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

[pemerton]

every time there were fight against a single foe (which was quite often)

This is weird. It largely contradicts the advice in the 4e DMG. I'm not surprised that the game was unsatisfactory when the play advice was not followed.

 

[pemerton]

I ran D&D and AD&D for even longer using ToM, sketches, and notes as well before adopting a grid/miniature system.

And as I posted previously even in 5E I mostly use ToM even now, but that doesn't change the fact that "ToM relies on trusting the DM's 'vision' of the scene. Sketches can give you some of the above, but not all of it."

I think you are assuming that resolution is sensitive to distances and position as inputs.

That's true of WotC D&D, but not true of RPGs in general. I gave an example in my post (ie engagement determined by opposed checks, not by measuring distances and position either on an actual or a notional grid).

To repeat, again, that's fine if you have a good spatial memory and/or the sketch maps has some indication of scale. Frankly, I find sketch maps more trouble than just using a VTT map with a grid.

Again, I think you are making assumptions about the role of distance and position in resolution that are not true for a whole host of RPGs.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I think you are assuming that resolution is sensitive to distances and position as inputs.

That's true of WotC D&D, but not true of RPGs in general

It's true of the RPGs I've played, such as the ranges of weapons, targets having cover, etc., but then again I've only played about half a dozen RPGs with any frequency in the past. I know others who have played or tried dozens of RPGs over the years, but that isn't my experience.

YMMV, of course.

 

[Hussar]

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


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.

Wait, what?

Your example shows EXACTLY what happens and how gravity affects the movement of something. In other words, at any point from the beginning of rolling that ball to the time it comes to a stop next to the heavy point you placed on that rubber sheet, at every single point in time, we know exactly where that ball is, how fast it's going, and where it will go next. Heck, you can, with 100% accuracy, predict exactly the path that that object will take.

That in no way actually resembles how mechanics work in D&D.

We certainly can use lots of words to describe how mechanics work in D&D. But, "mimic the real world" isn't one of them, unless you think that this sort of fuzzed out cloud of potentials is how you see the world. I'm tired of the redefinition of words too. But, I'm not the one working from a made up definition.

Look at it simply.

Character is at the base of a steep incline. DC 10 climb. Not difficult. Now, player declares he wants to move up the incline and rolls an Athletics check. No problems. Fair enough. Now, his total is 11. He is now at the top of the incline (presuming he has enough movement) but, at no point from bottom to top do the mechanics tell you anything about his climb. Did he struggle? Did he slip a bit and barely make it? Did he zoom up parkour style? Who knows? The mechanics certainly don't tell you. All we do know is that he started at the bottom and now he's at the top.

Same as if you rolled a 9. Now, you're still at the bottom. You haven't fallen down, because you had to be at least 10 feet up to do that, but, you make no forward progress. Why? Did you slip? Did the ground give way a bit and you lost traction? Who knows? All we know is that at the end of the black box of probabilities, you did not make any forward progress.

THAT'S NOT A SIMULATION. No matter how many times you pretend that it is, it isn't. There's nothing about that that makes that a simulation. It's not modeling anything. It's not telling us anything. It contains no information during the process that is being modeled. All it does is spit out a result at the end using voodoo magic and chicken entrails.

This has nothing to do with "academic" takes or anything like that. This is about the plain English meaning of the word simulation.

But of course, that doesn't matter. Simulation now only means "things I like". Shame really.

 

[Oofta]

Wait, what?

Your example shows EXACTLY what happens and how gravity affects the movement of something. In other words, at any point from the beginning of rolling that ball to the time it comes to a stop next to the heavy point you placed on that rubber sheet, at every single point in time, we know exactly where that ball is, how fast it's going, and where it will go next. Heck, you can, with 100% accuracy, predict exactly the path that that object will take.

That in no way actually resembles how mechanics work in D&D.

We certainly can use lots of words to describe how mechanics work in D&D. But, "mimic the real world" isn't one of them, unless you think that this sort of fuzzed out cloud of potentials is how you see the world. I'm tired of the redefinition of words too. But, I'm not the one working from a made up definition.

Look at it simply.

Character is at the base of a steep incline. DC 10 climb. Not difficult. Now, player declares he wants to move up the incline and rolls an Athletics check. No problems. Fair enough. Now, his total is 11. He is now at the top of the incline (presuming he has enough movement) but, at no point from bottom to top do the mechanics tell you anything about his climb. Did he struggle? Did he slip a bit and barely make it? Did he zoom up parkour style? Who knows? The mechanics certainly don't tell you. All we do know is that he started at the bottom and now he's at the top.

