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

[Ovinomancer]

Which could potentially be fodder for interesting discussion.

Is it possible for folks (either all players of a given game, or just all players at a given table) to communicate about and be on the same page about where quasi-reality ends and fantasy logic begins? At least well enough that players can make good, informed decisions?

Or is it just something, at least in D&D, where the players are always going to have to double-check where "reality" ends/begins in the DM's conception?

It may just be the latter, given how all our Invisible Rulebooks about reality differ.

If we're adhering to the rules of the game, then, yes, everyone's on the same page. But those rules don't describe anything close to a coherent model of 'normal human' but are a pastiche of arbitrary toggles. We can navigate this well enough because everyone can see where the toggles are. I can only jump STR feet but I can go toe-to-toe with a dragon and not just be murderized (portmanteau of murdered and tenderized). Rules say this, we can see it, so there we go.

Where it breaks down is those areas outside the rules, or in the places that the rules say "the GM says what happens here" and where there's little to no guidance at all for that decision space. Here we get into trouble with different imaginings of what is being modeled, or simulated if you prefer, in the fiction.

When you're running a game, do you talk about this boundary/dividing line with your players? Either in a session zero or a written packet or something, along with house rules and world info?

100% I do now. Usually session 0. It's essential to make sure people understand how you're going to be ruling things, and agree to that, in those areas that are bound to come up and have an impact. You can't get all of it, so my approach is to have a conversation when we hit a new snag and go from there. It also helps that I happen to also love playing games where such discussions are mandated parts of play. That gave me some great insights into how to handle these things in more Trad games with strong assumed GM authorities.

 

[Baron Opal II]

Right, but like, how do your players know that 3rd to 5th level is where they go superhuman, and before that they should expect to be bounded by what we'd expect humans to be able to do IRL?

I apologize, but I really don't know what to say other than it's implicit in the rules. I think this poster may have stated my intent the best:

I think the kind of "simulation" the OP is talking about is the kind we see in fiction- the world generally works like the real world where not otherwise specified.

It's not a spectrum in 5e at all.

It seems like it to me.

 

[Mannahnin]

A 1st level fighter has a chance to fight and defeat an ogre (not great, but not vanishing, either). In reality, a human being hit by something that is twice their size (and quadruple their weight) would be a broken pulp. Trying to turn that club on a shield would break bones. And Ogres aren't modeled as slow and lumbering, but pretty human normal for speed and dexterity. However, they get modeled with ridiculously low strength for the physical descriptions -- another bad modelling attempt to even basically capture reality. And, there's no change in description for this same fighter at 10th level -- provided they haven't increased their STR, they jump as far. Provided they haven't increased their CON, they hold their breath as long. They climb and run as fast. They fatigue from marching or chasing only slightly less slowly (10%). If they are increasing their stats, then they can be stronger than the ogre, which makes zero physical sense. So, no, there's a hard toggle here, not a spectrum, and not one that really ever changes as levels increase.

Yeah, these inconsistencies in D&D can be really challenging.

I like how in, for example, Gene Wolfe's Wizard/Knight duology, humans could fight giants in part because the giants are SLOW. But for most people the size advantage is too much for them to take on a giant in a straight-up melee anyway.

One thing that was nice about 4E was that the tiers tried to capture this kind of change to Fighter (and other character) scale of capabilities a bit better.

 

[Blue]

Yes, a certain level of simulation as a baseline. If my character perceives someone jumping 30-40 ft., that's a clue that magic, wuxia training, or something else exceptional is involved. It isn't either / or, it is a spectrum. There is no conflict here, and I'm honestly puzzled by your inability to comprehend this.

Ah, narrowing the scope to exclude the examples given, and then taking a condescending position to throw some shade. Classic rhetoric technique.

I've already listed several examples where real life simulation is at odds with mechanics supporting the genre that aren't "obvious" like jumping 40 feet. Things like in the real world number of attackers can overwhelm skill, while in the heroic fantasy genre a competent fighter can take on many lesser opponents without issue. And these are ones where your real world estimation of capacity will not warn you (or at least not ahead of time) that you need to switch from real world to genre assumptions. Do you run against a giant for the first time because your real world estimation tells you that your character can take multiple blows? Sure, the giant may be "exceptional", but the point in question is are you exceptional in order to survive it.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Yeah, these inconsistencies in D&D can be really challenging.

I like how in, for example, Gene Wolfe's Wizard/Knight duology, humans could fight giants in part because the giants are SLOW. But for most people the size advantage is too much for them to take on a giant in a straight-up melee anyway.

