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

[niklinna]

Is your primary complaint the use of the word "kaiju" to describe "silly big monster?"

I am glad you brought up Smaug. Smaug slaughtered an entire kingdom of dwarves full of warriors of rather incredible prowess and with the best and heaviest of armor and arms. He did this without worry or concern. Further, Bard was exceptional, possible superhuman (his shot on Smaug shows so) with his archery and placed an, if not magical certainly exceptional, arrow in a single small chink in Smaug's armor, at distance, while Smaug was flying and burning Laketown. A hole that let the arrow pierce directly into Smaug's heart. So, absent this plot device and superhuman skill at archer and a handy magic arrow, Smaug was effectively invincible to even the best armored and equipped warriors. Let's not forget that the previous Lord of Laketown, himself a noted archer, used multiple Black Arrows against Smaug, hitting each time, and not penetrating Smaug's hide once.

So, if we go with D&D's dragons being like Smaug, then, yeah, it makes a lot more sense that such dragons could take on a tank just fine before we get to a human in armor with a sword walking up and doing anything at all except dying swiftly. Because we know that this was attempted, en masse, by trained and fantastically equipped dwarves, and it wasn't even a fight but a slaughter.

So, you're saying those dwarves couldn't even give Smaug a bad pedicure, now?

 

[Ovinomancer]

You are misrepresenting that exchange. You demanded to know what I WOULDN'T want covered by sim mechanics and I explicitly told you that I didn't really have an answer for that, but then gave you an example of areas where I WOULD like sim mechanics. That you did not want to talk about those things is not my fault.

I think "demanded" is a bridge too far on that. As far as not being your fault, seems that goes both ways.

It's a useful and common discussion approach to flip a question and see if anything comes out from the flipped question. In terms of simulation mechanics, reversing the question really gets to where the person might feel simulation is a burden or unwanted in the play of the game. I can think of a few places that needs to occur in D&D. Encounter balance, for one, is an area where simulation doesn't work at all, or creates negative outcomes. In real life, the first rule of serious fighting is to never fight fair. The second is monsters -- if we want players to fight giants, they can't be giants that have anything really to do with how something that big would operate in real life (even if we willingly ignore the physics of even supporting that weight biologically). Swords would be like splinters at best. Arrows not even that. But we don't want that, we want cool fights with giants (and ogres) so no simulation here, please!

 

[Ovinomancer]

So, you're saying those dwarves couldn't even give Smaug a bad pedicure, now?

I'm saying they didn't. No need to suppose.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I think "demanded" is a bridge too far on that. As far as not being your fault, seems that goes both ways.

It's a useful and common discussion approach to flip a question and see if anything comes out from the flipped question. In terms of simulation mechanics, reversing the question really gets to where the person might feel simulation is a burden or unwanted in the play of the game. I can think of a few places that needs to occur in D&D. Encounter balance, for one, is an area where simulation doesn't work at all, or creates negative outcomes. In real life, the first rule of serious fighting is to never fight fair. The second is monsters -- if we want players to fight giants, they can't be giants that have anything really to do with how something that big would operate in real life (even if we willingly ignore the physics of even supporting that weight biologically). Swords would be like splinters at best. Arrows not even that. But we don't want that, we want cool fights with giants (and ogres) so no simulation here, please!

To be fair, I want that a little more than we get it. Giants in combat often don't feel like giants in D&D.

 

[Ovinomancer]

To be fair, I want that a little more than we get it. Giants in combat often don't feel like giants in D&D.

Sure, you can tweak them a bit, but that's still emulating a genre convention and not a reality one. "Scarier giants" doesn't scream "be like the real world, kinda" to me as much as it says "be like this fantasy trope I'm thinking of."

Dungeon World does giants pretty scary, too. The tag system is so very nice to have around. Giants are Forceful, which means if they hit you, you go flying. 5e could do with a lot more riders on hits.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Sure, you can tweak them a bit, but that's still emulating a genre convention and not a reality one. "Scarier giants" doesn't scream "be like the real world, kinda" to me as much as it says "be like this fantasy trope I'm thinking of."