Same as if you rolled a 9. Now, you're still at the bottom. You haven't fallen down, because you had to be at least 10 feet up to do that, but, you make no forward progress. Why? Did you slip? Did the ground give way a bit and you lost traction? Who knows? All we know is that at the end of the black box of probabilities, you did not make any forward progress.

THAT'S NOT A SIMULATION. No matter how many times you pretend that it is, it isn't. There's nothing about that that makes that a simulation. It's not modeling anything. It's not telling us anything. It contains no information during the process that is being modeled. All it does is spit out a result at the end using voodoo magic and chicken entrails.

This has nothing to do with "academic" takes or anything like that. This is about the plain English meaning of the word simulation.

But of course, that doesn't matter. Simulation now only means "things I like". Shame really.

Well, simulation to you means "it can't ever be applied to RPGs because I say so, no matter how other people would view it."

The gravity simulation only works at a visualization level, it doesn't address how it works. As far as determining outcomes that have uncertain results, simulations use random black boxes all the time. If all we care about is that the results on what we are simulating come close to reality, it's good enough. It's just silly that I can't say aspects of D&D are simulation and would have to say something like "D&D mimics aspects of the real world in a simplified manner that does not rely on the underlying physical interactions because we don't have a supercomputer to do the analysis." Because that, to me, seems to be the alternative.

Calling aspects of D&D simulation is not a judgement or a justification. It's not saying that it's better or worse. It has nothing to do with whether I "like" it or not. It's just saying that many aspects mimic reality. It's using common definition of what the word means to everyone not using an academic definition.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Same as if you rolled a 9. Now, you're still at the bottom. You haven't fallen down, because you had to be at least 10 feet up to do that, but, you make no forward progress. Why? Did you slip? Did the ground give way a bit and you lost traction? Who knows? All we know is that at the end of the black box of probabilities, you did not make any forward progress.

A minor point, but in 5E this isn't necessarily true... Failing a check can be progress with a setback.

So, you rolled a 9 and made it to the top, but perhaps it took you twice as long or you turned you ankle and move at half speed until you finish a short rest, or any number of other things.

FWIW, otherwise your point is well made. The narration determines the simulation in 5E other than simple yes/no at best.

 

[Oofta]

I think you are assuming that resolution is sensitive to distances and position as inputs.

That's true of WotC D&D, but not true of RPGs in general. I gave an example in my post (ie engagement determined by opposed checks, not by measuring distances and position either on an actual or a notional grid).

Again, I think you are making assumptions about the role of distance and position in resolution that are not true for a whole host of RPGs.

This is specifically a D&D 5E forum, I assumed all statements were regarding 5E. If you don't use a grid for a game like D&D where positioning matters, especially because of AOE effects and opportunity attacks, you have to rely on not only the DM but the players relying on understanding in detail the vision the DM has. I've found that fuzzy sharing of conceptual spaces confusing and annoying for anything other than the simplest of situations, ones where I won't generally even bother with the combat loop. YMMV.

 

[Oofta]

A minor point, but in 5E this isn't necessarily true... Failing a check can be progress with a setback.

So, you rolled a 9 and made it to the top, but perhaps it took you twice as long or you turned you ankle and move at half speed until you finish a short rest, or any number of other things.

FWIW, otherwise your point is well made. The narration determines the simulation in 5E other than simple yes/no at best.

A lot of things are yes/no. I mean "no" we will never agree on this topic seems a fair assumption. Either I catch the bus or I don't. Either I can climb El Capitan or I can't. But there's no way any game could truly satisfy simulation of the latter. For that matter, it seems like all physics simulations ever made are bogus by your definition because we don't really understand the interaction between particles at the quantum level and the macro level.

Virtually all simulations simplify complex realities. It's just a matter of scale.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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?

These matters are not a binary. Like I said earlier, 5e, is a tad less simulationistic than I would ideally prefer. But it still is closer to my tastes in that regard than 4e (which I played quite a bit and didn't hate.) In 4e AEDU is the basic structure of all the classes, it is in your face all the time. 5e certainly has plenty of non-simulationistic or weaky simulationistic mechanics too. Still, manoeuvres use shared resource pool like I would have preferred for encounter powers, non-magical healing is much less prevalent, etc.

 

[pemerton]

And it gets even weirder in that a large group of dudes with bows and arrows can kill that dragon.

In 3E (or at least 3.5) dragons have damage reduction, which will protect them against random troops of archers. In 4e, tier considerations (ie a troop of ordinary archers is simply not a threat to an Epic tier foe) do the same work.

So this seems to be an AD&D and 5e thing. It's the dragon's version of not being able to flip the car!