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

[AbdulAlhazred]

I've always preferred a grid or at least tokens with a sketched out map and distances based on a set scale to ToTM, even long before using a grid was a thing. On the other hand I have switched to a hex grid for my home campaign. When it comes to walls, if there's half a hex or more not obstructed you can be in the hex so a 10 ft wide corridor can have 2 people side by side. The hexes are used more for distances than absolute spacing.

Before? LOL. Missive from 1975, we used grids! I mean, OK, it wasn't written down anywhere, exactly, and Chessex didn't exist yet (though they did start putting out mats in the early '80s IIRC). We actually had tables at our club with 1" square rule drawn on the tops (some had 4" hexes instead).

 

[DND_Reborn]

To be completely fair, this is something that D&D has really gotten weird about. 1e dragons were a LOT smaller. More the St. George type, so, it was a bit more plausible that dude with a pointy metal stick could conceivably kill it. But, yeah, when your dragons are kaiju sized, the notion that I can kill Godzilla with a sword is just so laughable. And it gets even weirder in that a large group of dudes with bows and arrows can kill that dragon.

Yep. I prefer the smaller dragons personally. I get the desire for ginormous dragons, and having such monsters which only magic (items, weapons, spells, McGuffins, etc.) can handle is one thing, but anything adult or younger on the Huge and smaller scale in 5E works for me.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

As I've said though, why does it have to be explained IN THE FICTION, it is not a constraint of the character, it is a constraint on the PLAYER. I have a certain number of 'plot coupons' which are my 4e character powers. Some are just 'stock in trade' and don't need to be regulated (Twin Strike). Some are more bad-ass moves and generally the situation only arises where I try to pull them off once per fight (Precise Assault), and then there's the really bad assed one that I am able to expend once a day (Split the Tree). That's just the 'rules of the game', it isn't any sort of anything that is inherent to the character. Technically he could Split the Tree 42 times a day under perfect ideal circumstances, they just never come up (and there are, to be fair, ways to get recharges on stuff too, though they are pretty hard to get, or else require a rare consumable, etc. for obvious reasons). The point being, lots of ink was spilled on this for ages and it really never made sense.

Because "plot coupons" are not a simulationistic mechanic (in common use, non-GNS sense) and a lot of people want the mechanics not to be disassociated from the fictional reality in that way. These simply are different approaches, both are fine, but people have strong preferences in this regard.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

EDIT - Are some of you guys thinking that the entire Ancient Red is supposed to fit in the battlegrid's (completely abstracted) squares rather than just the scapula to the sacrum (if even that!)?

It is true that gargantuan says 20 by 20 ft. or larger, but considering that the previous age category fits in 15 by 15 square (though I'd assume the tail and neck might overhang a bit to explain the reach) it would be weird if the next category actually was several magnitudes larger. Yes in art sometimes there are absurdly big dragons, but the rules really don't reflect those. So yeah, I'd assume that the body of the basic MM gargantuan dragon roughly fits in the 20 by 20 square.

 

[Hussar]

Because "plot coupons" are not a simulationistic mechanic (in common use, non-GNS sense) and a lot of people want the mechanics not to be disassociated from the fictional reality in that way. These simply are different approaches, both are fine, but people have strong preferences in this regard.

But, again, since virtually none of the mechanics in 5e D&D are simulationist mechanics (in the common use sense), why is this particular one an issue?

I mean, we don't mind non-magical healing. Fighters have encounter powers right now, in the PHB. So, what's the issue here?

 

[Reynard]

It is true that gargantuan says 20 by 20 ft. or larger, but considering that the previous age category fits in 15 by 15 square (though I'd assume the tail and neck might overhang a bit to explain the reach) it would be weird if the next category actually was several magnitudes larger. Yes in art sometimes there are absurdly big dragons, but the rules really don't reflect those. So yeah, I'd assume that the body of the basic MM gargantuan dragon roughly fits in the 20 by 20 square.

Early in my 5E GMing days I has a BBEG dragon I described as a city buster but ended up having a terribly unsatisfying climactic battle because 20x20 fits in some key area of effects.

