D&D General On simulating things: what, why, and how?

[prabe]

Seems to me that the reason one simulates something--physics or genre or whatever--in a TRPG is so the players can meaningfully decide based on reasonable expectations of probable outcomes. How much is necessary for that end will of course and inevitably vary between players and tables.

 

[Reynard]

Seems to me that the reason one simulates something--physics or genre or whatever--in a TRPG is so the players can meaningfully decide based on reasonable expectations of probable outcomes. How much is necessary for that end will of course and inevitably vary between players and tables.

A think that is A reason, and a good one, but wouldn't call it THE reason. I think some people just like the immersion simulation helps engender, while others like the fact that there are understandable, "realistic" rules to the universe of the game for their own sake.

 

[prabe]

A think that is A reason, and a good one, but wouldn't call it THE reason. I think some people just like the immersion simulation helps engender, while others like the fact that there are understandable, "realistic" rules to the universe of the game for their own sake.

I think immersion is about making decisions from the character's POV, and I think wanting "realistic" (or realistic-ish) rules is about predictability. I'm not sure people with those preferences would agree.

 

[overgeeked]

Simulation vs playability. Story/genre logic vs "realism". Immersion vs simulation. Etc. It's an old argument.

I want immersion because it's escapist fantasy. Simulation up to a point helps that. But the more rules you have to check in a visible rulebook the less immersed you are. "Realism" up to a point helps with that. But the more "realistic" it is the less escapist fantasy the game becomes. It's that whole Goldilocks zone thing. And everyone's Goldilocks zone is different.

For me, the things that exist in the real world should be as "realistic" as possible. Generally by checking them against all the invisible rulebooks floating around in my head. But then I also check the fantasy and sci-fi elements against all the invisible rulebooks floating around in my head. The example up thread about a dragon landing on a roof. If the referee/players have different ideas of what that looks like then someone's (or everyone's) immersion is going to break because you'll have to stop playing and start hashing out the particulars of that instance.

 

[chaochou]

If the stat block for the dragon says it weighs five tons, and the DM describes it as such, then when it lands on the roof of the house, the players' minds are generally going to process "thing that weighs five tons perched on roof top", with likely some impact on how they react to the scene. Perhaps I envision the roof as groaning and creaking under the weight. Perhaps I upgrade my previous imagination of just how big and sturdy the house is. Perhaps I ask the DM "Does the rooftop creak or break under the weight", with an eye toward suspecting it's an illusion if he says "No, not that you can see."

You're free to do all these things with your imagination without a stat block that says a dragon weighs five tons. Or if it says two tons. Or 800lbs. Do you need the statblock's permission in order to imagine these things? If not, what work is it doing?

I can imagine all those things in Dungeon World without a stat block and without the claim of simulating anything. It's just a thing to imagine a dragon landing on a roof and tiles scattering everywhere and the beams creaking and splintering. That's authorship.

Make believe dragon, make believe roof, make believe events. No simulation happening, nor required.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Another thread just reminded me of one of the "simulationy" things that bugs me in 5E especially: the pace of advancement is such that you can have a bunch of novice adventurers head off toward the dungeon, terrified of meeting goblins in the woods, and literally a week later return at 3rd or 4th level and not be one bit worried about the stuff that a week ago scared them to death. it just feels off to me. But if you make the monsters in the woods werewolves or trolls to ensure the PCs will still be worried a week later, you've created a deathtrap for them on the way out should the random encounter appear. Of course as GM you can always put your finger on the scale, but that itself is anti-simulation.

That last part is exactly why I don't like worrying about simulation, and also why I homebrew basically all my npcs. The goblins in the woods are still a worry for 4th level characters, they just have more ways of countering them.

Last night I ran a Strixhaven session in which the PCs met their dorm neighbors, chose and customized their rooms (I had the dorm rooms magically transform to accommodate their desires), and then head out together to the Bow's End Tavern.
The dorm is not described at all except to note that the centra campus has dorms, so I invented a circular building featuring an atrium in the center that houses a tree that stretches up past the roof of the 3 story building, with a couple rooms, kitchen, and common area at ground floor, and many rooms on the other floors. The archetecture is intentionally somewhat irrational, but there was a point where I had to say no to a request in order for the building to work. My wife and our friend who were rooming together asked for a room with windows both to the atrium and to the outside of the building. The problem there is, where would the hallway go from which one enters the room? So, instead they have a balcony facing outward, and the hallway on the inside has a small balcony into the atrium.