One thing that was nice about 4E was that the tiers tried to capture this kind of change to Fighter (and other character) scale of capabilities a bit better.

Yup, 4e didn't affix DCs to anything except "easy, moderate, hard," and left those up to the fiction. So you could easily model Beowulf holding his breath for 2 days in paragon tier by asking for a hard check (or moderate, if you thought that was 100% in-line with your game as presented). Meanwhile, in Epic tier, you just didn't ask for checks for that kind of thing.

 

[Manbearcat]

Yes, a certain level of simulation as a baseline. If my character perceives someone jumping 30-40 ft., that's a clue that magic, wuxia training, or something else exceptional is involved. It isn't either / or, it is a spectrum. There is no conflict here, and I'm honestly puzzled by your inability to comprehend this.

I think it's more that this same thinking evaporates when the character that is limited to normal, even if exceptional, human limits then goes toe to toe with an ogre and isn't pulped by pure physical realities, much less a dragon. There's this "if not facing a monster, you're limited to human range only, but if facing a monster, then you can do superhuman things." Usually this is dealt with by not acknowledging this and switching it off to deal with the game rules and then considering it okay so long as the game rules are consistent. It's a switch from real life human constraints to genre constraints at arbitrary points.

The issue I have with your take BO 2 and why I agree with Ovinomancer and chaochou is the convergence of the following:

1) All we have to do to play the game is agree about what is required to facilitate functional and rewarding execution of the play of the game itself and design that in. Full stop and nothing more.

2) However, there is a very assertive and uncompromising contingent of the D&D userbase that mandates (a) we need more than (1) above and that is (b) that their sense of D&D tropes and immersion requirements always and ever converge.

3) And what does that italicized text above entail? Exactly what Ovinomancer spoke about (and chaochou and myself earlier). And…with respect…what they demand makes no sense…none whatsoever. It’s this giant elephant in the room for decades now (accelerating during the 4e era).

4) So we collectively privilege their conception of D&D martial tropes…despite their conception being profoundly internally inconsistent (the only way you’re physically clashing in melee with these mythical creatures is if you significantly exceed even tail-of-the-distribution human athletic profile…and that scales with the size and athletic profile of the creature being tangled with!)!

5) Finally, we circle back to (1) with the italicized of (2) and then on through (4) does is it creates a paradigm of play that progressively and deeply challenges (1) (the demands of functional play) because it is wholly responsible for the Fighters vs Wizards problem that haunts D&D…and that requires a GM to assume a huge amount of cognitive load in a game with a well-played spellcaster (particularly as the levels pile on); play rock/paper/scissors and an NPC/setting arms race with spellcasters and initiate all kinds of truly obnoxious (I say this as a long term GM who wants no part of this) blocks to rein in spellcasters and allow Fighters to contribute at all and allow functional party play to persist without the Wizard routinely dominating the Adventuring Day.


So part of this is the ridiculous OP nature of Wizards (for instance, this paradigm doesn’t exist in Dungeon World and Torchbearer and 4e where Wizards are hugely throttled back and Fighters are relatively elevated). But a huge part of it is the internal causality issue described above…which weirdly privileges “immersionists” or “gritty realism” advocates despite the reality that toggling the Fighter's athletic profile to "superhero" so they can meet the titanic demands of clashing with mythical beasts while in combat (then toggling them back to earth-human baseline when out if combat)…so that “immersionists” and “gritty realists” can retain verisimilitude…should be…well definitionally self-defeating.

It both creates dysfunctional play (because of the impacts on (1); overpowered wizards and underpowered Fighters creates increasing dysfunction and cognitive load for GMs as levels pile on…AND if you care about immersion born of internal causality consistency, it should be a problem there too!) while simultaneously making no damn sense! It’s a double whammy!

And yes, this intersects directly with and deeply matters to the question of “simulate things; what, why, and how?”

 

[Ovinomancer]

It seems like it to me.

Sure, but you limited your argument to hitpoints, and totally ignored everything else.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yeah, these inconsistencies in D&D can be really challenging.

I like how in, for example, Gene Wolfe's Wizard/Knight duology, humans could fight giants in part because the giants are SLOW. But for most people the size advantage is too much for them to take on a giant in a straight-up melee anyway.

One thing that was nice about 4E was that the tiers tried to capture this kind of change to Fighter (and other character) scale of capabilities a bit better.

