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

[overgeeked]

To be frank, directly making this stuff up all the time with no consistency sounds awful to me.

For me it's the consistency part that matters. If the dragon weighs 5 tons, then it weighs 5 tons until something changes that. That number then interacts with the world in a basically "realistic" way, hence the roof of a shack collapsing under its weight. Otherwise it becomes disjointed and surreal in a bad way. And I say that as someone who absolutely adores surrealism, absurdism, the weird, and games like Over the Edge. I'm fine with the Throckmorton Device and the Cut-Up Machine but the full weight of a 5 ton creature somehow not crushing a fragile structure is just too much.

 

[Reynard]

It's all relative. To someone who started in 2014 someone who started in 2000 is "old school". But they're both fresh-faced babies compared to us '80s kids...and we're newbies to the '70s grognards. It's "get off my lawn" all the way down.

I don't like "relative terminology" and words that shift meaning with every speaker. When we are talking about eras in TTRPGs, "Old School" is meaningful. If we arbitrarily call those that started with 3E "old school" because time has passed, then the conversation gets confused off the bat and it is hard to have a worthwhile discussion without a bunch of term defining at the very beginning. Of course, this is just preference and I don't expect anyone else to concur. I just get a little salty about terminology, is all.

 

[Reynard]

Perhaps you can give examples from your own play of how this inconsistency occurs.

Or are you - by quoting me and saying this - attempting to impute inconsistency (whatever you mean by that) in my games? If so, perhaps you can back that up with examples from my games.

I feel like you are aiming to argue unnecessarily. It was clear from context that @Micah Sweet was saying that they prefer to play games where details like the size and weight of a dragon are prescribed, because having to make up those details on the fly all the time makes them unhappy. How you construed something negative about your own game I can't fathom.

 

[Charlaquin]

Simulation is an element of D&D that grew out of its wargaming roots. Simulation in wargaming remains quite a contentious topic. Some people think sci-fi wargames can be simulations. Others don't.

My benchmark for simulation is 'can be tested against reality'. A wargame about the the Battle of the Bulge needs to be able to recreate the actual events as one of its outcomes. The effectiveness of different units needs to fall within a range of plausibility generated by our knowledge of their actual battle effectiveness. Supply limitations need to be based on actual knowledge of supply shortfalls and logistical difficulties. Movement speeds need to match the known capabilities of men and vehicles. And so on.

So if a Panther meets a Sherman Firefly at 700 yards we can have a reasonable idea - based on matters of record - of the range of outcomes and their probability in that engagement. So the stats of a Panther, relative to a Sherman - together with a gameplay loop - can be created to try and match those outcomes. You can also take the known technology of a T80 and a Challenger II and try to create a predictive model on a hypethetical conflict - but again based on the measurable reality of speeds, muzzle velocities, ammo loadouts, gun traverse speeds, targeting systems, smoke dispensors.

But you could also imagine such details of invented units and then play out a hypothetical engagement between them. That would be a high concept simulation - the principles of modeling real properties and using the system to “simulate” the interactions between them are the same, you’re just simulating imaginary parameters.

 

[overgeeked]

I don't like "relative terminology" and words that shift meaning with every speaker. When we are talking about eras in TTRPGs, "Old School" is meaningful. If we arbitrarily call those that started with 3E "old school" because time has passed, then the conversation gets confused off the bat and it is hard to have a worthwhile discussion without a bunch of term defining at the very beginning. Of course, this is just preference and I don't expect anyone else to concur. I just get a little salty about terminology, is all.

Note the quotation marks around old school in my post.

I agree. Words have meaning. Communication becomes impossible unless the meanings of words are broadly shared. Which is why I detest jargon. Especially jargon that's specifically designed to shift and change...like most of the popular RPG jargon seems to be. But there are plenty of other threads on jargon so we don't need to have yet another.

 

[Tonguez]

Every RPG is a simulationist RPG. Something like gravity exists and you don't have to worry about your character floating off the ground. Characters commuicate in a language that the player understands. When something hits something else, there is reaction. Nobody starts writing a TTRPG rulebook by completely redefining the entire world.

well gravity kind of exists except that surviving a 200 ft fall is still a thing
and 5e doesnt have coup de grace rules

I’m in for narrative first - its fantasy so let me do fantastic stuff even if it breaks ‘realistic logic’, as long as it fits the story then its ‘consistent with the narrative’

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

This is where training during downtime to level up can come in.

 

[chaochou]

For me it's the consistency part that matters.

So that's what is being 'simulated'. The consistency of your imagination.

Funnily enough, that's exactly what I said in my original post.

 

[Charlaquin]

Simulation is one of the foundations on which all RPGs are based, even if people don't like to admit it. A basic connection to the real world is the basis for all consistency and communication. It doesn't matter if it's a game about powerful wizards or mice that fight like knights, when you sit down and learn about a TTRPG for the first time, you come to the table with certain expectations about how the world works; those expectations are based on reality.

Every RPG is a simulationist RPG. Something like gravity exists and you don't have to worry about your character floating off the ground. Characters commuicate in a language that the player understands. When something hits something else, there is reaction. Nobody starts writing a TTRPG rulebook by completely redefining the entire world.

This is true of traditional RPGs, but the storygame movement has shaken that up.

 

[Charlaquin]

Exactly. This is why I don't understand people who say they hate simulation. What exactly are they objecting to?

Mostly what they’re objecting to is mechanics that prioritize adherence to a given idea of “realism” over more gameplay-focused concerns such as game balance, and/or simulation that goes into such detail that it complicates or slows down gameplay too much for their tastes.