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

[Umbran]

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."

Gotcha.

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

One problem with the real world is that, honestly, most of it is mind-numbingly mundane. The other problem with it is that the parts that are exciting are such that if you are not an expert, if you make one mistake, you're dead. GMs and Players are not, typically, experts at the exciting parts of the real world - or at least not with many of them. In addition, most of the time we design things such that the simulation is not the goal - it stands between the PCs and the goal, as a complication - you must climb the ice-covered mountain (and we simulate that climb) in order to get at the white dragon that has been plaguing the town. This means that, from the player's point of view, the simulation is something extraneous.

So, in order to make simulating the real world worthwhile, 1) The GM typically has to pick up a simulation created by someone with greater expertise, and then 2) the GM typically has to add in a layer of abstraction between the players and that simulation - lean on the characters being experts, rather than the players. This can lead to giving various characters spotlight time, but it means the players don't actually make the decisions relevant to the simulation.

And then, we are left wondering what the point of the simulation really was.

So, when, how, and why are answered by finding the times when simulation doesn't meet the usual issues of simulation.

1) When it is not mind-numbingly mundane - How many pairs of socks, or torches, a character is carrying may be meaningful insofar as getting trench foot or having your light go out in a dungeon are bad, those choices are not typically interesting.

2) When it is something for which expertise is less relevant - When the point of the simulation is to explore the thing being simulated, and nobody is expected to understand it to start with, and not understanding it won't kill the characters

3) When the thing simulated is central to the issues the PCs are choosing to deal with.

 

[billd91]

You can do what you like. But I said my benchmark for simulation is 'testable against real world outcomes'. Since that isn't possible with made-up units (whatever that means) I don't agree it's a simulation, and calling it 'high concept' is just verbiage.

Your benchmark. That doesn't mean that's the sum total of all that could reasonably be grouped under simulation.
Unpacking the dragon weight issue - if you imagine that the dragon is of a decent size category (like, say, bigger than a tractor), reasonably strong and solid in makeup, and then have things around it behave accordingly based on our understanding of reality (like flattening a relatively small hut under its weight), then you have engaged in what most people would call a degree of simulation.

 

[Grendel_Khan]

I am with you here. I am constantly wishing i could find a reasonable set of rules that promote characters behaving in a manner I consider consistent with what mortal humans care about: surviving, eating, having a bath, maybe getting frisky. I like human characters, especially in otherwise fantastic circumstances.

I know this is explicitly a D&D thread but I'll just mention very quickly that right now my favorite approach to what you're talking about is how some PbtA and FitD games do XP triggers. These are explicit rewards for players doing specific things, that they decide whether they deserve based on play, rather than hoping for the GM to approve. In Brindlewood Bay, for example, at the beginning of each session you pick from a list of End of Session Questions, such as:

-Did you dote on someone?
-Did you show someone that you’ve “still got it?”
The XP triggers directly encourage you to find opportunities to do certain things, which in part reinforces the premise (that you're playing old lady investigators). It's the kind of mechanic some would consider too "gamey," but the result (from my experience) is players getting into more narratively interesting and entertaining interactions. And, more important, not focusing on efficiency.

Blades in the Dark does a similar thing, based on playbook. So for the Leech, your per-session XP triggers are:

You addressed a challenge with technical skill or mayhem.
You expressed your beliefs, drives, heritage, or background.
You struggled with issues from your vice or traumas during the session.

Now you could imagine someone being a certain kind of someone and always tossing out some tidbit about their personal code, and also moaning about their addiction for 10 seconds, and then happily checking off those boxes. But the game trusts that perhaps that person won't stay so shameless throughout, in the face of eye-rolls from fellow players, and also even if you think you're gaming the system, you're at least doing more interesting or surprising things than you might have, particularly if you're compelled to unleash mayhem but the score demands subtlety, or you're desperate to use your technical skills despite the need for speed. The XP triggers can encourage you to act in ways that aren't always in your best interest. That's about as close to pushing people to play to their characters' humanity as I've seen.

 

[Reynard]

An illustration by way of example:
Let's say I want to run a gritty dungeon crawl that is (by my rather loose definition) "realistic." What does the rules system need to simulate? (Note, I'm not talking about how to simulate these things at this point, just what).

Vision and light.
Spelunking and other uncomfortable forms of movement.
Unstable terrain and other features.
Clean water and possibly food (depending on the length of delves).
"Realistic" traps and tricks.
"Unrealistic" magical things.
Monsters that act like animals.
Monsters that act like people.
Combat with same.
Carrying things and getting them out of the dungeon.

That's a pretty good list, but it isn't all encompassing. there is no reason for the rules to need to simulate courtly intrigue, or sailing, or computer hacking (I mean, unless there is). So we can ask our game system to do a lot of simulating to get the experience we want, but we don't have to ask it to be able to do everything.

