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

[Reynard]

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


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?

I think you are missing the forest for the trees here.

If I say I want some sim elements surrounding,say, wilderness survival, it is clearly true that not all games,or even versions of D&D, treat the issue with the same degree of simulation. Some games don't model it at all, others give it short shrift, and yet others make an attempt to model it as well as that game's mechanics might.

I think maybe part of the issue is that a lot of the people in this thread arguing that D&D or even RPgS in general can't do sim is that those people are letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. They are saying because dragons aren't real or because Constitution doesn't really model health and fitness you just CAN'T do sim and your shouldn't even try (and, weirdly, that if you do try you are a gate keeping ogre).

Not only does sim not have to be perfect for it to be a viable and fun part of the game,it doesn't have to apply equally across all aspects of the game. You can have heroes that both fight dragons and have to poop.

 

[overgeeked]

Another good point. OSR games do tend toward battle avoidance and dirty tricks, and to me that's a good thing. My favorite game is an OSR creation.

Which OSR game is your favorite?

 

[Mannahnin]

You were one who though that flying, fire-breathing T-Rexes bringing down a modern society armed with missiles, tanks and supersonic aircraft was somehow more realistic. To me that seems way more absurd outcome than that a crack team of super-skilled renaissance badasses having a fighting chance against that giant lizard.

I don't think that's an accurate characterization. He was pointing out that humans fighting dragons with rockets is a much better simulation of how real people would need to fight such a creature than doing it with swords, lances, or arrows. And yeah, that's pretty inarguable.

 

[Ovinomancer]

You were one who though that flying, fire-breathing T-Rexes bringing down a modern society armed with missiles, tanks and supersonic aircraft was somehow more realistic. To me that seems way more absurd outcome than that a crack team of super-skilled renaissance badasses having a fighting chance against that giant lizard.

It is a more realistic modelling of the fiction of D&D dragons than plate armored knight with a sword going toe-to-toe with one and having a chance of killing it. Especially pre-5e dragons, which would be immune/resistant to all that modern weaponry because it's not at least +1.

Not that I'd personally assume that any high level D&D characters are "normal people."

Really? How far can a level 20 fighter with a 20 STR jump?

 

[Reynard]

I don't think that's an accurate characterization. He was pointing out that humans fighting dragons with rockets is a much better simulation of how real people would need to fight such a creature than doing it with swords, lances, or arrows. And yeah, that's pretty inarguable.

But in a world with fireball and holy smite, aren't they equivalent?

 

[Reynard]

It is a more realistic modelling of the fiction of D&D dragons than plate armored knight with a sword going toe-to-toe with one and having a chance of killing it. Especially pre-5e dragons, which would be immune/resistant to all that modern weaponry because it's not at least +1.


Really? How far can a level 20 fighter with a 20 STR jump?

Simulation isn't synonymous with "realistic" and demanding it is makes the entire discussion more difficult.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I think you are missing the forest for the trees here.

If I say I want some sim elements surrounding,say, wilderness survival, it is clearly true that not all games,or even versions of D&D, treat the issue with the same degree of simulation. Some games don't model it at all, others give it short shrift, and yet others make an attempt to model it as well as that game's mechanics might.

I think maybe part of the issue is that a lot of the people in this thread arguing that D&D or even RPgS in general can't do sim is that those people are letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. They are saying because dragons aren't real or because Constitution doesn't really model health and fitness you just CAN'T do sim and your shouldn't even try (and, weirdly, that if you do try you are a gate keeping ogre).

Not only does sim not have to be perfect for it to be a viable and fun part of the game,it doesn't have to apply equally across all aspects of the game. You can have heroes that both fight dragons and have to poop.

I think it's more "why would I do this with D&D, which has so many discontinuities to sim?" I mean, there are Conan games that do a better job of the sim stuff, but they also don't have the dragons or giants. It's a more a matter of 'why use a high-fantasy setting to do gritty sim?'

 

[Ovinomancer]

But in a world with fireball and holy smite, aren't they equivalent?

Right -- you've shifted the pea from asking how a normal human could fight these things to 'just use magic!' IE, the not-sim stuff.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Simulation isn't synonymous with "realistic" and demanding it is makes the entire discussion more difficult.

That's how it's been defined in this thread, though. It's how you presented it in the OP. "[P]resenting rules in a way that sort of look like how things actually work, if you squint." That looks very much like tying simulation to modeling the real world. If this isn't the definition of simulation being used, can you clarify it?

 

[Baron Opal II]

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.

What?

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."

You didn't? Then why are you arguing with me? I never stated anything remotely like the latter half of this statement.