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

[Baron Opal II]

I want sufficient simulation that I can use my own experiences to understand my character's capabilities. If my character needs to jump 10 ft., that shouldn't be too trying if my character is fit. If I need to jump 25 ft., my character had best be Olympic level in fitness and wholly unencumbered. Or, have an angle, magic or otherwise.

What is the agreed-upon reality of a Hero, and an Ogre, such that we can tall whether our simulation of a fight between a Hero and an Ogre is producing a result that is what would happen in that agreed-upon reality?

Well, I guess I would research if Andre the Giant, or someone similar sized (7' 4", > 500 lbs) ever got into a barfight. (Found a record- they ran, he flipped their car.) Weight of a dragon? Look up estimated sizes of quetzalcoatlus and allosaurus. Would it landing on a roof collapse the house? For modern homes, not for quetzalcoatlus, probably for allosaurus. Interestingly, the roof of a dome house could support a full grown allosaurus. Neat. Given the general strength of thatched huts and shingled cottages, I would expect Q would do a fair amount of damage, and A would be looking around a touch confused at all of the screaming morsels around it.

There's a lot of data out there. Thinking up hypotheses and 5-10 minutes of research can find some interesting answers and be an enjoyable search.

 

[LadyElect]

What benefit is gained by relabelling playing a RPG according to its rules as simulation?

Nothing grand really, aside from it existing as the explanation for what people may mean when they say they want more of it present—greater definition, crunch, etc.

Does it need greater benefit? I don’t believe saying such suggests that is all they are, which is why I described as a dial. It’s just one aspect that overlaps with other desires and playstyles to be pulled up or tuned down as much as any given player wants.

 

[Krachek]

Indeed simulation worth it for survival, basic martial fight, but when it comes to an archmage vs a demon simulation get overpassed.

 

[Reynard]

Using simulation in it's ordinary sense, as quoted by @AbdulAlhazred not too far upthread, there cannot be a simulation of an archmage blasting a Type VI demon with a lightning bolt, because there are no correctness conditions.

I defined it in the OP, and then again. try using it in that context, rather than a context intentionally designed to create a bad faith argument on the subject.

 

[Micah Sweet]

RPGs use mechanics to generate agreement on the shared fiction. That's their principal function. They're not needed to maintain verisimilitude, and I already posed a very well-known example of how they threaten verisimilitude. Another example has been given in this thread: the mechanics for gaining levels in D&D.

I'm familiar with the technical term (or jargon) simulationism to describe an approach to RPGing, and some mechanics and techniques that are associated with that approach. But as per the OP, that is not what this thread is about.

Using simulation in it's ordinary sense, as quoted by @AbdulAlhazred not too far upthread, there cannot be a simulation of an archmage blasting a Type VI demon with a lightning bolt, because there are no correctness conditions.

Rolemaster resolves it one way - the archmage spends spell points, the lightning bolt is resolved (mechanically) in the same way as a shot from a bow would be (using an attack table and associated crit tables), the demon's toughness is represented using devices including concussion hits ("meat points") and crit reduction (comparable to the SIZ stat in RQ) and perhaps spells that provide it with resistance to the elements.

AD&D resolves it a different way - the archmage expends a memorised spell (from a limited pool), the lightning bolt is resolved quite differently from how a bow attack would be (auto-damage with a save for half), the demon has a magic resistance stat and a saving throw and hit points, and it's far from clear what each of them corresponds to in the fiction (according to Gygax, both the hit points and the saving throw represent luck and skill, among other things; we're never really told what magic resistance is). The demon is as tall as a Fire Giant but has fewer hp (about the same number as an elephant) and does far less damage with its attacks; so it's not really clear what any of this is supposed to correspond to in the fiction either.

Burning Wheel resolves it yet a different way - the archmage performs a spell casting action which generates the possibility of "tax" (ie tiredness/exhaustion due to spell use), the attack is resolved differently from how a bow attack would be in some respects (auto-hit if the spell is cast successfully) but similarly in other respects (roll a die to determine the severity of the attack), and the upshot of the attack is a wound rated somewhere between "less than Superficial" (ie no effect) up to "Mortal" (ie the demon dies).

Which is the more accurate simulation? I assert that there is no answer to that question. (I can tell you which is more or less simulationist in the jargonistic sense, but again that's not the OP wanted to talk about.)

Are you saying that there is no simulation (in the common sense of the word) in fantasy RPGs then? If so, again this seems an odd thing to assert in a conversation about simulation if you don't want to end the discussion. If not, what would be simulation in such a game?

 

[kenada]

Yes, I am aware. I have the core rulebook, Bestiary, and GMG, I still think one action to raise shield to much. Now, if they revised the action economy to a 6 action system, as I have advocated in the PF forum, then one action might be acceptable.

It forces you to make decisions. Do you spend that action on Raise a Shield, or do you take a risk doing something else? I found it quite enjoyable when I played Pathfinder 2e at Origins. It was really rewarding making the right decision e.g., to spend an action instead to let me Aid an ally on their attack and help them crit. Every turn was like a puzzle to figure out the best way to use my actions. If there were never any tradeoffs, than Raise a Shield wouldn’t be very interesting because it would be an obvious action one would do every round regardless.

 

[payn]

Yes, I am aware. I have the core rulebook, Bestiary, and GMG, I still think one action to raise shield to much. Now, if they revised the action economy to a 6 action system, as I have advocated in the PF forum, then one action might be acceptable.

6 action economy? Yowyzer! I like the 3 action design a lot. I think they left a lot of room for desire in that space with PF2 but are on the right track to great things.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I have always found "high concept simulation" to be overreach for the word "simulation", in that "high concepts" are usually too abstract to simulate. There was a time when folks were trying to fit everything in gaming under three words, even if it called for some hammering of square pegs into round holes, and I think this was one of the results. I don't find a need to fit the function under "simulation".

In a practical sense, most of what I see happen under "high concept simulation" is what I'd call genre enforcement.

Well, that's one of the main tentpole categories under HCS, so it really seems like a "I don't like those words." I don't, either, and Edwards didn't, but that was where the discussion was at that moment on those boards and so that's how it was when it was nailed down. It would be like expecting people 20 years from now two boards later understanding every single nuance of shared jargon in use here -- and there's totally shared jargon in use here, like "living world," the often unique uses of "sandbox," and things like "agency."

 

[Krachek]

We got pretty thin tools to do simulation in DnD.
The simulation mainly hold in place by a mutual agreement between players and dm.
The best tool to simulate is still the capacity of the players and Dm to describe their actions in a credible way, Translating technical aspect of the game, into a credible fiction.
Having +8 in survival don’t simulate anything. Making description about fresh water source, roots and herb you find, tracks you observe or are seen, really make the simulation Work. Succeeding a check don’t simulate anything.

 

[dave2008]

6 action economy? Yowyzer! I like the 3 action design a lot. I think they left a lot of room for desire in that space with PF2 but are on the right track to great things.

Yes, 6 actions to allow for reactions. I don't like how reactions are left out of the action economy (if that is the route we are going). Also, works nicely with 1 second = 1 action. Now, I would probably make many actions cost 2 actions. So a standard attack is 2 actions instead of 1 action.