Dungeon World does giants pretty scary, too. The tag system is so very nice to have around. Giants are Forceful, which means if they hit you, you go flying. 5e could do with a lot more riders on hits.

I'd prefer that sort of thing to be part of PC abilities and gear properties, personally.

I do agree that creatures don't get knocked around in 5e nearly as much as I'd like.

Edit: I misunderstood your point. Something like "forceful" could easier be an ability all giants have in the statblock.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I'd prefer that sort of thing to be part of PC abilities and gear properties, personally.

I do agree that creatures don't get knocked around in 5e nearly as much as I'd like.

? You'd prefer giants knocking people around to be part of PC abilities and gear properties? Or the Forceful tag -- because it's a tag, it can apply to lots of things.

 

[Micah Sweet]

? You'd prefer giants knocking people around to be part of PC abilities and gear properties? Or the Forceful tag -- because it's a tag, it can apply to lots of things.

I mispoke and edited my post.

 

[Oofta]

Sure. But Blades actually allows for all of that through the Loadout/Gear mechanics. The scoundrel knew to bring his arcane implements because he'd looked into the Dimmer Sisters and knew they'd likely have arcane defenses on their lair.

The difference isn't how things are established, only when they are.

As I said, I occasionally allow quantum gear if it makes sense. For the most part though, it's all dependent on the work they put in ahead of time in the background and investigation they do before attempting to get the McGuffin. So by the time they head to the McGuffin HQ, they should be ready. Depending on how well the investigation goes, I may tell them what they know, even giving them summary bullet points. This is especially true if the initial footwork was done the previous session.

To me preparing is half the fun, and potentially half the risk, of planning an incursion. It's also more simulationist to assume the characters don't know everything about the super secret lair. Talk to the wrong people or say the wrong thing? You may tip your hat (helmet?) and give the BBEG a heads up. You may exceed my expectations and I'll grant some other benefits I would not have otherwise. It also involves more than just equipment of course, you could gain allies or make additional enemies along the way. Planning for major events can take up an entire session.

When it comes to quantum equipment I can then think about the preparation and think about whether or not there's a reasonable chance the PC would have known to bring X. If they go into a room and you need the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch to kill the guardian, did the PCs have any reasonable way to know they'd encounter the Rabbit of Caerbannog? Could they have known it if they had talked to the right person (no chance) or have there always been rumors of the fell beast that the PC could know (roll a check) or is it fairly common knowledge (automatic)?

Of course it's just a preference. Do you have the mastermind just hand you the blueprints perhaps with an explanation or do you have to find someone you can bribe to get the blueprints. It can go either way, neither is wrong.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I use a variety of resources when worldbuilding. For geography, my main source is the 2e Worldbuilder's Guidebook. For community creation, economic and government systems, and other factors, I mostly use the ACKS RPG (an OSR game based largely on B/X). It is extensively researched, and verisimilitude is it's and my main priority.

I understand there's a disconnect between what a non-magical character is capable of in combat and what they can do out of it. It's not my main priority as a DM or a player, but I try to make up the difference with magic gear, and I'm okay with the idea that higher level characters are capable of transcending normal limits (although I wish that was more explicit in the game).

The requisition system for gear you describe is definitely a form of simulation, not much different from the Resource stat in Marvel FASERIP. That sort of system is often used in games set in a modern world. It's not my preference, nor that of my players, but sometimes it makes sense.

How much more specific do you need me to be?

I appreciate the response. I'm looking for examples.

What is an element of worldbuilding for which you use simulation? Do you look at actual maps and then create yours with those in mind? Do you research geographical features and make sure that you portray those accurately? Like, deserts forming on one side of mountains, for example.

What is it about the Worldbuilder's Guidebook that makes you think it's a good resource for this? Or ACKS; you've mentioned it's the best worldbuilding game you've seen.... why? What does it do well?