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

[Oofta]

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!"



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.

Every game has abstractions. Heck, even physicists use abstractions and simplifications. HP is not one thing, it's just tracking a broad range of things that happen when an attack exceeds the "hit" number. Nobody has ever claimed otherwise.

You couldn't have a game that tracked in detail what actually happened.

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.

But what level of granularity? Most examples I've seen still replace HP with less than half a dozen tokens.

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.

But taking enough damage to be knocked unconscious or die is a real thing. Saying HP isn't a real thing is kind of like saying dirt isn't a real thing because dirt is made up of decayed plants, microbes, fungi, minerals and so on. Dirt is just our high level perception and label for something that is really made of many things, which will vary from one location to the next. Just like HP is a high level perception and label representing effects that will vary from one creature and one set of circumstances to the next. Doesn't mean dirt or HP are any less real. Heck, many philosophers and scientists will tell you that nothing is real we just have mental constructs that are designed for efficiency and survival.

In any case, thanks. I disagree obviously and it seems like you couldn't call any TTRPG style game a simulation using your criteria.

 

[clearstream]

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?

This again is mired in assumptions about the reference. The simulation must produce what happens when you hit someone with a sword in that cosmos. If in that cosmos heroic luck fends off palpable harm for a time, then the simulation must produce that result.

As for determining where a person was hit, that is only a matter of the granularity of the simulation. Does RQ model fingers and toes? Surely a swiftly swung sharp sword could severe a digit!

 

[FrogReaver]

It seems to me the argument is that hit points either aren’t a simulation or aren’t a good simulation because they aren’t 1 to 1 with their causes and effects.

Gas in a race car is depleted via a complex formula of weight, drag, etc. The end result of that formula is fuel consumption and this fuel consumption corresponds to reality (to a very high degree).

HP are depleted in a similar way except luck, skill, etc instead of weight, drag, etc. Except there is no real world analog to hp like there is to fuel. Heck, it’s not even clear there’s a fantasy fiction analog to it either.

IMO. HP of itself isn’t simulating much of anything. However, the hp system is essential for allowing encounters to simulate heroic fantasy fighting. So I think this is a case where the whole is more than the sum of its components - or said another way, mechanics that aren’t simulations on their own can be combined to create a simulation.

 

[DND_Reborn]

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.

Well, that is part of the problem when trying to equate D&D to real life...

You don't know A shooting at B hit him in the head. All you know is (assuming A "hits" B's AC) is that A shooting was a successful attack that somehow affected B and made B react, expending hit points to avoid getting mortally injured.

So, B really might not be in "quite a bit of trouble" as you think...

 

[hawkeyefan]

Every game has abstractions. Heck, even physicists use abstractions and simplifications. HP is not one thing, it's just tracking a broad range of things that happen when an attack exceeds the "hit" number. Nobody has ever claimed otherwise.

Well, you kind of did when you compared Hit Points (an abstraction) to Fuel (an actual resource which can be measured).

But yes, otherwise, I agree. Every game has abstractions. Would you agree that some have more than others? It's pretty much as simple as that.

You couldn't have a game that tracked in detail what actually happened.

Do you mean a TTRPG? No, probably not. But you provided an example of a video game that is very much a simulator.

But what level of granularity? Most examples I've seen still replace HP with less than half a dozen tokens.

It's not objective. It's really all opinion.

But if someone were to tell me that Mario Kart is a racing simulator, hey it's their opinion. It's just a pretty stupid opinion.

But taking enough damage to be knocked unconscious or die is a real thing.

Sure. But unlike fuel consumption, it's much harder to simulate because many of the relevant factors are vague or vary greatly from person to person or are otherwise hard to quantify.

Saying HP isn't a real thing is kind of like saying dirt isn't a real thing because dirt is made up of decayed plants, microbes, fungi, minerals and so on. Dirt is just our high level perception and label for something that is really made of many things, which will vary from one location to the next. Just like HP is a high level perception and label representing effects that will vary from one creature and one set of circumstances to the next. Doesn't mean dirt or HP are any less real. Heck, many philosophers and scientists will tell you that nothing is real we just have mental constructs that are designed for efficiency and survival.

I don't know what this has to do with anything. I'm not deploying a rhetorical trick.

In any case, thanks. I disagree obviously and it seems like you couldn't call any TTRPG style game a simulation using your criteria.

Well, as I said there are people who have that exact opinion. I don't know if I consider myself among them. I can see some elements of TTRPGs as being attempts a simulation, to varying effect. And I can accept that as the stated goal or desire of those elements, however successful they may be. I just don't hold it up as being anywhere near as important to me as a fun game that evokes the mood/vibe/genre that I'm hoping for.

 

[Oofta]

It seems to me the argument is that hit points either aren’t a simulation or aren’t a good simulation because they aren’t 1 to 1 with their causes and effects.

Gas in a race car is depleted via a complex formula of weight, drag, etc. The end result of that formula is fuel consumption and this fuel consumption corresponds to reality (to a very high degree).