They played Wizard Gizzard, which was pretty boring tbh but that is partly on me. I did a lot of describing the game and then failed to fix the boring mechanics given in the adventure. After the game, the steam mephits attacked in the kitchen. Steam mephits are dirt boring, so I had them have a feature to transform their elemental type if they were bloodied with elemental damage that corresponds to a type of mephit, and if they were reduced to 0 in such a way, they'd make a con save that if they succeeded on, they'd reform the next round as a different kind of mephit. Only one mephit ended up changing, but it made the battle very memorable, and now there is a new thing in the world that the players can reference if they get a chance, because once established a thing like that always exists.

So, internal consitency, and basics of the world functioning on an everyday level, are all the simulation i care about.

 

[Reynard]

You're free to do all these things with your imagination without a stat block that says a dragon weighs five tons. Or if it says two tons. Or 800lbs. Do you need the statblock's permission in order to imagine these things? If not, what work is it doing?

I can imagine all those things in Dungeon World without a stat block and without the claim of simulating anything. It's just a thing to imagine a dragon landing on a roof and tiles scattering everywhere and the beams creaking and splintering. That's authorship.

Make believe dragon, make believe roof, make believe events. No simulation happening, nor required.

I think the point is that authorship with no eye toward simulation can be immersion breaking or just plain unpleasant. Not for everyone certainly, but for many people their personal internal capacity for suspension of disbelief is at least partially defined by simulation. I don't think games that rely to heavily on narrative from multiple people can ever be especially coherent, which is a goal I at least have in play.

 

[Shardstone]

Being one of the "middle schoolers" that started as a lad in the mid 80s with the Basic set and eventually discovering 1E right before it got replaced with 2E (which was my preferred D&D for many, many years), I have a strange relationship with "simulation."

NOTE: I am using the term in its most natural definition, not necessarily in its jargon definition. I am talking about, loosely stated, "presenting rules ina way that sort of look like how things actually work, if you squint."

Anyway -- because I started with a version of the game that at least sometimes nodded in the direction of this kind of simulation, my tendency is to continue to do so, even after it has not only fallen out of fashion but also out of the rules almost entirely. Part of me wants the game rules to reflect the reality within the game (and to some degree, the reality outside my window) even when doing so might not be the most efficient or "fun" way of doing things. That's a tall order, of course, and I am not interested in truly rigorous simulation. But even so, I would love to see rules for shields that reflect their absolute dominance in ancient combat, along with rules that take into account how demanding and horrible bending space and time to create magical effects could be. Some of these desires are similar to earlier editions, while others are not. Some other game systems that appeared early in the hobby were direct attempts to simulate history or fiction ina way D&D did not, of course, so we can talk about those games too.

But overall, let's have a friendly discussion about when and how to use simulation in D&D, and also why.

Man I hate to tell you but starting in the 80s make you old school man.

 

[payn]

Downtime can and should include happenings of substance, though. Meaningful decisions. Gathering of information, building of resources, training, engaging in longer-term activities like building alliances and political support, magical research, etc.

I do like using downtime and fleshing it out to be more enjoyable and meaningful, in part to address the issue of PCs rocketing up in levels in a very short time in game. If I can stretch out how much time the campaign covers, that's less of an issue. The downtime should be enjoyable and interesting, though, and resolved quickly anywhere it's not!

I guess I don't consider faction play to be downtime. Players are actively doing things to strength them or weaken their foes. I was thinking more like buying stuff, crafting things, or training to be a next level whatever. That stuff I would rather wave away and get to the actively doing things part.

I was thinking about video games just now. How MMO and open world games became all the rage in the last few decades. Tons and tons of content and have it any way you want. Truth is the 100 hours of promised game play is 75 hours of scouring the corners of the globe looking for squirrel pelts to get whizbangs. Its filler to stretch the legs of the content. This is needed in video games because folks can devote tons of time to them. I'd rather skip all that for my valuable player to player time at the table. No fetch missions, no house building, etc.. Wave and done.

 

[Mannahnin]

You're free to do all these things with your imagination without a stat block that says a dragon weighs five tons. Or if it says two tons. Or 800lbs. Do you need the statblock's permission in order to imagine these things? If not, what work is it doing?

I can imagine all those things in Dungeon World without a stat block and without the claim of simulating anything. It's just a thing to imagine a dragon landing on a roof and tiles scattering everywhere and the beams creaking and splintering. That's authorship.

Make believe dragon, make believe roof, make believe events. No simulation happening, nor required.

Of course. Definitely not required.

But if we choose to play a game which tells us how much a dragon weighs, then we can use that information plus the Invisible Rulebooks in our heads to better inform our decision making and imaginations. And if the rulebook bothers to tell us how much the dragon weighs, that implies an intent that players use the information. Hey, we can adjudicate whether the corpse is transportable on our wagon! Etc.