 

[Deset Gled]

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

I disagree with this completely. Storygame RPGs absolutely have simulation, it's just generally part of the base creation of the game universe rather than a central part of the game mechanics. Just because it's not addressed directly doesn't mean it's not there.

 

[payn]

I know this is explicitly a D&D thread but I'll just mention very quickly that right now my favorite approach to what you're talking about is how some PbtA and FitD games do XP triggers. These are explicit rewards for players doing specific things, that they decide whether they deserve based on play, rather than hoping for the GM to approve. In Brindlewood Bay, for example, at the beginning of each session you pick from a list of End of Session Questions, such as:

-Did you dote on someone?
-Did you show someone that you’ve “still got it?”
The XP triggers directly encourage you to find opportunities to do certain things, which in part reinforces the premise (that you're playing old lady investigators). It's the kind of mechanic some would consider too "gamey," but the result (from my experience) is players getting into more narratively interesting and entertaining interactions. And, more important, not focusing on efficiency.

Blades in the Dark does a similar thing, based on playbook. So for the Leech, your per-session XP triggers are:

You addressed a challenge with technical skill or mayhem.
You expressed your beliefs, drives, heritage, or background.
You struggled with issues from your vice or traumas during the session.

Now you could imagine someone being a certain kind of someone and always tossing out some tidbit about their personal code, and also moaning about their addiction for 10 seconds, and then happily checking off those boxes. But the game trusts that perhaps that person won't stay so shameless throughout, in the face of eye-rolls from fellow players, and also even if you think you're gaming the system, you're at least doing more interesting or surprising things than you might have, particularly if you're compelled to unleash mayhem but the score demands subtlety, or you're desperate to use your technical skills despite the need for speed. The XP triggers can encourage you to act in ways that aren't always in your best interest. That's about as close to pushing people to play to their characters' humanity as I've seen.

I love and hate this. It provides a nice framework to stay within character like a television series. Some folks do really well with these boxes painted for them. Though, it often makes characters feel like caricatures as they do the same expected things. Like any other game folks are certainly able to work outside the box, but some folks stay well within. It makes general RP instincts, or lack thereof, stick out more than games that lack the mechanics, imo. However, this is a great example of a non-combat system to promote what Reynard is discussing.

 

[Charlaquin]

I disagree with this completely. Storygame RPGs absolutely have simulation, it's just generally part of the base creation of the game universe rather than a central part of the game mechanics. Just because it's not addressed directly doesn't mean it's not there.

I wouldn’t say it’s not there, but nor would I say it’s a foundation of the gameplay, which was the claim I was responding to.

 

[Blue]

I don't want to simulate a genre. I want to simulate a world where a genre story might conceivably take place, if events go that way.

In practical terms, how does that look different in the mechanics?

Say you are running a superhero game. How do the mechanics alter if you are simulating a world that supports superhero genre stories, as opposed to supporting the superhero genre directly?

Bonus question: Do these additional points add any complexity to the game that isn't needed for your genre?

 

[Reynard]

In practical terms, how does that look different in the mechanics?

Say you are running a superhero game. How do the mechanics alter if you are simulating a world that supports superhero genre stories, as opposed to supporting the superhero genre directly?

Bonus question: Do these additional points add any complexity to the game that isn't needed for your genre?

I can think of at least one aspect of simulating world versus genre for Supers: Aberrant. It was a rules system that allowed you to simulate a world in which super hero stories could happen, but did not itself simulate super-heroes (as most people would define them). I learned this the hard way when the good guy PC punched the bad guy Nazi the first time. Mega strength (or whatever Aberrant called it) was a pretty good simulator of "the Boys" style super powers...

 

[Grendel_Khan]

I love and hate this. It provides a nice framework to stay within character like a television series. Some folks do really well with these boxes painted for them. Though, it often makes characters feel like caricatures as they do the same expected things. Like any other game folks are certainly able to work outside the box, but some folks stay well within. It makes general RP instincts, or lack thereof, stick out more than games that lack the mechanics, imo. However, this is a great example of a non-combat system to promote what Reynard is discussing.

I think the key to this approach is that PbtA and FitD games are usually very specific with their premises, and also aren't meant to be played as an open-ended forever campaign. So you get in, lean on certain tropes and types of interactions and stories, then move on. No one's playing Brindlewood or Blades in the Dark for 20 years, and getting progressively more annoyed by Cutters always using violence to address a challenge, or having to play a retired widow act who acts like someone half her age. But I'd also propose that any sort of mechanics that nudge or outright push players to embrace their characters' messy humanity probably aren't going to work for a forever game, anyway, or for every group.