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

[Micah Sweet]

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.

As I've said before, my primary focus in regards to simulation and verisimilitude is in worldbuilding. Personal PC combat obviously is a lot sketchier that way. I still try as best I can, because that's what I like.

 

[Ovinomancer]

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.

Interesting tack -- "you only disagree because you're an edition warrior."

And people aren't claiming simulation can't exist, just that D&D is haphazard in changing what it's simulating. 5e very clearly engages in some 'normal human' simulation with it's jumping and climbing rules. Super duper clearly. But then it ditches this entirely with ogres and dragons, where it moves to genre emulation rather that 'normal human' simulation. Pointing this out isn't being hostile to 'normal human' simulation -- it's a clear fact! The only way to take this as hostile to simulation is to assume that D&D is the epitome of such simulation so pointing out any flaws in that representation is also attacking the very concept of simulation.

 

[Manbearcat]

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.

Huh?

How does this intersect with what I typed above?

Like in any way at all?

I didn't say "simulation can't and doesn't exist in a fantasy RPG." That isn't a claim I made nor would I make it. I did cite a very specific instance of internal causality inconsistency (if you want to fight dragons et al, you MUST be possessed of an athletic profile far beyond that of the optimal human as a baseline) that harms "simulation as immersion" and has a downstream effect of harming "simulation as making the game functionally playable as levels pile on."

Do you care to comment on that?

Or do you care to comment on how you think your post intersects with what I wrote?

Or do you care to comment on "who you think the edition warriors are here and how is that manifesting?"

 

[Ovinomancer]

As I've said before, my primary focus in regards to simulation and verisimilitude is in worldbuilding. Personal PC combat obviously is a lot sketchier that way. I still try as best I can, because that's what I like.

I don't see how you can make this claim while building a world that includes dragons. The impact of a realistically simulated dragon (massive, supernaturally agile, nearly invulnerable, insanely powerful, flies, has magic on top of this) on a world would be staggering. That silly Christian Bale movie about dragons (Reign of Fire, I think) is a credible attempt to portray what D&D-alike dragons would do to a world. Is this what you're doing?

It's often hard to notice where you've lampshaded a thing, especially if the community you're in often lampshades it as a matter of course. Then we can convince ourselves that we have pure and unadulterated motivations and outcomes because we've trained ourselves to just not see those things as problems. They have lampshades, right?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Interesting tack -- "you only disagree because you're an edition warrior."

And people aren't claiming simulation can't exist, just that D&D is haphazard in changing what it's simulating. 5e very clearly engages in some 'normal human' simulation with it's jumping and climbing rules. Super duper clearly. But then it ditches this entirely with ogres and dragons, where it moves to genre emulation rather that 'normal human' simulation. Pointing this out isn't being hostile to 'normal human' simulation -- it's a clear fact! The only way to take this as hostile to simulation is to assume that D&D is the epitome of such simulation so pointing out any flaws in that representation is also attacking the very concept of simulation.

I'm not attacking your argument, I'm making an observation. Being a 4e fan doesn't make your claim better or worse, but liking 4e and pushing for gamism (and especially fighting the Wizard/Fighter Wars) as the primary consideration do often seem to go together.

I'm just a fan of simulation when I can, fake simulation when I can't, and gamist conceits when I must. That's where I stand. I don't agree with your and other's stance, but you're certainly entitled to it. In fact, things have been looking more your way for at least a few years now.

And a couple people have claimed simulation isn't possible in a fantasy game.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I don't see how you can make this claim while building a world that includes dragons. The impact of a realistically simulated dragon (massive, supernaturally agile, nearly invulnerable, insanely powerful, flies, has magic on top of this) on a world would be staggering. That silly Christian Bale movie about dragons (Reign of Fire, I think) is a credible attempt to portray what D&D-alike dragons would do to a world. Is this what you're doing?

It's often hard to notice where you've lampshaded a thing, especially if the community you're in often lampshades it as a matter of course. Then we can convince ourselves that we have pure and unadulterated motivations and outcomes because we've trained ourselves to just not see those things as problems. They have lampshades, right?

Again, this is so aggressive. Obviously I want the world to resemble the real one excepting those areas where it explicitly doesn't. I've managed to make it work for me more or less for the last 25 years or so. Apparently that's too much to ask, even of my own game.

