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

[niklinna]

So based on what people are saying here, it’s actually a simulation.

I think of it as simulating the process of writing the script for a heist movie, as opposed to just muddling through a mostly-written script and trying to figure out what the incomplete-draft writer expected of us.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Ah, so simulation is only the games you're familiar with that do it in the way you know how, all other things are probably metagamey.

No. And metagemey is of course not automatically bad. But it definitely is not simulation.

Because setting arbitrary DCs (there's no wall to evaluate, it's just the GM's thinking about the wall)

This is not arbitrary. People can make assessments non-arbitrarily.

and rolling a die is so much more accurate to real life than, say, flipping a coin and tales you fall, heads you climb.

Yes, yes it is. In the former case there is an attempt to simulate fictional reality in the latter there isn't.

Or, roll 2d6, on a 6- something unexpected and unwelcome happens, on a 7-9 you succeed, but there's a cost, and on a 10+ you climb the hill.

This part really isn't much of a simulation.

If you've done something to set this up, roll 3d6 and take the best two. If you're in a pickle already and this is desperation, maybe roll 3d6 and take the worst two.

This however is obviously simulating preparedness and being in bad position. Granted, it rather weird to model that if you didn't bother to model how hard the task was in the first place.

Fixed stakes simulate reality as well as arbitrary stakes do, because, wait for it, both are arbitrary.

No they aren't. Also the part that made your later example simulationish was the part that made it not fixed.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I think of it as simulating the process of writing the script for a heist movie, as opposed to just muddling through a mostly-written script and trying to figure out what the incomplete-draft writer expected of us.

Yep. Seems like a genre emulation mechanic to me.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

It’s attempting to mimic the fictional world.

So based on what people are saying here, it’s actually a simulation.

This, unfortunately, is one of the key problems with any discussion of (casually-defined) simulation. As I mentioned upthread in my wall-o-text, what counts as "simulation" may vary wildly from person to person, and even for a specific person, certain things may flow as water under a bridge while others flow like treacle, even though the former may in fact be more abstracted from the real situation than the latter. (Consider the forgiveness given to D&D's HP system, or the huge "simulationist" criticisms of 4e's Healing Surge mechanic despite that mechanic actually being more like real biology and the IRL experience of fatigue and injury.)

So, for one person who isn't super stressed about nailing down in advance all the specific details of the heister's loadout, this is a delightful "simulation" because it represents planning and forethought in a mildly abstracted way. While for another, who cares a great deal about specifying equipment and preparations well in advance, this is a horrifically offensive anti-simulation, because it leaves (as you noted) the equipment in a quantum superposition until drawn from the pack to do a task, at which point it collapses into a single specific piece of equipment that was "there the whole time."

Different fans of simulation will place their emphasis on different areas.

 

[Manbearcat]

OK, but I would argue that, if it is a sim in any meaningful sense, you could GO THROUGH IT with another person and they would have to agree that, modulus some things that might be elided or simplified, that the logic of what was produced was sound, and that the outputs are the logically consistent and expected outputs that match in some sense to real world results of carrying out the simulated activity/of the simulated system (say the economy of a town). I don't really think that things like skill checks to climb cliffs and the price table from the 5e PHB are going to do that. Certainly anyone who has climbing experience is likely to object to climb checks as matching with ANYTHING in reality (@Manbearcat being our go-to on this one). Likewise no one who has ever been in a retail business will agree that the market place in Fallcrest represents any touchpoint with reality at all beyond "there are goods and prices."

I guess about as far as we can go with this is that there's something of a subjective nature about it. So some people might agree that it seems kinda 'simulationistic' and other people might scoff at the notion because they're more knowledgeable about the subject in question.

It can difficult to capture the decision-points when climbing a face, but its certainly doable (as I've done it in a few systems) even with novice climbers with little to no exposure to the discipline. You'll have to learn how to make things like various holds and technical demands of various faces/climb movesets and duration of effort and potential fallout accessible to folks.

Overwhelmingly, I treat it just like Journey mechanics. Procedurally:

* Depict the mixed face with obstacles in such a way that someone with little to no exposure can understand the implications of their move-space.

* Have them chart a course based on the climbing obstacles/vertical topography which considers (a) number of moves required for each route + (b) type of moves required to ascend and what resources can be martialed on each route + (c) any modifiers/factors to each route + (d) potential consequence-space on each route.

* Make the first move and go from there or go straight to the conflict resolution mechanics if its a conflict.

Torchbearer and Mouse Guard and Strike(!) aren't particularly good for this, but Dungeon World and Stonetop and MHRP Hack (Cortex Fantasy Heroic) and D&D 4e and Dogs in the Vineyard are absolutely good for this as would be FitD if a conflict went that route.

 

[Ovinomancer]

No. And metagemey is of course not automatically bad. But it definitely is not simulation.


This is not arbitrary. People can make assessments non-arbitrarily.


Yes, yes it is. In the former case there is an attempt to simulate fictional reality in the latter there isn't.


This part really isn't much of a simulation.


This however is obviously simulating preparedness and being in bad position. Granted, it rather weird to model that if you didn't bother to model how hard the task was in the first place.


No they aren't. Also the part that made your later example simulationish was the part that made it not fixed.

