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

[AbdulAlhazred]

"Feel the same" and "variation" here seem to refer to differences in the mechanics. As opposed to differences in the fiction.

That seems at odds with simulation as an impetus, which presumably prefers consistency of handling, feel etc. It seems much more to be a concern with what makes for good game play!

It seems to be much more of a 'conceptual' issue IMHO. I do think it is, however, fundamentally rooted in the idea that mechanics somehow represent some sort of 'rules of nature' of a fictional world and that, FUNDAMENTALLY, the game is about MECHANICS and not about STORY. Or at least that it all has to start with the mechanical game part and there can only be 'leftward arrows' I guess? Personally I always took the starting point to be fiction, then some rules could be applied to how we decided what fiction happened next (along with other stuff, like genre logic), and the new fiction would be the next point, so there's generally cycles, from fiction to mechanics, and back to fiction. If the mechanics are hindering this process, then they can be revised. Frankly I always thought that WAS THE OLD SCHOOL and exactly what Gygax was talking about, but I've been informed that I'm wrong on that score... lol. Still, Gary and co did say in the beginning to make up whatever rules worked for you! lol.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

If we have an athletics skill that measures character's athletic prowess, and we a have a DC for the climbing check that is based on how difficult to climb the surface is in the fictional world, and the odds of successfully climbing are based on these, then I would definitely say it is a simulation. What is being simulated is that some people are better climbers than others and that some surfaces are harder to climb than others. We can of course critique accuracy of said simulation, but that's another matter.

Sure, but what does Athletics 'simulate'? In a literal mechanical sense it indicates that you are good at Swimming, Climbing, Jumping, Running, and probably a few other things as well, like I would assume it would be checked for success in pretty much any sport (a few might go with Acrobatics instead). I mean, OK, there are SOME people who are pretty 'generally athletic' but mostly its just a convenient, simple, rule of thumb for a PC, "this guy solves problems using muscles, coordination, and physical effort." I call that a 'depiction' but it lacks any kind of character of showing us how or why anything happens that I would expect from a simulation. Its like a picture of reality, at best, but a rather cartoonish one.

 

[pemerton]

If we have an athletics skill that measures character's athletic prowess, and we a have a DC for the climbing check that is based on how difficult to climb the surface is in the fictional world, and the odds of successfully climbing are based on these, then I would definitely say it is a simulation. What is being simulated is that some people are better climbers than others and that some surfaces are harder to climb than others. We can of course critique accuracy of said simulation, but that's another matter.

This then defines 'simulation' as any game mechanic.

Right. Characters in Marvel Heroic RP have ratings in their Climb (Leap, Fly, etc) ability. And I can set the rating of the Miles-High Cliffs Scene Distinction at anything from d6 to d12, to reflect exactly how hard those cliffs are to scale. (Resolution process: to be at the top of the cliff, you have to reduce the size of the Scene Distinction to d4, by applying your effect die as a "degrader" of the Distinction: an effect die of smaller size than the Distinction steps it back one die size, while an effect die of equal or larger size steps it down to d4 all at once.)

Personally I think the use of the word "measure" is not very apt in this context. The number that expresses a character's prowess isn't really a measure of anything. It's not like we can say that a PC with +6 to their climbing roll has twice the prowess of one who has +3 to the roll. The best it can do is locate them in a ranking, from the least to the most prowess-ful. And even that is contentious: suppose that we play a one-shot, and my PC has +6 to climb while your has +3, but I fail all my climbing rolls while you make all yours, is it really true in the fiction that your PC has less prowess at climbing than mine?

The mechanic needs to represent the fictional reality for it to be a simulation. Not all mechanics do this. For example in many games odds of success do not depend on parameters of the fictional reality, and many have some purely meta mechanics.

As per my example just above, your criterion makes MHRP simulationist. It also has that result for most 4e D&D play. And Maelstrom Storytelling. And HeroWars/Quest.

It's trivial to introduce degrees of difficulty in Apocalypse World, too - Vincent Baker expressly sets this out in the rulebook. So now all I have to do to make AW a simulation is to use the optional rule that Baker flags but advises against.