 

[Oofta]

Before? LOL. Missive from 1975, we used grids! I mean, OK, it wasn't written down anywhere, exactly, and Chessex didn't exist yet (though they did start putting out mats in the early '80s IIRC). We actually had tables at our club with 1" square rule drawn on the tops (some had 4" hexes instead).

I'm sure other people did the same and I'm not surprised other people didn't like ToTm. The lack of reference in books is what I was referring to.

 

[Oofta]

Not really. We don't generally do simulations simply to get a final answer. Typically, a simulation has to tell you how that result was achieved to be of any use.

Why? I've never seen anyone use this definition outside of game theory.

To use a wind tunnel example, it doesn't really matter that that air molecule finishes at the other end of the wind tunnel. The path that wind stream took through the tunnel and how it interacted with the object placed in the wind tunnel, is the point of the simulation. A closed box isn't a simulation, it's a Schrodinger's Cat Box.

But, this explains a lot about why you insist that you want simulation. You simply are using a definitioni of simulation that no one else is actually using. Want you actually want is a system that gives you results. How it achieves those results doesn't matter. That's not a simulation, but, it's a perfectly valid system.

Ever seen the simulation of how gravity works? Take a rubber sheet stretched taught and then roll something across it. It goes in a straight line. Put something heavy in the middle and roll something on the sheet and this time it starts to "orbit" the heavy object. It simulates the interaction of gravity, but we have no clue what gravity really is. We can mimic it, we understand it's effects (to a degree, there's still significant debate) but we have no clue how it does it. That means that, according to your narrow definition we could never simulate gravity.

It seems that we can't use any word to describe how I want D&D to mimic the real world because of how you've declared a definition that is not widely accepted as the only truth. I can't call it simulation, emulation only works if it existed before. I'm tired of the redefinition of common words. Since this has devolved into the meaning of words as defined by an academic take on the subject, I'm done.

 

[Manbearcat]

It is true that gargantuan says 20 by 20 ft. or larger, but considering that the previous age category fits in 15 by 15 square (though I'd assume the tail and neck might overhang a bit to explain the reach) it would be weird if the next category actually was several magnitudes larger. Yes in art sometimes there are absurdly big dragons, but the rules really don't reflect those. So yeah, I'd assume that the body of the basic MM gargantuan dragon roughly fits in the 20 by 20 square.

Not so weird. There are some Square-cube law relationships happening here.

The evidence for what I’ve written is in AD&D, then firmed up in 3.x and 4e Dragon books (and base texts). Those numbers I cited are D&D Red Dragons. Those pictures I cited and the scale picture is correct.

The squares are just weird abstractions for battlemats just like a PC doesn’t really occupy a 25 square ft space nor even really the square space the token/figure would be in at any given moment as melee combatants would be constantly circling left/right, feinting and retreating and advancing for distance management/control.

The squares are just used to manage the intricate combat rules and give us some abstract sense of spatial and size relationships so we can skillfully employ those intricate and intersecting combat mechanics.

EDIT - in case it’s not clear, if you wanted to accurately model Ancient Wyrms head < > tail and wing <> wing you’re talking a minimum 18x20 squares figure or max 24x30 squares. No battle mat could handle that and it’s not particularly useful as a position simulator.

 

[Hussar]

It is true that gargantuan says 20 by 20 ft. or larger, but considering that the previous age category fits in 15 by 15 square (though I'd assume the tail and neck might overhang a bit to explain the reach) it would be weird if the next category actually was several magnitudes larger. Yes in art sometimes there are absurdly big dragons, but the rules really don't reflect those. So yeah, I'd assume that the body of the basic MM gargantuan dragon roughly fits in the 20 by 20 square.

Which is fine if we presume that 5e is the only edition we're talking about here. Other editions certainly had larger dragons. By rather a lot.

But, again, the point being, even at 20x20x20, that's still freaking enormous for an animal. And one hell of a lot bigger than a T-rex, which was your point of comparison earlier.