HP are depleted in a similar way except luck, skill, etc instead of weight, drag, etc. Except there is no real world analog to hp like there is to fuel. Heck, it’s not even clear there’s a fantasy fiction analog to it either.

IMO. HP of itself isn’t simulating much of anything. However, the hp system is essential for allowing encounters to simulate heroic fantasy fighting. So I think this is a case where the whole is more than the sum of its components - or said another way, mechanics that aren’t simulations on their own can be combined to create a simulation.

To me HP are like the fuel gauge in your car. The gauge isn't the fuel, it's a representation of the fuel you have left. More complex than that of course because the amount of damage and strain you can take is nearly infinitely complex.

 

[Oofta]

Well, you kind of did when you compared Hit Points (an abstraction) to Fuel (an actual resource which can be measured).

But yes, otherwise, I agree. Every game has abstractions. Would you agree that some have more than others? It's pretty much as simple as that.



Do you mean a TTRPG? No, probably not. But you provided an example of a video game that is very much a simulator.



It's not objective. It's really all opinion.

But if someone were to tell me that Mario Kart is a racing simulator, hey it's their opinion. It's just a pretty stupid opinion.



Sure. But unlike fuel consumption, it's much harder to simulate because many of the relevant factors are vague or vary greatly from person to person or are otherwise hard to quantify.



I don't know what this has to do with anything. I'm not deploying a rhetorical trick.



Well, as I said there are people who have that exact opinion. I don't know if I consider myself among them. I can see some elements of TTRPGs as being attempts a simulation, to varying effect. And I can accept that as the stated goal or desire of those elements, however successful they may be. I just don't hold it up as being anywhere near as important to me as a fun game that evokes the mood/vibe/genre that I'm hoping for.

Then that goes back to what does the word "simulation" represent or perhaps what should the word represent in order to be useful in conversation. I don't mind using simulation to describe TTRPGs because it gives me a general idea of how close to reality a game tries to adhere. D&D is pretty low on the scale but it simulates action in fantasy or action fiction reasonably well for me. It's not worried about the details (i.e. HP are a measurement and representation of numerous things, not a thing in and of itself) and some things are just plain dumb (i.e. longbows, studded leather armor) but we abstract out ideas and concepts all the time.

In any case, thanks for sharing.

 

[Campbell]

This again is mired in assumptions about the reference. The simulation must produce what happens when you hit someone with a sword in that cosmos. If in that cosmos heroic luck fends off palpable harm for a time, then the simulation must product that result.

The relevant question (from my perspective) here is what comes first. Are we modeling a specific kind of fiction that we are designing to or are we using posthoc justifications of game mechanics that were obviously designed first and foremost as a game? What are we actually trying to do?

World of Warcraft uses all sorts of fictional justifications for its gameplay-oriented mechanics. That does not make it a simulation of anything.

 

[Hussar]

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.

See, this is where I'm getting tripped up. HP in D&D are Mario Cart, not Forsa or Not-Forsa. Not-Forsa is still a simulation, even though it is not as accurate as Forsa. But, there's still lots of information being generated by the system. As you say, Forsa generates so much information it can actually be used to train real world drivers. Presumably Not-Forsa could also do the same thing, although not as well.

Could Mario-Kart be used for driver training? I don't think so. All the information that Mario-Kart produces only correlates to the game itself. It in no way tells us anything useful outside of the game state. You could play Mario Kart for a thousand hours and still not know a single thing about driving a car.

Now, the question of "where in the spectrum does a system become a sim vs not-sim" is an interesting one. I'd say that like any spectrum, there is no hard and fast line. When does blue become not-blue? Personally, I would draw the line at intent. If the system is trying to be a simulation, then it likely is one. If there's nothing in the system that suggests that it's trying to be a sim game, then it probably isn't one. D&D famously isn't trying to be a simulation of anything, so, I'd say that it isn't one. That "3" that @Oofta uses to describe the sim level of D&D means that it's far enough down the line that the lack of intent makes it a not-sim game.

 

[Thomas Shey]

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.

In addition, gas is, largely speaking, fungible. One gallon of gas is pretty much like another (assuming the same basic quality), and the only thing that's happening when you expend it is it gets lower. Nothing indeed much matters until you're out or almost out.

Injury--isn't. At least outside of some extremely stylized forms of fiction. One sword thrust can put you down, and several can do nothing but create knicks and cuts. They don't even really accumulate in a normal sense, barring blood loss issues.

As such, D&D hit points (and some extremely simple other versions) don't really represent injury; they represent how long a fight can go on before you are disfunctional. And as has been noted, throughout most of the process you don't even really know in what way they've gotten you closer to being disfunction. Not only is it not all injury, the designers have been coy about ever saying that any given part of it but the last part includes injury at all.

As such, as constructed its a dramatic (and to some extent game) conceit in how it works .

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.

Of course there are areas where this gets, really, really odd--Healing magic and methods should logically not be interacting with hit points the way they do with that model. And of course the inconsistencies across the years in how environmental damage, poison and other things interacts with HP.