• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

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

SakanaSensei

Adventurer
I had a player rage quit when I informed him that the cantrip mold earth did not work like earth bending from Avatar: tLA.
I think what got me the most was when I asked him how he'd feel if, in LotR Aragorn had done the feat he was describing, and he said "that'd be f'in rad, wouldn't it?"

We didn't play together very long because there was just a lot of disconnect on what the game functionally was supposed to be, genre wise.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

kenada

Legend
Supporter
Thank you for sharing your experience. I like the general design philosophy and, like I said, I would expand it to 6 actions. However, I don't like it in play. I don't want to try and figure out the best way to use my actions. That is not something that interests me. I experience that mindset some in 4e (how do we make us of our move, action, and minor action) and I didn't enjoy it. So, as with many things for me, the unified action economy (3 or 6 action):
  1. Win for design
  2. Failure for game play
That’s fair. I appreciate that Pathfinder 2e is unapologetically about being a game and tries to make that interesting, but it’s not going to be to everyone’s tastes. I think there’s room (and there should be room) for games that appeal to different tastes. If PF2’s not someone’s thing, there are other games that might be a better fit, and if PF2 does have some good ideas, one can easily make use of them thanks to Paizo’s permissive approach to the OGL.
 

pemerton

Legend
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."
The resolution of an AD&D Archmage blasting a Type VI Demon uses damage dice for the lightning bolt, hit dice for the demons resilience, a saving throw roll, and a magic resistance roll. How does that count as presented in a way that sort of looks like how things actually work?

I could almost see this for Rolemaster: roll on the attack table, followed by the crit table(s), to learn how much the demon was blasted and/or injured by the lightning bolt. (Though even here it's not quite clear what the roll on the attack table is actually representing in the fiction.)

But not for AD&D.

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.

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.
And how would you operationalise these as game rules? How strong does a D&D character have to be to flip a 2,000 lb object?

AD&D says that an 18/00 strength character can carry about 450 lb; the same character also has a 40% chance to Bend Bars. In 5e an Ogre has 19 STR and is Large and so can lift 2 x 30 x 19 = 1140 lb; it's +4 STR bonus means that it has a 40% chance to hit a DC 17 check. Is it DC 17 to bend bars in 5e D&D? Are these good simulations?

In the context of a RPG, what sorts of rules will make a STR stat and some associated parameters (various bonuses and % chances of success; encumbrance limits; rules for how badly people get hurt when punched; etc) into a plausible simulation? Is it a good simulation if an Ogre throwing a sling stone at you is more dangerous (because of the STR mod to damage) than an ordinary person stabbing you with a dagger?

This goes back to @chaochou's point that wargaming can require significant rules changes to satisfy the demands of simulation even if there are only modest changes in the scenario parameters (eg add a time-travelling machine gunner to your Napoleonic scenario).

It seems to me that the changes to carrying rules, bend bars rules, how to hit and damage are handled (+3, +6 for the 18/00 AD&D Ogre; +4, +4 for the 5e 19 STR Ogre) have had no appreciable affect on the extent to which STR in D&D works as a simulation. That suggests to me that the point of those rules is not to simulate anything very much, but to serve other game play purposes.

So happy that you've figured it all out. Its not like people can just want as much simulation in the game as they can, because that's their preference. They have to be part of the dreaded gatekeeper brigade, dedicated to stopping you from enjoying D&D at all costs.
What do you mean by simulation here? What is it that you want as much of as you can get? If you mean resolution processes that tell you what is happening in the fiction from moment-to-moment, then why not play RuneQuest? If that's not what you mean, then what is it that you can get more or less of?

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?
I think it is extremely hard to have RPG rules, especially FRPG rules, that will simulate in the sense of provide an accurate representational model of some process or series of events.

I've discussed STR just above. Upthread, you mentioned "action movie physics". How would you integrate these into your simulation? For instance, action movie protagonists make great leaps and survive tremendous falls with an unrealistic degree of reliability; they rarely if ever slip from ledges, window sills, etc; but they also sometimes get hurt by ordinary blows or hindered by mundane obstacles. It's obvious that in a movie this is all done with pacing and excitement in mind. Can a RPG do this and still count as a simulation? What techniques would be used?