Talk about badwrongfun. I don't recall any argument of mine here fighting this hard to cancel someone's point of view.

 

[Cadence]

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?

The legendary ones. The legendary ones do.

"Last of all the eastern force to stand firm were the Dwarves of Belegost, and thus they won renown. For the Naugrim withstood fire more hardily than either Elves or Men, and it was their custom moreover to wear great masks in battle hideous to look upon; and those stood them in good stead against the dragons. And but for them Glaurung and his brood would have withered all that was left of the Noldor. But the Naugrim made a circle about him when he assailed them, and even his mighty armour was not full proof against the blows of their great axes; and when in his rage Glaurung turned and struck down Azaghâl, Lord of Belegot, and crawled over him, with his last stroke Azaghâl drove a knife into his belly, and so wounded him that he fled the field, and the beasts of Angband in dismay followed after him."

By J.R.R. Tolkien, The Silmarillion, p.193 (Of the Fifth Battle: Nirnaeth Arnoediad)


See also St. George, Shang-Chi, etc...

 

[hawkeyefan]

When push comes to shove, we're playing a game. I feel there should be enough realism, simulation, whatever so that if I'm operating within realistic bounds I can appropriately extrapolate consequences of my actions. If I fall off a cliff I'm going to die. However, once I have made a pact with the sylphs of the Grey Mountains, I can cast feather fall and I'll be okay. I really don't see this stance as some sort of heresy that Blue, Hussar, and others seem to.

I think it's likely because, even if we accept the definition you posed in your OP:

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."

the question becomes "what games don't do this?"

What version of D&D would you describe as NOT working "sort of like how things work, if you squint"? Or what other games generally depict a world that DOESN'T follow some loose model of real-world cause and effect? The only ones I can think of are the ones that explicitly and deliberately do so, such as Toon, which was mentioned above. I'm sure there are some others, but that they likely do so in a similar way; they break that rule intentionally.

So, if we accept that most games and settings meet the criteria of how you've defined "simulation", the question then is "what exceptions to real world physics am I willing to overlook, and which am I not?" And related "what in-world reasons am I willing to accept for these exceptions?" Mutant powers... magic... the Matrix... many settings build in some kind of explanation for the absurdities.

"Because magic" has been cited many times over this and similar discussions. It's because magic is absolutely impervious to simulation. So it's used as the catchall to explain away what is otherwise not remotely "realistic" like dragons and ogres and paladins and such. These things work because they are magic. They cannot be simulated. And then once you accept that for SO MUCH of the content of a typical D&D game, it kind of makes one wonder why be a stickler about jumping distances, or how maneuverable folks would be in heavy armor and so on.

It's all rather subjective, isn't it? And I think subjectivity is kind of at odds with simulation, isn't it?

 

[kenada]

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.

Has it though? Isn’t it a premise of OSR play that you really don’t want to go toe-to-toe in a fair fight? I would expect a party that tries to fight a dragon head-on in B/X to get obliterated. What seems to have happened is D&D shifted away from swords and sorcery to high and epic fantasy. But if you still run those old games or run new ones in that style, some of the old “simulation” (I prefer verisimilitude) can be preserved.

Of course, many players don’t want that, and hence the shift in play, but that’s a separate issue.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The legendary ones. The legendary ones do.

"Last of all the eastern force to stand firm were the Dwarves of Belegost, and thus they won renown. For the Naugrim withstood fire more hardily than either Elves or Men, and it was their custom moreover to wear great masks in battle hideous to look upon; and those stood them in good stead against the dragons. And but for them Glaurung and his brood would have withered all that was left of the Noldor. But the Naugrim made a circle about him when he assailed them, and even his mighty armour was not full proof against the blows of their great axes; and when in his rage Glaurung turned and struck down Azaghâl, Lord of Belegot, and crawled over him, with his last stroke Azaghâl drove a knife into his belly, and so wounded him that he fled the field, and the beasts of Angband in dismay followed after him."

By J.R.R. Tolkien, The Silmarillion, p.193 (Of the Fifth Battle: Nirnaeth Arnoediad)


See also St. George, Shang-Chi, etc...

Excellent point. Although your example did depict an army vs. a monster, which is something a bit different. Still, fair enough. I would never impugn the Silmarillion.