones and a truly huge wingspan.)

Except, as noted, it not infrequently generates interim results that have nothing to do with it being fantasy.

While I do understand what you're looking for, I think your request is paradoxical, self contradictory. You want simulation and sorcery/fantasy in the same sentence? (My answer would be Warhammer FRP 2nd edition, though. A lot more realistic than D&D, overall. Until it comes to magic. Which isn't realistic in any system.)

Again, this is only logical if you only think "simulation" applies to the real world. You can absolutely simulate fantasy, as I noted in my comments about Runequest. D&D just doesn't much do it (and I'd argue, has never really tried except in the broadest possible ways).

 

[Oofta]

When it comes to the simulation argument there's something fundamental I don't understand. Hit Points, to me, just measure durability. We can split it up however we want but in simple terms it's how long can you survive attempts to kill you. Apologies if this sounds dismissive, that's not my intent. I just really don't understand why HP only affecting whether you're conscious or not makes a difference.

So I was thinking about games that are simulations - specifically cars and racing. There are some race games that don't care about fuel, others that only require that you fill up every so many laps and games that try to be hyper realistic and even calculate in how much gas you have and how much it weighs.

So on one end you have Mario Kart and on the other extreme you have games like Asseto Corsa (AC). I wouldn't consider Mario Cart a realistic simulation (you may not consider it a simulation at all), but AC is so realistic that some real world race car drivers use it for training.

AC goes so far as to not only track how much fuel you use, but what the remaining fuel weighs because it affects the dynamics of the car. But let's say there's another game that does everything AC does (including refueling) but doesn't consider the weight of that fuel. Let's call it NAC (Not Asseto Corsa). Would they still be considered a sim? Because that, to me, is analogous to HP. HP measures durability, it just doesn't measure every aspect of durability that it could much like the sim that doesn't track the weight of the fuel.

But the definition @Hussar posted was "A system where the system produces information for the user beyond references within the system itself." Which ... doesn't really mean anything for me. In my dualing car sims it's just a matter of accuracy of the sim not whether one is a sim or not. The only information the player has is how much fuel they have in the tank. They know that when they get down close to the E on the gauge that they need to make a pit stop.

The AC simulator has information (weight of the fuel) hidden from the player. NAC does not hide that because the weight of the fuel is static. Yet other games just ignore fuel and factors like tire wear altogether but the cars still drive and function close to world cars. Further down the spectrum you get Mario Kart. At what point on the spectrum from Asseto Corsa to Mario Kart do you go from racing sim to not racing sim?

I see tracking the weight of the fuel or not similar to how your remaining durability (HP in D&D) may affect how likely you are to achieve goals in some games but not in D&D.

 

[hawkeyefan]

When it comes to the simulation argument there's something fundamental I don't understand. Hit Points, to me, just measure durability. We can split it up however we want but in simple terms it's how long can you survive attempts to kill you. Apologies if this sounds dismissive, that's not my intent. I just really don't understand why HP only affecting whether you're conscious or not makes a difference.

So I was thinking about games that are simulations - specifically cars and racing. There are some race games that don't care about fuel, others that only require that you fill up every so many laps and games that try to be hyper realistic and even calculate in how much gas you have and how much it weighs.

So on one end you have Mario Kart and on the other extreme you have games like Asseto Corsa (AC). I wouldn't consider Mario Cart a realistic simulation (you may not consider it a simulation at all), but AC is so realistic that some real world race car drivers use it for training.

AC goes so far as to not only track how much fuel you use, but what the remaining fuel weighs because it affects the dynamics of the car. But let's say there's another game that does everything AC does (including refueling) but doesn't consider the weight of that fuel. Let's call it NAC (Not Asseto Corsa). Would they still be considered a sim? Because that, to me, is analogous to HP. HP measures durability, it just doesn't measure every aspect of durability that it could much like the sim that doesn't track the weight of the fuel.

But the definition @Hussar posted was "A system where the system produces information for the user beyond references within the system itself." Which ... doesn't really mean anything for me. In my dualing car sims it's just a matter of accuracy of the sim not whether one is a sim or not. The only information the player has is how much fuel they have in the tank. They know that when they get down close to the E on the gauge that they need to make a pit stop.

The AC simulator has information (weight of the fuel) hidden from the player. NAC does not hide that because the weight of the fuel is static. Yet other games just ignore fuel and factors like tire wear altogether but the cars still drive and function close to world cars. Further down the spectrum you get Mario Kart. At what point on the spectrum from Asseto Corsa to Mario Kart do you go from racing sim to not racing sim?

