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

[Thomas Shey]

I don't really think it does, but YMMV I suppose.

Its not hard to have the idea that memorizing a complex formula may require a certain intellect and practice. But it goes well beyond that to have a spell, well disappear. As I said, outside of Vance, look for a pre-D&D magic system that looks anything like that (admittedly, a lot of older magic systems are cryptic beyond any ability to figure much about them, because they're not used by a protagonist who thinks about it much, but among those that do, you either see failure/fumble system type execution, or ones that require energy of some kind, or are entirely ritual spells. And even among Vance, they don't look all that much like D&D magic, they just are fire-and-forget. )

I really don't see how am getting more specific to justify anything, I am just explaining how it works.

Oh, you are. That's not a criticism exactly, its just noting that its not a very generic looking magic system once you step away from people who are just used to spells working that way because, well, D&D is endemic. Its not alone in that regard; a lot of magic systems really are very specific and make very specific assumptions about how things work. RQ rune/divine magic comes to mind here.

On the other hand, there are far more generic looking magic systems (which still imply some things about their metaphysics, but tend to be easily applied more broadly without heavy lifting). As an example, GURPS basic magic is very generic; you learn a spell like a skill, roll a skill roll, and expend fatigue using it. It makes some probably basic assumptions (spells can be learned, they're powered by physical fatigue), but they don't say much beyond that.

The biggest benefit of D&D style spells is its all-or-nothing, and it forces some planning on people (in the case of prepared casters), so its easy to understand why it was attractive in a gamist fashion.

I really couldn't say, but that could be the reason why. Frankly, I don't know anything about Vance as the fiction that might have inspired it.

Well, as I noted, it only borderline resembles Vance Magic. If it was Vance-like, you'd have a very small number of spells, they'd be quite powerful, and it wouldn't say too much about the other skills of the mage. That doesn't mean it wasn't the inspiration, but I suspect the fact it was pretty simple to bookkeep and had some virtues as I mention in a game-decisions kind of way had more to do with it than any representational purpose.

 

[Krachek]

I have done hundred of summaries for game session, and I don’t think I use the term hit points in any of them. Taking time to make a summary of a session force me to fill the holes, describe what happened in a more cinematic view. It always make a coherent result, despite the flaws in the simulation, Because I want to make a coherent story. The Chase of the Maticore can be ended with multiple result depending on game decision, rule, dice or Dm fiat, but any ending can easily become a coherent event in a game summary.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I have done hundred of summaries for game session, and I don’t think I use the term hit points in any of them. Taking time to make a summary of a session force me to fill the holes, describe what happened in a more cinematic view. It always make a coherent result, despite the flaws in the simulation, Because I want to make a coherent story. The Chase of the Maticore can be ended with multiple result depending on game decision, rule, dice or Dm fiat, but any ending can easily become a coherent event in a game summary.

When you have a big broad resolution mechanic, you can always make it look good retroactively, because you can insert whatever details you need. But doing it on the fly is a different beast; it can absolutely be done, but don't expect the system to give you any help here.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Its not hard to have the idea that memorizing a complex formula may require a certain intellect and practice. But it goes well beyond that to have a spell, well disappear. As I said, outside of Vance, look for a pre-D&D magic system that looks anything like that (admittedly, a lot of older magic systems are cryptic beyond any ability to figure much about them, because they're not used by a protagonist who thinks about it much, but among those that do, you either see failure/fumble system type execution, or ones that require energy of some kind, or are entirely ritual spells. And even among Vance, they don't look all that much like D&D magic, they just are fire-and-forget. )

It isn't hard to think of a spell disappearing when cast, really. Think about spell scrolls. The magic is imprinted on the page. That is what happened in AD&D, except instead of parchment (tablet, papyrus, etc.), it is the caster's mind. Once the spell is cast and the magic released, it disappears. When a caster learns a spell, they learn how to imprint it, whether on a page or on their mind, as well as the method for releasing that stored energy. The limiting factor is experience, of course, and the higher your level the more magic you can imprint on your mind.

FWIW, the spells/magic in AD&D do draw "energy of some kind" (from the positive and negative planes IIRC).

On the other hand, there are far more generic looking magic systems (which still imply some things about their metaphysics, but tend to be easily applied more broadly without heavy lifting). As an example, GURPS basic magic is very generic; you learn a spell like a skill, roll a skill roll, and expend fatigue using it. It makes some probably basic assumptions (spells can be learned, they're powered by physical fatigue), but they don't say much beyond that.

