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

[Micah Sweet]

Certainly a fair point (though in fairness, that treasure lizard is pretty archetypal for the game... like the name is on the tin and all that).

But it does get to maybe a better question/set of questions.

1. What activities/processes/etc. do you think should be simulated?
2. based on what reference points/exemplars (i.e. min vs. max performance level)?
3. for which types of characters (it ain't all human fighters after all),
4. and within what range of character level (assuming there is one)?

As I've said above, worldbuilding is where I care the most about sim. All this stuff about PCs is secondary to that, although I'd prefer that PCs not be explicitly depicted as unique and special, different from other members of their communities in some narrative way.

 

[Micah Sweet]

One thing I'm curious about regarding the preference for "simulationist" play is how much those who value it feel they are actually achieving "realistic" results, and how much of it is based on wanting to avoid "absurdities".

IME on this board, this almost always comes up in the context of an isolated instances of circumstances someone feels is ridiculous

Climbing centaurs
Gnolls v. Halflings
Barbarian casts "fall off cliff"

I've yet to see this approach presented as a "fully modeled authentic fantasy medieval society based on D&D rules" or anything. Perhaps it's confirmation bias.

Have a look at ACKS. It's an OSR game based on the B/X system. Verisimilitude in worldbuilding was the highest priority. Not exactly 5e, but related certainly.

 

[hawkeyefan]

For Example: gaining levels of exhaustion due to forced march in 5E is a sim mechanic. Whether it is technically realistic is beside the point. It is attempting to model, within the context of the game, that pushing yourself will tire you, and being tired will affect your performance.

So then are you agreeing with my assessment that you mean when a game has mechanics for X, then it is simulating X?

Does it matter exactly how those mechanics go about it? Does the absence of mechanics for X in some way make a game incapable of simulating X?

 

[hawkeyefan]

As I've said above, worldbuilding is where I care the most about sim. All this stuff about PCs is secondary to that, although I'd prefer that PCs not be explicitly depicted as unique and special, different from other members of their communities in some narrative way.

So accepting simulation as defined in the OP, how do you apply that to worldbuilding? I mean you specifically....what do you do when you're crafting your setting that you feel is a simulation?

 

[jmartkdr2]

One thing I'm curious about regarding the preference for "simulationist" play is how much those who value it feel they are actually achieving "realistic" results, and how much of it is based on wanting to avoid "absurdities".

IME on this board, this almost always comes up in the context of an isolated instances of circumstances someone feels is ridiculous

Climbing centaurs
Gnolls v. Halflings
Barbarian casts "fall off cliff"

I've yet to see this approach presented as a "fully modeled authentic fantasy medieval society based on D&D rules" or anything. Perhaps it's confirmation bias.

Aside form a few people taking a rather restricted definition of simulation (modeling the real world as closely as possible, which yeah applies to neither dungeons nor dragons) - for most people I think the term "simulationism" just refers to some related ideas like verisimilitude and consistency - they want the world to behave in predictable ways, but in-universe and out. Out-of-universe inconsistency wrecks agency, but in-universe inconsistency wrecks immersion.

But the lines that can't be crossed are personal - and more than just subjective. I may care more or less about how 'realistic' the climbing rules are than someone else - but even if we have the same level of caring we may have different ideas about what climbing is like in the real world, based on our own personal experiences.

At the broadest level, it just means things that deviate from reality should at least do so consistently, so that players can make decisions about as well as the characters who actually live in the world.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I mean the knights could harm other knights with their weapons... Look, you're first inventing fiction in which dragons are ludicrously more resilient than any other animals, then you're posing that a film in which they can defeat tanks and fighter jets is realistic, and then complaining that it is unrealistic that knights could defeat these things can take down a modern military. All this is completely circular. If we instead don't assume that dragons are absurdly resilient, and that they can be harmed with normal weapons like all other animals, the issue really doesn't exist (or at least is way less blatant.)


Next edition perhaps? I said I agreed with you that D&D is inconsistent in how it models the fictional reality and I wish it could be improved.

lol. I mean, I agree that a well-organized group of people, with appropriate weapons and attacking at a time and place of their own choosing, probably can make short work of elephants, even with primitive weapons. OTOH, under less controlled circumstances? I would bet on an angry bull elephant against any warrior that has ever lived. I mean, look at this guy smash 2 ton trucks and toss them around like sacks of grain.

