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

[jmartkdr2]

Ok, that's fair. What kind of inequality are you suggesting?

Stuff I've seen:

An assumption that character riding a horse would be naturally less able to attack with weapons than someone on foot. (because it 'make sense' historical evidence be danged)

A wizard carrying 50 lbs of gear has no swim penalty, a rogue wearing a chain shirt simply cannot swim (armor impedes movement, not weight)

All fighter abilities must be performable by a person who's as athletic as a modern average person. This restriction does not apply to rogues or monks. (because fighters are uniquely non-magical, even compared to other people who don't use magic, so are simulated with different rules.)

It's worth noting that these dms also complain when no one wants to play a fighter in their game.

Edit: it's not uncommon when people don't like a jargon-defined style of play they're really just burned by that not-inherently-bad idea being used badly, and are gun-shy about dms who want to use it. I've seen and felt similar attitudes toward 'story-driven' (the dm's story, not the group's), rules-light play (the dm has no idea what the rules are and just wings it differently every time) and 'player skill" (at guessing the solution the dm came up with beforehand). Once bitten and all that.

 

[dave2008]

I have a simulation design aesthetic, but rarely pursue it with my actual group. I have desire for weapon speeds, and meet points, and real hits, etc. when I design. However, when it comes to having a good time at the table none of that matters and could even get in the way of the most important part of playing: having fun. So for me:

• Game designer Dave (Dave 1): Loves simulation, the more the better (generally0.
• DM/Player Dave (Dave 2): very little simulation. Fun is more important than simulation.
• Ideal Dave: some combination of Dave 1 & Dave 2

 

[dave2008]

In most of my home campaigns, months if not years pass between levels after the first level or two. People need a significant amount of time to train and improve their skills. Depending on the campaign we also narrate downtime activities that sometimes involve ongoing combat encounters, just at a lower risk level than in our gaming sessions.

But I recognize that it's pretty atypical to do it that way.

That is pretty much how we play. My group is currently 15th level and I think it took them 10 years of game time to reach that level. Our general rule-of-thumb is 2 weeks of downtime per level to gain a level. So they needed 30 weeks of downtime to go from 14 - 15.

 

[Oofta]

I'm going to lead with this.

Oofta. This isn't apples and oranges. This is like petunias to Supermassive Black Holes.

I'm not going to enumerate all the reasons why a tribe paleolithic hunters trapping a herd of RELATIVELY SLOW-MOVING...NOT FLYING...NOT COLLOSAL...NOT GOD-LIKE OMIDIRECTIONAL ATHELTICISM-ENDOWED mastodon in a kill box and MAYBE slaying one with an onslaught of spears from range is NOTHING LIKE a singular warrior wading into melee and clashing with an Ancient Wyrm.

Come on man.

Or...you can do the D&D thing and compare the Mastodon's stats/metrics to that of an Ancient Wyrm! The results won't be pretty (for your attempted refutation)!





So, to be clear, I didn't mean what I wrote above as an opinion. I meant it as a truism. Because its true.

* It is true that the morphological and biomechanical traits of dragons (particularly the larger variety and especially Ancient Wyrms) would be an impossibility in anything approaching a system governed by anything approaching earth-like parameters.

* It is true that if the above were possible, that mundane humans (even those at the absolute tail of the distribution when it comes to athleticism, mental processing, proprioception, courage) couldn't dream of even withstanding a singular moment of melee clashing with these colossal, endowed-with-impossible athleticism creatures.

These two things are fundamentally true.

What isn't true is what you have both written above.

There is no evidence in any of D&D that Dragon morphology, ability to respirate, biomechanics, athletic prowess, or flight are supernatural. I'm looking at AD&D 1e MM. Nope. I'm looking at B/X. Nope. I'm looking at RC. Nope. I'm looking at 3.x. Nope. 3.x tries to bin a whole lot of stuff under the sense-defying, total-hack Simulation patch, Extraordinary (not magical but may break the laws of physics...whatever the hell that means!) keyword...again...a complete patch for historical game problems (one that wasn't carried forward).

There is no precedent that I've ever heard in D&D of a dragon being unable to move, fly, claw/bite/tail swipe within an Anti-magic field or when Dispel Magic is placed upon them. If this is happening in D&D-land I would love to hear about it. Tell us about the stories of the Wizards in your games curb-stomping dragons with a nicely timed dispel when the dragon is flying! CRASH. Ok, now they can't move or claw/bite/tail because their biomechanics are shut down so just enstabinate them until dead. My guess is this hasn't happened in your games (nor anyone else's games). If it has, I would love to hear about it!

Dragons HAVE magic. Their morphology and biomechanics are not magic.