Ah, we've reach peak Fisking. Was wondering when that would happen.

It is arbitrary. There's nothing to assess. If your argument is that people can make assessments non-arbitrarily, I'll agree, but there has to be something to assess. What you're assessing is arbitrary -- someone made it up. You can lend credibility to an assessment of a made up that to get it from made up (and arbitrary) to non-arbitrary. Doesn't work that way. It's like saying that I have 1 unicorn and 1 unicorn so I have 2 unicorns. I actually have unicorns because I was able to math how many unicorns I have! No, unicorns are still made up, math doesn't save this. Only, this argument is worse because not all assessments are non-arbitrary to begin with, only some, so you're using a statement that's not necessarily true on something made up and claiming it's now non-arbitrary. Dude, just no.

And, for fictional reality, no again. The difference here is just that I describe the wall first, and then make my arbitrary judgement, and then determine the outcome. That's the D&D way -- "there's a cliff (insert description here), DC 15 to climb. <clatter> 16 does it, you're at the top." The other way is to have a fixed arbitrary judgement, determine the outcome, then describe the wall and attempt together. "there's a cliff, so you'll have to do something about it before (whatever reason the cliff is an obstacle happens). Okay, I'll try climb it, <clatter>, um, 7? Sure, the cliff provides some easy handholds, but there's a tricky part that has you execute a jump form one handhold to another. When you do that, you belt pouch snags a rock and rips, spilling coin everywhere down the cliff. You can easily make it the last few feet, but lose 1 coin." Here, at the end of the process, we can't tell one from the other, really. They both present a coherent fictional process and chain of events. So, no, there's not something different in that way. What you're reaching for is the "I like task resolution over conflict resolution," and "I like fortune at the end mechanics rather than fortune in the middle." Valid arguments, but if you're calling what you're calling sim, not ones that actually offset that. You need to work on your definition by way of first principles -- this is sim, and so I can look at game mechanics and evaluate them. What you're doing is saying "this thing I like is sim. But those other things I don't aren't. Because reasons (which shift around as needed to make the argument). Back up and come around at this from a the start with a clear idea of what you want sim to be. And if you aren't goring some of your own sacred cows, you're not doing it right because you're bending to keep your likes on the right side of the line.

I like 5e. But I'll gore it all day long when I analyze it because it is an incoherent mass of crazy. Fun crazy, but not coherent crazy.

The "this part isn't much of a simulation" is, again, arguing over the price. Let's not. The ad/disad analog was a tad bit of a trick, sorry, because that's determined by the outcome of a previous move, which looks just like the one you're tossing out as not sim. Again, sorry, didn't really realize I had done that because I didn't really anticipate your line of argument here. I dislike gotchas in discussion almost as much as in game.

As for the last, yes, they are very much equally arbitrary. You're just restating the argument that if I arbitrarily imaging a thing (or someone else does for me) before an action, that somehow my deciding on a DC for that action with regard to the made up thing reifies it (another great word, which means treating abstract things as real -- hint, this doesn't make them real) into suddenly being objective and non-arbitrary. It's the claim that making it up before is more real than making it up during. It's a pretty BS argument that says that timing is the critical factor in something being arbitrary or not when we're talking about made up things, which are never non-arbitrary.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Different fans of simulation will place their emphasis on different areas.

I totally agree. I think it’s all a matter of preference. I think very little simulation happens with D&D. I think people like to call it simulation so that it seems less made up. But it really isn’t.

The encumbrance system is not simulating anything better than the Loadout system in Blades.

In fact, with its reliance on player skill, I’d say it’s actually more meta, and therefore less of a simulation.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

If y'all want to use some definition of simulation that is not required for many, if not most, simulations, feel free. I just disagree. It's also kind of a pointless academic argument.

Can we agree that there are some representations of things which are NOT simulations of those things? This should be relatively non-controversial. Now, once we acknowledge that, can you at least see that some of us find play-acting that there is this fantasy world where certain things happen is NOT A SIMULATION, even though it is in some sense a representation of something that has some characteristics that are similar to characteristics of the real world, just like say, a photograph has some characteristics similar to a thing that it is a picture of, without being a simulation?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Reign of Fire dragons are stupidly overpowered IMHO. But why are those dragons more accurate than the dragon in Dragonheart that a lone warrior could defeat? Or the dragon that St George was stabbing with a lance? They're fictional creatures, the fiction can be anything we want.

Exactly, so it cannot be simulated! IMHO you cannot simulate a non-existent world full of magic either. I just don't see it as that hard a concept, to be honest.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

What's HoML?

Its a game I wrote, basically an extensive hack of 4e that is like "gosh, what if you actually followed through on the things 4e seems to want to do?" It stands for Heroes of Myth and Legend. So the conceit is that the characters ARE heroes (which basically all of modern D&D does pretty much). However, it is explicit that you become superhuman, a legend, the greatest <whatever> that now exists or has existed in your time. If you make it all the way to 17th level, you become a MYTH, the greatest <whatever> who has EVER lived, to be part of the stories told for all time to come. Its a rather Narrativist and generally Story Now sort of game, pretty much like the way we were playing 4e since maybe 2010 or so.