So let me flip it around - what do you count as simulation in such a game? Will it distinguish (say) AD&D from (say) 4e D&D, or Marvel Heroic RP - two games that surely everyone agrees do not aim at simulation?

I can tell you what I can see, and it might also be what @Reynard intended by referring to results being determined without having regard to "the best narrative" or "the most fun play": producing results without the need for anyone to make a decision between (i) a character's action being declared and (ii) the outcome of the action being known, unless (iii) that decision is to declare another character's action which occurs in the fiction in response to what that character is experiencing in the fiction.

But (1) that's a jargonistic notion of simlation.

And (2) I think it captures a lot of 4e D&D play. I don't think it will capture much MHRP play.

And (3) it means that the Shield spell and most other reactions in 5e count as non-simulationist (because they involve rewinding ingame time, because the game doesn't distinguish between starting to cast a spell (or move a distance, or whatever) and finishing it, because the game uses a fairly simple "stop-motion" action economy). And that would be a slightly weird outcome, given that the 4e and 5e Shield spell is the closest to emulating how Dr Strange-type magicians actually use their magical shields.
 
Last edited:

pemerton

Legend
Rain still falls, crops still grow, seasons still turn. That is the baseline for my simulation in the milieu.
OK. This doesn't seem to depend on any particular rules. It seems like narration can handle this.

As far as armed giants go, we are playing a fantasy game where we attempt deeds of renown without peer. It is appropriate that fantastical elements introduce themselves and are handled appropriately. But, since there is a nod to simulation, when they defeat the giant they don't take the axe and simply put it in their pocket, do they?
So we have fantastic combat but non-fantastic pockets? Presumably a RPG in which giants and dragons crush their mortal foes, but pockets pour forth treasures, would be equally nodding to simulation?
 

Micah Sweet

Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
And yet they all do. The number of people who care about encumbrance is dwindling. The number of magical spaces to hold objects is increasing with each edition. And not only do most players actively not care about putting a giant's axe in their pocket, they actively want over-sized anime weapons. As much as I want simulation, or at least a nod to it, I think the fight's over. We lost a long time ago and simply refuse to admit it.
I don't expect 5e to embrace my preferences, but fortunately I don't feel I need to change what I like just because its less popular then it used to be. I agree that the fight is over.
 

overgeeked

B/X Known World
I think what got me the most was when I asked him how he'd feel if, in LotR Aragorn had done the feat he was describing, and he said "that'd be f'in rad, wouldn't it?"

We didn't play together very long because there was just a lot of disconnect on what the game functionally was supposed to be, genre wise.
Yeah. For a lot of newer players it really seems to be fantasy superheroes is the expected default.
 

overgeeked

B/X Known World
I don't expect 5e to embrace my preferences, but fortunately I don't feel I need to change what I like just because its less popular then it used to be. I agree that the fight is over.
Not change what you like, no. But you either play with an ever shrinking population who shares your preferences or embrace the fantasy superhero game people seem to want. Because trying to get the new game or new players to accept the older style is all but impossible. I’ve been banging my head against that wall for years.
 

Blue

Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal
I apologize. I seem to have explained myself rather poorly. Rain still falls, crops still grow, seasons still turn. That is the baseline for my simulation in the milieu. Until they don't, of course, which is when the PCs get involved.
All background elements - as you say, only important to play when they don't match the real world.

As far as armed giants go, we are playing a fantasy game where we attempt deeds of renown without peer. It is appropriate that fantastical elements introduce themselves and are handled appropriately.
Exactly. The heroic fantasy elements - in other words the primary ones that the players will be interacting with - don't follow the real world. So the players trying to apply real world logic or simulation to the most important of details they need to deal with would be actively misleading.