 

[overgeeked]

One thing I'm curious about regarding the preference for "simulationist" play is how much those who value it feel they are actually achieving "realistic" results, and how much of it is based on wanting to avoid "absurdities".

No game mechanics, no matter how detailed, can ever present anything in a realistic way. To say nothing of "realistically" representing a fantasy world. The people at the table, however, have rough models in their heads for how various things work in the real world. The invisible rulebooks I mentioned/linked up thread. In practice I've found that going with the table on calls of simulation, "realism," verisimilitude, etc works way better than what any visible rulebook can do. We can also do it quicker and with fewer arguments than deferring to a visible rulebook, because almost invariably there are mountains of absurdities contained therein.

Some examples:

IME on this board, this almost always comes up in the context of an isolated instances of circumstances someone feels is ridiculous

Climbing centaurs
Gnolls v. Halflings
Barbarian casts "fall off cliff"

So we have basically two ways to handle these.

1. Have something come up in play that's absurd.
2. Read the rules.
3. Discuss the absurdity of the rules.
4. Keep on "discussing" the absurdity of the rules.
5. Stop pretending that we're not arguing about the absurdity of the rules.
6. Get tired of all that and defer to the referee to make a call.

Or

1. Defer to the referee to make a call.

I mean, simply look at all the endless threads about the absurdities of the rules. Without something like a referee to step in and end the conversation, they will literally just keep going on and on forever. People dig in and will argue until they're blue in the face simply to win. And some people will endlessly argue their position so they can gain some advantage in the game because they think "winning" the game is not only possible but the only good outcome. So rather than that inevitable waste of time, skip the BS, have the referee make the call, and move on with the game. The referee should make that call based on what they think would happen in a fair and impartial manner. If that's not possible, dice for it. Something like opposed 2d6, higher result wins. Negotiate ties. If you can't negotiate ties in a timely fashion, roll until there's a winner...or simply defer to the referee.

 

[Reynard]

So then are you agreeing with my assessment that you mean when a game has mechanics for X, then it is simulating X?

Yes. How well is a different matter.

Does it matter exactly how those mechanics go about it? Does the absence of mechanics for X in some way make a game incapable of simulating X?

No. It means the system is not currently simulating it, but there is no reason that a specific sim mechanic for a sim thing can't be implemented if that is what the group wants.

What I object to is the idea that if a game doesn't include or can't reasonably simulate EVERYTHING, then it can't simulate ANYTHING, or that if it includes anything that is "unrealistic" then it can't include any "realistic" elements (scare quotes are to remind folks that we are not actually talking about realism when we talk about sim elements).

From some posters I am getting the sense that the issue is actually a weird complaint about Martial characters getting hosed by sim elements, while casters get to bypass them, but since I despise that particular line of argument I have ignored it thus far.

Just it reiterate and clarify my position: it is okay, and even fun, to include some sim elements that humanize characters by making them subject to the same sorts of pressures and concerns that I am, even if (perhaps especially if) they also fight demons and dragons and have to dodge fireballs and poison needle traps.

 

[Grendel_Khan]

Is 5e your favorite game? If not, why aren't you running whatever that is?

5e isn't my favorite by any stretch, and I'm not running it. Right now I have a few favorite games—I'm running one of them, and long-term prepping to run another. This is pretty easy stuff.

Seriously though, my players like and are familiar with 5e, and largely don't want to learn another system. So I start with a 5e base I like (like Level Up) and build from there as much as I can.

As I said before, asking another poster to play a different game is never helpful.

You did say that's not helpful, but you didn't offer a reason. If I was complaining about a system as regularly as you do on these boards about 5e, and people suggested ones that seemed more like what I was interested in, I wouldn't act wounded and appalled. There are other games, there are other players. I honestly don't get being stuck with a system because you have players who don't trust you enough to try something else. That's a genuinely bad situation!

EDIT: Fixed a minor typo

 

[Thomas Shey]

Perhaps I'm mistaken, but it doesn't seem like there is any objection to the existence of climbing rules as much as there is a question of the upper limit of what a character who regularly battles and defeats dragons should be able to accomplish under a "simulationist" ruleset.

And as I can tell you're aware, how much heavy lifting "should" is doing in that sentence.