And ok...let us use the sense-defying 3.x Extraordinary keyword for dragon morphology and biomechanics. Why wouldn't it be a prerequisite for epic heroes to ALSO have their morphology and biomechanics fall under this exact same Extraordinary keyword? There we go! Simulation satisfied. Epic Warriors can now wade into melee and clash with dragon because their athleticism breaks the laws of physics without being magical! I expect a slew of D&D posts about this now and I expect a cavalcade of play excerpts regaling us all of your 18th level Fighters doing 30 ft standing Broad Jumps and 15 ft standing Vertical Jumps and cleaving mountains and holding their breath for 2 hours! My guess is this hasn't happened in your games nor will it ever happen. If it has, I would love to hear about it!

---

And it all comes back to things like HP, To-Hit, Armor Class, and the keyword "Wounds" for the Cure Line of spells. The worse part about HP is that they actually model physical and mental resolve/stamina BEAUTIFULLY. If your gas tank is waning YOU KNOW IT and you know that every clash/effort (whether you're in a grapple, sparing, or climbing or trying to defend someone on the basketball course/hockey rink) at that point might be your last (before you fail at the endeavor/lose the matchup). That is the exact internal causality model of D&D and the exact cognitive state inhabited by PCs etc

If folks didn't interpret “to hit” (in melee only...not other target numbers) early on as “creature in imagined space” rather than “target number" and we had the nonsensically nameed Cure Wounds line changed to Restore Vitality....well D&D would have historically worked infinitely better as both a Game and a Simulation and we wouldn't have had these ridiculous culture wars around D&D as Simulation and HP as meat.

Finally, ironically a game like Stonetop (not remotely a Sim game) is infinitely a better Sim than D&D when it comes to this stuff. You have a HP pool that doesn't grow and it measures your physical/emotional resolve/stamina etc. You have Armor as "Soak." You have the Weakened, Dazed, Miserable Debilities that actually negatively impact your performance in ways that hews to those conditions. You get actual Injuries that shut down possible moves in the imagined space or hinder you dynamically. You have a recovery model for these things that is infinitely more sensical than D&D!

I don't have time to go through this all, but antimagic zone doesn't affect inherent magic. A ghost is magic, they can walk through an antimagic zone all day long.

Spoiler: Sage Advice

But our game makes a distinction between two types of magic:

the background magic that is part of the D&D multiverse’s physics and the physiology of many D&D creatures
the concentrated magical energy that is contained in a magic item or channeled to create a spell or other focused magical effect
In D&D, the first type of magic is part of nature. It is no more dispellable than the wind. A monster like a dragon exists because of that magic-enhanced nature. The second type of magic is what the rules are concerned about. When a rule refers to something being magical, it’s referring to that second type.

 

[Manbearcat]

I don't have time to go through this all, but antimagic zone doesn't affect inherent magic. A ghost is magic, they can walk through an antimagic zone all day long.

Spoiler: Sage Advice

But our game makes a distinction between two types of magic:

the background magic that is part of the D&D multiverse’s physics and the physiology of many D&D creatures
the concentrated magical energy that is contained in a magic item or channeled to create a spell or other focused magical effect
In D&D, the first type of magic is part of nature. It is no more dispellable than the wind. A monster like a dragon exists because of that magic-enhanced nature. The second type of magic is what the rules are concerned about. When a rule refers to something being magical, it’s referring to that second type.

Ok, so 5e has this bit of Sage Advice (which isn't in any rulebook) and 3.x has the Sim-Patch of physics-defying-but-not-supernatural (WAT?!) Extraordinary tag.

Not in AD&D. Not in B/X. Not in RC. Not in 4e. Not in 5e core rulebooks or basic PDF.

But fine. Again, go back to my prior post. Let us just say that this one 5e Sage Advice (which is post 2014...so it can't retroactively patch all prior D&D) and 3.x's total hack of a sense-defying Sim Patch of Extraordinary does the work necessary to allow Dragon morphology, biomechanics, and flight to actually be a thing.

So how is a single D&D Fighter wading into melee and (a) not just living through a single exchange, (b) not just living through multiple exchanges, but (c) ACTUALLY SLAYING AN ANCIENT WYRM?

• Size of a DC9 and able to harness proportionate kinetic energy.
• Athletic prowess of a Tiger at that size.
• Flight.
• Claws and Maw the size of the warrior themselves.

How are these warriors doing it? What is happening in the fiction? And why can't these same warriors standing broad jump 25 feet and vert 15 feet and hold their breath for 2 hours and cleave mountains? Why doesn't the 3.x Extraordinary tag and this Sage Advice apply to them?

 

[Reynard]

This line of reasoning that amounts to "you can't have sim because dragons/skeletons/whatever" is not only insipid, it is entirely beside the point. Normal people can come into contact with the abnormal and supernormal in a world in which those things exist and remain normal.