I see tracking the weight of the fuel or not similar to how your remaining durability (HP in D&D) may affect how likely you are to achieve goals in some games but not in D&D.

In Asseto Corsa, the attempt is to simulate what actually happens if a car slams into a wall or into another car. There is damage to the car, its performance is likely impacted, the car and others may crash or go off course, etc. (I've never played the game, so I am making some assumptions here based on other games which have a similar approach).

If the game was not attempting to simulate what actually happens, but was instead just concerned with a fun experience, then perhaps each car would have a damage threshold and any impact or crash would add points toward that threshold, and once exceeded, you lose and you're out of the race. That's not how cars work, so it's not really much a simulation. It's more representative than simulative.

The mistake you're making is in classifying Hit Points as "Durability". I know that Hit Points are often described as durability, and that even if we include other factors like luck and effort and the ability to dodge or render a significant blow into an insignificant one and so on, then durability is still a part of it. But they're not a simulation. There is no real world thing that is, as you put it, a measure of how long someone can survive attempts to kill them.

An attempt at simulation would attempt to actually model what happens when you hit someone with a sword. What would happen? First, we have to determine where the person was hit, because that will matter quite a bit. How hard were they hit? That's going to matter as it may make the difference between a slashed bicep and a broken or severed arm. What would happen as a result? How long would that last?

And so on.

Now, it's almost certainly true that no RPG system can be a completely accurate simulation. But some games make more of an attempt at simulation than others. And as far as Hit Points go as a bar for simulation, they serve as a pretty low bar. It really doesn't take a lot to achieve a higher amount of simulation for physical harm than Hit Points.

Now, you may shrug and say "well who cares" but clearly people do. For some people, they want as much simulation as possible. Others want at least a bare minimum amount of some kind. Others don't really care at all. It seems like you're in the last camp, and that's perfectly fine...it's the equivalent of preferring Mario Kart to Asseto Corsa.

 

[Oofta]

In Asseto Corsa, the attempt is to simulate what actually happens if a car slams into a wall or into another car. There is damage to the car, its performance is likely impacted, the car and others may crash or go off course, etc. (I've never played the game, so I am making some assumptions here based on other games which have a similar approach).


If the game was not attempting to simulate what actually happens, but was instead just concerned with a fun experience, then perhaps each car would have a damage threshold and any impact or crash would add points toward that threshold, and once exceeded, you lose and you're out of the race. That's not how cars work, so it's not really much a simulation. It's more representative than simulative.

I focused on HP and fuel for a reason. My understanding is that HP is a primary example of why D&D is not a simulation.

But let's take ... the Forza Horizon games*. FH has the option to make all damage cosmetic. You still run into other things, but there's no long term impact. Otherwise the cars drive more or less like real cars since the company also writes more more serious sims and uses most of the same code underneath it all. Is the FH game a simulation if you leave damage tracking on but suddenly no longer a sim if you make the damage cosmetic?

The mistake you're making is in classifying Hit Points as "Durability".

I get the idea that no generic term will ever satisfy you which is why this is frustrating. I'm trying to be respectful but the term I used has nothing to do with what I was asking.

I know that Hit Points are often described as durability, and that even if we include other factors like luck and effort and the ability to dodge or render a significant blow into an insignificant one and so on, then durability is still a part of it. But they're not a simulation. There is no real world thing that is, as you put it, a measure of how long someone can survive attempts to kill them.


An attempt at simulation would attempt to actually model what happens when you hit someone with a sword. What would happen? First, we have to determine where the person was hit, because that will matter quite a bit. How hard were they hit? That's going to matter as it may make the difference between a slashed bicep and a broken or severed arm. What would happen as a result? How long would that last?

And so on.



Now, it's almost certainly true that no RPG system can be a completely accurate simulation. But some games make more of an attempt at simulation than others. And as far as Hit Points go as a bar for simulation, they serve as a pretty low bar. It really doesn't take a lot to achieve a higher amount of simulation for physical harm than Hit Points.

HP measures how many attacks that you can endure that aren't outright misses. Every game that simulates combat has to have some way of tracking at what point a person is no longer capable of fighting. But now what you're saying is that it's a matter of granularity - different games have different ways of measuring when a person is no longer capable of fighting. In addition, much like AC tracking weight of the fuel there may be some consequence to damage.

But that to me is just a scale thing and a judgement call. No game can implement a full body simulator, they all make compromises and it's just a matter of perceived accuracy. Maybe I'm missing the point.

Now, you may shrug and say "well who cares" but clearly people do. For some people, they want as much simulation as possible. Others want at least a bare minimum amount of some kind. Others don't really care at all. It seems like you're in the last camp, and that's perfectly fine...it's the equivalent of preferring Mario Kart to Asseto Corsa.