Generic doesn't mean it doesn't require explanation of how the system works or why it is there. If anything, all it means is the game fails to explain why it works the way it does.

AD&D explains the idea of memorizing spells for use. It explains how rest is required before you can focus well enough to re-imprint spells after that have been expended. It explains how the energy is drawn from the outer planes (positive / negative), etc. All of this could have not been explained and made more "generic": Magic is hard to master. You can only cast X spells before you need to rest. Pick the spells you want to be able to cast. Done.

FWIW, even in OD&D explanation is given, however brief:

 

[Ovinomancer]

I have done hundred of summaries for game session, and I don’t think I use the term hit points in any of them. Taking time to make a summary of a session force me to fill the holes, describe what happened in a more cinematic view. It always make a coherent result, despite the flaws in the simulation, Because I want to make a coherent story. The Chase of the Maticore can be ended with multiple result depending on game decision, rule, dice or Dm fiat, but any ending can easily become a coherent event in a game summary.

Coherency of the fiction is orthogonal to simulation. Well, one would hope that simulation creates coherent fiction, but it's certainly not the only way coherent fiction can be created.

 

[Thomas Shey]

It isn't hard to think of a spell disappearing when cast, really. Think about spell scrolls.

Spell scrolls are just as odd as the spells. I can't think of any pre-D&D reference for how they work at all (unlike most other magic items). They're entirely an invention of the game as mechaniced, far as I can tell.

 

[clearstream]

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?

Would you agree hit points came out of a desire to model individual soldiers and gunslingers in a skirmish?

 

[clearstream]

Spell scrolls are just as odd as the spells. I can't think of any pre-D&D reference for how they work at all (unlike most other magic items). They're entirely an invention of the game as mechaniced, far as I can tell.

King of Elflands Daughter, apparently. Also Grey Mouser.

 

[Hussar]

This formulation doesn't really work. Take Blades in the Dark. If a PC attempts something, and gets a 6, the GM cannot narrate a consequence attached to the action nor any form of failure -- they are mandated to narrate success or progress towards success per the set Effect. But Blades resolution isn't simulationist at all -- it's intentionally not. So, "result mandates a not-something" can't be a functional definition of a simulationism.

Yes, you're right. I need to walk back what I said here a bit.

Let's see if this works:

Sim games - to work as a sim game, the mechanics need to inform the players at least a minimal amount, about what happened in the fiction, while, at the same time, excluding some potential results.

I'd point out though that while non-sim games can produce similar results, that doesn't really matter. After all, if the same player didn't roll a 6, then the DM has all sorts of flexibility on the results and there aren't really any results that are off limits. So, BitD kinda sorta looks like it might kinda be sim in a certain light, but, most of the time it isn't.

It's kind of like how in D&D, you do have a pretty specific result when someone is dropped. You are supposed to narrate that as taking physical damage that is potentially life threatening. Dying of embarrassment isn't really a thing that is actually going to happen at the table. OTOH, the other 99% of the time, the sky is the limit in terms of narrating successful or unsuccessful attacks.

 

[Hussar]

I have done hundred of summaries for game session, and I don’t think I use the term hit points in any of them. Taking time to make a summary of a session force me to fill the holes, describe what happened in a more cinematic view. It always make a coherent result, despite the flaws in the simulation, Because I want to make a coherent story. The Chase of the Maticore can be ended with multiple result depending on game decision, rule, dice or Dm fiat, but any ending can easily become a coherent event in a game summary.

Oh, absolutely. You certainly can go back, after the fact, and then narrate. Once a combat was finished, you could narrate and be sure that it wouldn't be contradicted, and, once a session is finished, that wouldn't be terribly difficult.

I mean, we've got a huge WotC release based on someone's game fiction coming out very soon. So, it's certainly possible.

What isn't really possible though, is doing it at the time. You can't narrate actions until well after the action is completed because there are so many things that can invalidate a narration.

Whereas in a sim based game, typically that simulation will be time dependent. You shouldn't be able to invalidate a result with a later result in a simulation. But, D&D is chock a block with all sorts of (I SOOOO WANT TO SAY PLAYER FUDGING!!! PLEASE @Ovinomancer, PRETTY PLEASE ) reroll, rework, and interrupt style mechanics that it's virtually impossible.

On a side note, this is generally why 4e, despite drawing inspiration from video game mechanics, makes such a TERRIBLE video game system. 4e was just riddled with interrupt style mechanics that invalidated previous results. There would be almost no way to play that in a video game. It just wouldn't work very well.