The issue here is that D&D has always assumed all monsters can be fought conventionally, with blasty stuff and (magical if necessary) slice 'n' dice. It's not an issue of clever tactics or special McGuffins; its just a question of how awesome you are. That's not the case in a lot of fiction involving those same monsters. Who the heck stands toe to toe with a dragon in a story? Generally you find a work-around when dealing with unrealistic physical threats. In D&D, you can literally stand there and hammer at the beast until it's dead. It's definitely an obstacle to simulation, but it doesn't mean we shouldn't keep trying if it's something we care about.

 

[Ovinomancer]

The issue here is that D&D has always assumed all monsters can be fought conventionally, with blasty stuff and (magical if necessary) slice 'n' dice. It's not an issue of clever tactics or special McGuffins; its just a question of how awesome you are. That's not the case in a lot of fiction involving those same monsters. Who the heck stands toe to toe with a dragon in a story? Generally you find a work-around when dealing with unrealistic physical threats. In D&D, you can literally stand there and hammer at the beast until it's dead. It's definitely an obstacle to simulation, but it doesn't mean we shouldn't keep trying if it's something we care about.

I think it becomes more of an obstacle when doing this things -- fighting monsters in completely non-'normal human' ways -- features so largely in play of D&D. Combat is, by far, the dominant pillar in play. Sure, your table might be an exception (in which case I have questions about why use D&D) and have almost no combat, but it's incredibly clear that the game is designed this way (just look to the official adventures, which overwhelming feature combat). So, you get slapped in the face by this break all the time. If you really care about simulating the real world as much as possible, getting slapped by this dead fish around every corner has got to be a problem! And leaning harder into limiting the non-combat stuff to 'normal human' really just spites the non-casters, and creates incentives to either be a caster to seek magic to allow you to get past that modeling and be as awesome out of combat (with magic) as you are in combat (without magic).

In shorter words, this seems to be insurmountable without excessive and willful lampshading.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The issue I have with your take BO 2 and why I agree with Ovinomancer and chaochou is the convergence of the following:

1) All we have to do to play the game is agree about what is required to facilitate functional and rewarding execution of the play of the game itself and design that in. Full stop and nothing more.

2) However, there is a very assertive and uncompromising contingent of the D&D userbase that mandates (a) we need more than (1) above and that is (b) that their sense of D&D tropes and immersion requirements always and ever converge.

3) And what does that italicized text above entail? Exactly what Ovinomancer spoke about (and chaochou and myself earlier). And…with respect…what they demand makes no sense…none whatsoever. It’s this giant elephant in the room for decades now (accelerating during the 4e era).

4) So we collectively privilege their conception of D&D martial tropes…despite their conception being profoundly internally inconsistent (the only way you’re physically clashing in melee with these mythical creatures is if you significantly exceed even tail-of-the-distribution human athletic profile…and that scales with the size and athletic profile of the creature being tangled with!)!

5) Finally, we circle back to (1) with the italicized of (2) and then on through (4) does is it creates a paradigm of play that progressively and deeply challenges (1) (the demands of functional play) because it is wholly responsible for the Fighters vs Wizards problem that haunts D&D…and that requires a GM to assume a huge amount of cognitive load in a game with a well-played spellcaster (particularly as the levels pile on); play rock/paper/scissors and an NPC/setting arms race with spellcasters and initiate all kinds of truly obnoxious (I say this as a long term GM who wants no part of this) blocks to rein in spellcasters and allow Fighters to contribute at all and allow functional party play to persist without the Wizard routinely dominating the Adventuring Day.


So part of this is the ridiculous OP nature of Wizards (for instance, this paradigm doesn’t exist in Dungeon World and Torchbearer and 4e where Wizards are hugely throttled back and Fighters are relatively elevated). But a huge part of it is the internal causality issue described above…which weirdly privileges “immersionists” or “gritty realism” advocates despite the reality that toggling off the titanic demands on a Fighter’s athletic profile when clashing with mythical beasts in combat (then toggling them back to earth-human baseline when out if combat)…so that “immersionists” and “gritty realists” can retain verisimilitude…should be…well definitionally self-defeating.

It both creates dysfunctional play (because of the impacts on (1); overpowered wizards and underpowered Fighters creates increasing dysfunction and cognitive load for GMs as levels pile on…AND if you care about immersion born of internal causality consistency, it should be a problem there too!) while simultaneously making no damn sense! It’s a double whammy!

And yes, this intersects directly with and deeply matters to the question of “simulate things; what, why, and how?”

I could be wrong about this, but I wonder how many people claiming that simulation can't and doesn't exist in a fantasy RPG are also 4e fans? I'm betting most if not all. Correlation doesn't equal causation, but there definitely seems to be a connection there, especially given the venom I've seen displayed.

The edition war continues, I guess.