Really?

EDIT:

Sure, but what does Athletics 'simulate'? In a literal mechanical sense it indicates that you are good at Swimming, Climbing, Jumping, Running, and probably a few other things as well, like I would assume it would be checked for success in pretty much any sport (a few might go with Acrobatics instead). I mean, OK, there are SOME people who are pretty 'generally athletic' but mostly its just a convenient, simple, rule of thumb for a PC, "this guy solves problems using muscles, coordination, and physical effort." I call that a 'depiction' but it lacks any kind of character of showing us how or why anything happens that I would expect from a simulation. Its like a picture of reality, at best, but a rather cartoonish one.

In addition to what you say, there's the point I make above: in a finite number of rolls, the player with the smaller bonus can get luckier than the player with the bigger bonus. So I don't think it's even given that Athletics skill establishes a ranking of athletic prowess.

All it does, as you say, is signal how a particular character is most likely going to tackle a typical range of problems: the physical one as opposed to the bookish one, for instance.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Right, so it seems we are back at "you cannot simulate fiction." I obviously don't agree. Creating fiction is not arbitrary process (though you might be excused for thinking so if you look scripts of certain Hollywood films) nor is assigning rules for said fiction.

In any case, I am not super interested in semantics. You can of course define simulation out of existence, I'm not sure that makes discussing things any easier though.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Sure, but what does Athletics 'simulate'? In a literal mechanical sense it indicates that you are good at Swimming, Climbing, Jumping, Running, and probably a few other things as well, like I would assume it would be checked for success in pretty much any sport (a few might go with Acrobatics instead). I mean, OK, there are SOME people who are pretty 'generally athletic' but mostly its just a convenient, simple, rule of thumb for a PC, "this guy solves problems using muscles, coordination, and physical effort." I call that a 'depiction' but it lacks any kind of character of showing us how or why anything happens that I would expect from a simulation. Its like a picture of reality, at best, but a rather cartoonish one.

Right. So you're critiquing the accuracy of the simulation. The specific issue of granularity you note is inherent in basically any skill system, and something the writer needs to tackle when writing such.

I think "general athleticism" is rather sensible thing to measure in a game that doesn't specifically concentrate on athletes. Real athletes of course are better in some areas than in others, but almost all of them are better in all of them than me! There certainly is a lot of cross compatibility in competence across different facets.

The same applies to any skill. Are people really equally knowledgeable all facets of history? Cannot I be specialised in Cormyrian history? Or even more narrowly to some specific aspect of Cormyrian history? And you of course could model this, giving characters "expertise" to just specific application of the skill. I'm pretty sure there are some features like that, but IMO, such accuracy is rarely necessary. I give such to NPC specialists sometimes though.

But if you don't think this is simulation, (and same question for everyone really) what you think would be simulation then?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

It's trivial to introduce degrees of difficulty in Apocalypse World, too - Vincent Baker expressly sets this out in the rulebook. So now all I have to do to make AW a simulation is to use the optional rule that Baker flags but advises against.

Really?

Yes really! That mechanic indeed has simulationistic intent, It's purposes is to simulate that some things in the world are more difficult to do than others. It is super vague and super low granularity simulation in a game with very little other simulationistic features, so I don't think it hugely shifts the overall focus of the game, but yes, it certainly makes things more simulationistic. Again, like with most things in life, this is not a binary.

 

[Oofta]

Why are you not engaging with what I'm typing.

You want receipts. I gave them to you.

Smaug was a kaiju and he was the inspiration for D&D Red Dragons.

For 8 years, Adult Dragons were the limit in AD&D from 77 to 85, ending with Master Set when Kaiju were introduced.

From '85 w/ Master Set > Immortals Set > Greybox FR > AD&D 2e > 3.x > 4e it was all Kaiju (outside of RC's concurrent release early 90s) through at least 2014. That is 29 years straight.