I appreciate the response, but you didn't really address my question. My question was not about preference. It's what makes a specific element, fuel in a racing sim, HP or it's rough equivalent in games that have combat goes from being a simulation or not. I'm trying to be specific in a simple concept: one game tracks the weight of the fuel, one does not. For both, when the fuel runs out the car stops. For the former, the amount of fuel also has an impact of the dynamics of the car. This to me is a pretty straightforward analogy with HP and other methods of tracking when a person is no long able to fight. In D&D there's no penalty or consequence until you drop. In other games there are other side effects. Both are simulating the fact that if you take enough damage you can no longer fight.

*It also has some more arcade elements to it like driving cross-country at 100 MPH, but on roads it's actually a reasonable approximation to driving a real car.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I focused on HP and fuel for a reason. My understanding is that HP is a primary example of why D&D is not a simulation.

While I think the HP/fuel analogy is mostly reasonable, there is a point where it just isn't IMO: You can have 1 hit point after being "run down" from 50 and your PC keeps going forever as long as you have that 1 hit point. Gas, must, by its very nature, run out if the game is simulationist at all.

But I fully understand your point, which is why a long time ago I advocated for attacks to not deal "damage" so much as they deplete your combat durability (e.g. hit points). Any "damage" in D&D prior to going to 0 hit points is really non-existent or "minor scraps", etc. which don't actually affect you at all. Sure, the text I cited in the PHB suggest that below half HP, signs of wear start to show. This could be minor scraps, or just profuse sweating from getting "tired", or whatever fluff you want. Otherwise, the hit points you spend in response to the damage you take is really just you expending "energy" to avoid serious injury.

With this understanding, the only hit points that are "meat" is really the last 1 hit point.

Regardless, it all breaks down anyway because hit points are too abstract IMO. The same mechanic is used for every potential type of damage in the game. Yes, this is super simple, but creates issues of damage from falling being equitable to damage from an giant ant bite or from freezing cold, and so on. Especially when after a decent sleep you can do it all over again...

I know many groups use house-rules for hit points, rests, and other things to deal with such issues; but other groups can blithely ignore them because they don't see any problem. I see dozens of issues...

 

[Oofta]

While I think the HP/fuel analogy is mostly reasonable, there is a point where it just isn't IMO: You can have 1 hit point after being "run down" from 50 and your PC keeps going forever as long as you have that 1 hit point. Gas, must, by its very nature, run out if the game is simulationist at all.

But I fully understand your point, which is why a long time ago I advocated for attacks to not deal "damage" so much as they deplete your combat durability (e.g. hit points). Any "damage" in D&D prior to going to 0 hit points is really non-existent or "minor scraps", etc. which don't actually affect you at all. Sure, the text I cited in the PHB suggest that below half HP, signs of wear start to show. This could be minor scraps, or just profuse sweating from getting "tired", or whatever fluff you want. Otherwise, the hit points you spend in response to the damage you take is really just you expending "energy" to avoid serious injury.

With this understanding, the only hit points that are "meat" is really the last 1 hit point.

Regardless, it all breaks down anyway because hit points are too abstract IMO. The same mechanic is used for every potential type of damage in the game. Yes, this is super simple, but creates issues of damage from falling being equitable to damage from an giant ant bite or from freezing cold, and so on. Especially when after a decent sleep you can do it all over again...

I know many groups use house-rules for hit points, rests, and other things to deal with such issues; but other groups can blithely ignore them because they don't see any problem. I see dozens of issues...

Which I totally get. Although I think the analogy holds. With a few exceptions HP generally only matters in combat, fuel only matters if you're driving.

It's more that people seem to draw a line of simulation/not simulation based on perceived accuracy but then claim they are not. Or I'm just totally misunderstanding.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Which I totally get. Although I think the analogy holds. With a few exceptions HP generally only matters in combat, fuel only matters if you're driving.

It's more that people seem to draw a line of simulation/not simulation based on perceived accuracy but then claim they are not. Or I'm just totally misunderstanding.

Yeah, it is a good analogy for that understanding of hit points.

I, for one, don't think the line is about simulation/not simulation at all, but on the accuracy of the simulation compared to a desired "standard" (for lack of a better term).

D&D IS a simulation (as you say--and I agree--about a 3/10). It isn't that it doesn't simulate things (well, some things it just doesn't), it is that the simulation is overly simplified for my tastes (I want that 7/10, or at least a 6).