I've been running games for longer than most players have been alive. I have the introspection down, I think. And, I am also sorry to inform you that your assumptions on who would spit on D&D are in considerable error.
I wouldn't doubt your self assessment, but since your words reinforce exactly what I am saying, perhaps you can use that self knowledge to reconcile your two statements:

1. I want sufficient simulation that I can use my own experiences to understand my character's capabilities.
2. As far as armed giants go, we are playing a fantasy game where we attempt deeds of renown without peer. It is appropriate that fantastical elements introduce themselves and are handled appropriately.

It would seem that you both want to judge your character's capabilities based on your real world experience, while explicitly saying their capacities let them accomplish fantasy games deeds of renown without peer.
 

Hussar

Legend
What are you on about? For the most part this has been a pretty reasonable discussion, but you want to come in, throw a Molotov, and claim that anyone who doesn't like what you like is a gatekeeping villain.
Oh, sure, reasonable is it?

"We want simulation in the game"

"Ok, how would you define simulation?"

"Well, simulation is the stuff I like and anything I don't like isn't simulation."

:erm:

And then we have the lovely "Git off ma lawn" brigade:

Not change what you like, no. But you either play with an ever shrinking population who shares your preferences or embrace the fantasy superhero game people seem to want. Because trying to get the new game or new players to accept the older style is all but impossible. I’ve been banging my head against that wall for years.

Older style? This isn't older vs newer gamers. It's a group of gamers who have suddenly discovered that no one actually cares about the things they thought were really, REALLY important to the game. Encumbrance? No one ever cared about encumbrance. You can see article after Dragon article going all the way back the 70's talking about how these sorts of things really aren't all that important and no one really uses them. So on and so forth.

But, now it suddenly anime new players? Good grief, anime is OLDER than most of you. I watched Akira in 1988. And that was hardly the first anime I ever saw. Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles was a popular game in the 80's. Anime is older than most editions of D&D. How is this possibly a "new" thing. FFS, Final Fantasy came out in 1987. Can we please, for the love of little fishies stop pretending that this stuff is somehow new?

These aren't "older styles". They're just different styles. And they're styles that were never really very popular. I know they were never really popular because D&D never bothered actually catering to them. At best, they largely stayed silent on the issue and let groups play whatever they wanted to play. Which is exactly how it works now.

Simulation is just the latest buzz word for badwrongfun. It's like Video-gamey or Samey or any of the hundred other easy shorthand words people want to trot out to try to justify ramming their preferences down every one else's throats.

Hey, you don't like the direction of D&D at the moment? Ok, fair enough. Howzabout either engaging in some positivity and find a game that does cater to your preferences instead of taking a big steaming dump on everyone else's fun EVERY FREAKING WEEK. We've been bashing this "simulation drum for a couple of months now and I'm the one that's the problem? Top billing of the forum every day for the past two or three months has been thinly veiled edition warring disguised as "friendly" conversation.
 

It would seem that you both want to judge your character's capabilities based on your real world experience, while explicitly saying their capacities let them accomplish fantasy games deeds of renown without peer.
I agree! It's amusing that earlier in the thread I was being told how important some undefined quality called 'simulation' was to maintain another undefined quality called 'consistency'.

And yet I've seen absolutely no consistency in what people claim simulation does. Apparently it constrains characters to real life limitations, until it doesn't. It allows players to make choices based on what's realistic, until action movie physics are in effect.

Characters can't leap a 20 foot gap, but they can fight a flying, fire-breathing, genius level T-rex head-on with a sharp stick and a plank with a handle (and that's not athletic, by the way, no sir). And if doing so requires a 30-foot leap, well, who needs consistency, eh?

'Simulation' as it's being used across this thread is a set of subjective aesthetic preferences being given a label and ascribed to the system.

In my entire playing career, the need for plausible, consistent fiction has been agreed irrespective of the game we're playing. It's a default, unless the game specifically says otherwise (like Toon).

However, by claiming it's a property of the ruleset people avoid having to negotiate that creative vision, and so can blame the rules (instead of themselves) as a ready-made scapegoat if the game outcomes and experiences are less than satisfactory.
 
Last edited:

Remove ads

Top