5e releases late 2014 and there is ample evidence, including the comparison to 4e Great Wyrms (also Gargantuan on the battle grid but clearly kaiju in dimensions - given), that kaiju still appear to be a thing in D&D 5e.

So what are we arguing over here?

This conversation should have been donezo long ago. It was DoA.

Can we just skip to the point where we all agree "yeah, it makes no sense for a Fighter to deal with these titans through martial prowess unless that same prowess extends out of combat with a supernatural athletic profile...so lets make sure that Ancient Wyrms only come in play at Epic Tier and that our Martial Heroes have sufficiently supernatural athletic prowess in and out of combat to clash with these titanic beasts in melee. That way its easily cordoned off to the Epic Tier of play where very few souls venture. Earlier Tiers of play can end with Adult Dragons that aren't Kaiju and those folks can have their 'bound by earth-physics martial heroes' doing relatively mundane things out of combat to go with their slightly more believable clashes with Adult Dragons."

Who doesn't agree with the above at this point? Its inarguable and its healthy for the game and the gaming culture.

You're the one with the giant dragon shaped strawman. Dragons are not kaiju in D&D, the closest we have is the tarrasque. D&D is not The Hobbit, Smaug was a unique creature and last of it's kind. He was also killed by a single (magical?) arrow, all it took was for Bard to know where to hit. You haven't "proven" anything and obviously it's arguable because I'm arguing it's not the whole picture. There's no reason to believe a D&D dragon would not be easily killed with modern military equipment. In fact, we have stats for a rifle in the DMG, a single bullet from a rifle causes 2d8 damage. Given a platoon of soldiers with fully automatic weapons, and it would not take that long to take out the dragon based on the rules of the game which informs us what dragons are in D&D.

But it also doesn't matter because it has nothing to do with the OP's question. I fully accept that D&D is simulating action movie logic. That magic is inherent to the world and it's denizens. That doesn't mean that there aren't many simulationist aspects to the game. There are also narrative aspects to the game, game rule aspects, on and on.

So, no I don't see why these impossible to kill dragons keep showing up, or how they're even relevant.

 

[Oofta]

So I want to toss out an example, some specific rules from a game, and see what people think.

The Loadout rules from Blades in the Dark. For those who don’t know, before going on a Score, each PC decides if they have a Light, Medium, or Heavy Load. This determines the number of inventory slots that they have available during the mission.

Each PC also has a list of available gear to have with them, with most items taking one inventory slot. Some larger items take two, and certain small items of negligible size and weight take zero slots. There is standard gear available to all, and then gear that is specific to each playbook (class).

The player only selects their Load before play begins, setting the number of inventory slots available to them. What specific gear they actually have is determined during play. So if they come to a locked door, a player may declare that they have burglary tools, and mark it on their Loadout.

When discussing the way this works, it’s often cited as problematic by many folks. “Quantim inventory” and other labels get used to describe it.

Surely, this is largely a gamist element… I expect most folks would agree. There probably aren’t many here who would define this as a Simulation style mechanic.

And yet… it’s designed to mimic the ability of a competent criminal to have planned appropriately, and to have what they need. In this way, it’s removing the need for the player to make these choices, and is instead portraying how the character would so so.

It’s attempting to mimic the fictional world.

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

So everybody has Batman's utility belt? That's handy!

 

[Oofta]

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.

Simulation is not reality. We can simulate things that have never happened. Most simulations will have guesses, black boxes that simplify reality. The rock climbing simulation mentioned above just uses a slightly more granular set of guesses and assumptions than what D&D uses. We use simulations because we don't want to or cannot observe actual events. Simulations can, and do, simulate events or processes that have never happened and may never happen. They're "what if" scenarios like the CDC using a zombie apocalypse to simulate actual disease vectors.

I don't know what other word to use, and see no value in redefining the word "simulation" so narrowly that it cannot be applied to many aspects of an RPG. But this thread long ago devolved into bickering about game theory and it never goes anywhere.

 

[hawkeyefan]

So everybody has Batman's utility belt? That's handy!

Not exactly….but glad you brought up another simulation! I love how Batman mimics real life. That's a solid simulation example.