Jumping is one of my favorite examples. Yes, you jump when you jump, and 5E set the limit at your STR score. Then leaves the rest of it up in the air. I know that is supposed to be a feature of the game, but IMO it makes the mechanic feel "incomplete". The section on using Athletics in chapter 7 even says you can use it to jump "unusually long distances", but leaves even that open. DMs might question: "Well, how do I do that?" and it can create issues if one DM does things one way and another a different way when a player is in both groups. Sure, you can discuss the ruling to establish the "rule" for the future, but personally I would like to see a bit more "rule" already present--which people can tweak if they don't like.

As far as hit points are concerned, we also use exhaustion levels a lot to represent "physical injury" which takes longer to heal than the "energy-type" hit points which come back more quickly. Is it perfect? No, of course not, but it simulates injury with negative effects in ways hit points alone just don't.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I focused on HP and fuel for a reason. My understanding is that HP is a primary example of why D&D is not a simulation.

But let's take ... the Forza Horizon games*. FH has the option to make all damage cosmetic. You still run into other things, but there's no long term impact. Otherwise the cars drive more or less like real cars since the company also writes more more serious sims and uses most of the same code underneath it all. Is the FH game a simulation if you leave damage tracking on but suddenly no longer a sim if you make the damage cosmetic?

Sure, there's a bit of scale at play here. You could say that Alessa Corza is a stronger simulation than Forza Horizon which is itself a stronger simulation than Gran Turismo, and so on.

At some point on that scale.... probably before we get to Mario Kart, but certainly by that point... you have to say that something is no longer really concerned with simulation beyond the most broad elements like "cars have wheels and go fast and you need to steer them!"

I get the idea that no generic term will ever satisfy you which is why this is frustrating. I'm trying to be respectful but the term I used has nothing to do with what I was asking.

It's not that no generic term will satisfy me, it's that there is no one thing that you're looking for here. Hit points don't represent the ability to avoid being killed because that's not a thing. Instead, all of the many and various elements that may play a part in whether or not someone gets killed are lumped together under the umbrella of Hit Points, which do not function in a way that simulates the things that it represents.

If person A shoots person B in the head, very likely person B will die or be in quite a bit of trouble. Hit Point systems don't typically allow for this kind of simulative element, and instead just result in a loss of some HP, and then person B moves along. That's not even remotely simulating what would happen when someone gets shot.

I'd say you're frustrated because you're trying to equate HP in a one-for-one way with something in the real world that doesn't exist.

HP measures how many attacks that you can endure that aren't outright misses. Every game that simulates combat has to have some way of tracking at what point a person is no longer capable of fighting. But now what you're saying is that it's a matter of granularity - different games have different ways of measuring when a person is no longer capable of fighting. In addition, much like AC tracking weight of the fuel there may be some consequence to damage.

But that to me is just a scale thing and a judgement call. No game can implement a full body simulator, they all make compromises and it's just a matter of perceived accuracy. Maybe I'm missing the point.

It's entirely a matter of perceived accuracy, yes. There are many folks who see simulation as a fruitless exercise in RPGs. Not that I want to get into that and muddy the waters any further, so I'm discussing with the general idea of simulation in mind. I don't think that we always need to look at it as a binary state of simulation/not simulation. There are degrees.

If a game is trying to simulate reality or real world effects, then it's going to be granular. It's likely not going to take potentially dozens (if not hundreds or thousands) of factors and lump them all into one figure.

I appreciate the response, but you didn't really address my question. My question was not about preference. It's what makes a specific element, fuel in a racing sim, HP or it's rough equivalent in games that have combat goes from being a simulation or not. I'm trying to be specific in a simple concept: one game tracks the weight of the fuel, one does not. For both, when the fuel runs out the car stops. For the former, the amount of fuel also has an impact of the dynamics of the car. This to me is a pretty straightforward analogy with HP and other methods of tracking when a person is no long able to fight. In D&D there's no penalty or consequence until you drop. In other games there are other side effects. Both are simulating the fact that if you take enough damage you can no longer fight.

*It also has some more arcade elements to it like driving cross-country at 100 MPH, but on roads it's actually a reasonable approximation to driving a real car.

If you drive a car in the real world, you can measure the amount of fuel it's using. Consumption will be based on many factors including weight, drag, load, efficiency, and so on. You can measure it. Fuel is a thing in real life. Games that use fuel mostly do so in a way that simulates its real-life use.

If I bash my head into a brick wall, what am I losing? Hit points are not a thing in real life. Games that use Hit Points are using them not as a simulation but as an abstraction that represents many factors. There is not the one-for-one correlation that there is with fuel in life and racing games.