Now, if you want to argue that 5E as written can't do sim because dragons, I'd disagree only insofar as it's not the dragons that are the problem. but that is a different discussion. This discussion is about when, how and why to do sim.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Stuff I've seen:

An assumption that character riding a horse would be naturally less able to attack with weapons than someone on foot. (because it 'make sense' historical evidence be danged)

A wizard carrying 50 lbs of gear has no swim penalty, a rogue wearing a chain shirt simply cannot swim (armor impedes movement, not weight)

All fighter abilities must be performable by a person who's as athletic as a modern average person. This restriction does not apply to rogues or monks. (because fighters are uniquely non-magical, even compared to other people who don't use magic, so are simulated with different rules.)

It's worth noting that these dms also complain when no one wants to play a fighter in their game.

Edit: it's not uncommon when people don't like a jargon-defined style of play they're really just burned by that not-inherently-bad idea being used badly, and are gun-shy about dms who want to use it. I've seen and felt similar attitudes toward 'story-driven' (the dm's story, not the group's), rules-light play (the dm has no idea what the rules are and just wings it differently every time) and 'player skill" (at guessing the solution the dm came up with beforehand). Once bitten and all that.

All of those examples are reasonable, and if it came up in my game, I would work with the player to come up with a fair solution, adjusting the rules if necessary.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I have a simulation design aesthetic, but rarely pursue it with my actual group. I have desire for weapon speeds, and meet points, and real hits, etc. when I design. However, when it comes to having a good time at the table none of that matters and could even get in the way of the most important part of playing: having fun. So for me:

• Game designer Dave (Dave 1): Loves simulation, the more the better (generally0.
• DM/Player Dave (Dave 2): very little simulation. Fun is more important than simulation.
• Ideal Dave: some combination of Dave 1 & Dave 2

I'm glad that works for you and your players, and I'm sorry you can't have the amount of simulation you want. For me, I just can't enjoy D&D without at least a moderate amount of process sim. I'm also the guy who, as a player, makes sure the DM is aware of the rules even if they work against me. I'm happy to lose a fight or have a PC die if that's how the dice fall.

 

[Manbearcat]

This line of reasoning that amounts to "you can't have sim because dragons/skeletons/whatever" is not only insipid, it is entirely beside the point. Normal people can come into contact with the abnormal and supernormal in a world in which those things exist and remain normal.

Now, if you want to argue that 5E as written can't do sim because dragons, I'd disagree only insofar as it's not the dragons that are the problem. but that is a different discussion. This discussion is about when, how and why to do sim.

I don't agree that it is insipid.

Your lead post says:

* "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."

* @chaochou had a great post on page 1.

* You made a post immediately thereafter lamenting a bunch of 5e tropes (both fictional tropes and tropes born of game engine design) that you felt were "simulation-jarring" to you.

So I'm just doing the same there (lamenting tropes/design). There is an entire legion of them that are simulation-jarring to me (much like your post lamenting 5e tropes and pacing as "simulation-jarring"), but I'm not going to enumerate all of them (beyond the dragons and dragon : epic hero relationship I mentioned HP and recovery of HP and Armor Class abstraction...those are only a small number).

The reality is that D&D simulation works toward being comprehensible sufficient to play a game. Can a player functionally navigate their decision-space to affect the gamestate (and the shared imagined space) in a way that is predictable and rewarding? Yes? If so, good enough job to play the game.

The problem is that this isn't what a significant cross-section of the D&D user base (or at least a significant vocal portionof it) mean when we talk about it over the years. They mean all the other stuff. And they've used that other stuff to gatekeep the hell out of D&D in the last decade and a half (keep your epic martial tropes out of my D&D...keep your HP as not-meat out of my D&D...keep your damage-on-a-miss out of my D&D...maintain spellcaster supremacy...maintain GM control over Adventuring Day pacing, over the overall gamestate and the trajectory of play because they are exclusively the arbiters of "what is simulation-worthy" and therefore "gamestate-legitimate-moves" because of the GM-facing aspect of action resolution and the ever-present GM veto).

So I don't agree that it is insipid and it doesn't look to me that your lead post and your post on page 1 supports "its insipid." You've got your lamentations. I've got my lamentations. And the bold above (what is actually relevant to D&D sim) and the italicized above (what is relevant to a certain person looking for a certain brand of immersion....and then weaponizing that to gatekeep D&D culture and design) aren't the same thing...but they're often conflated rather than separated and discussed as two very separate things.

 

[Krachek]

Making Simulation help engage into the fiction.
It’s like real life magician tricks. By making some simulation with real world, we put ourself in the mood to believe that the fantasy part of the story is also real. Or some more real.
The level of simulation need to enter in the mood of accepting fantasy as also real may vary but I think a basic level of simulation is needed.
So like a magician with fooled our mind with some credible simulation.