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

[AbdulAlhazred]

Some people just want to define what the word simulation means for everyone else. That if any aspect of D&D does not follow that strict definition, than no aspect of D&D can be considered simulation.

Nobody has come up with a better alternative, so I will continue to consider D&D a necessarily crude simulation of a magical world.

I suggested other terms, like 'depiction'. A depiction (IMHO which I hope is not too controversial, but who knows, lol) SHOWS something. It might be used to recognize what it depicts or even extract some traits (IE if I look at a picture of your Maserati I learn that it is red and has 4 wheels, etc.). In my opinion this is a more useful word to use for most of what goes on in RPGs than simulation.

 

[Oofta]

I suggested other terms, like 'depiction'. A depiction (IMHO which I hope is not too controversial, but who knows, lol) SHOWS something. It might be used to recognize what it depicts or even extract some traits (IE if I look at a picture of your Maserati I learn that it is red and has 4 wheels, etc.). In my opinion this is a more useful word to use for most of what goes on in RPGs than simulation.

Let me rephrase then. You are adding criteria to simulation that I do not. I don't see any value to those criteria, I would not know any of those things were even considered criteria if it were not for this forum, nor is it related in any way to the question posted by the OP. It may work better for you to call it a depiction but nobody else I know would know what you're talking about or why.

If y'all want to discuss topics from a game theory standpoint, that's fine. Start yet another thread about it so I can ignore it. But can we not devolve into this word parsing on every thread that alludes to these academic technical terms that have nothing to do with the topic raised?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Let me rephrase then. You are adding criteria to simulation that I do not. I don't see any value to those criteria, I would not know any of those things were even considered criteria if it were not for this forum, nor is it related in any way to the question posted by the OP. It may work better for you to call it a depiction but nobody else I know would know what you're talking about or why.

If y'all want to discuss topics from a game theory standpoint, that's fine. Start yet another thread about it so I can ignore it. But can we not devolve into this word parsing on every thread that alludes to these academic technical terms that have nothing to do with the topic raised?

I'm not sure exactly how I'm stopping you from having whatever discussion you wanted to have. Obviously we are not going to fully agree on some things. That's fine.

 

[chaochou]

Like if making chocolate chip cookies has a DC 5 and making macarons has a DC 15, then that simulates the latter being quite a bit harder to successfully make.

No. It makes up that macaroons are harder to make than cookies.

Simulation, as used by proponents in this thread, is a synonym for “my way of doing make believe” with false ”other games lack consistency” style gatekeeping assertions thrown in for good measure.

 

[Ovinomancer]

My take on all of this is simple. Nobody can tell me what I think simulation is. Like beauty, it's in the eye of the beholder.

This is just declaring that you do not want a discussion based on any premise that isn't "what Oofta does should be considered correct and never challenged."

 

[Oofta]

This is just declaring that you do not want a discussion based on any premise that isn't "what Oofta does should be considered correct and never challenged."

No, it's acknowledging that unless I agree whole-heartedly with you, you will never stop telling me I'm wrong. It's hardly new. You're adding in special criteria, requiring simulation across the board, etc. There's no point because you will never agree that anyone else's definition of simulation is valid.

 

[Umbran]

Mod Note:
It is about time for the two of you to put each other on ignore, before someone gets and end they do not prefer.

 

[Hussar]

No, a movie of a car is not a car simulation. It ILLUSTRATES the car, so it is a DEPICTION of the car, but there is no substance here. No properties of the car are mapped to any properties of a simulation such that there is a single mathematical/logical MODEL which describes the behavior of both of them. Without that, you simply have a depiction. A SIMULATION must be an ANALOGY. It has to contain some essential features which stand in for essential features of the simulated thing. Without that, its something else.

I think the 'granularity argument' does have some essence of truth in it. That is to say, if a simulation only corresponds with the thing it simulates at a very few points, then it is likely that the ways in which we want it to be an accurate analogy will fail. Still, as you point out, its circumstantial.

Honestly, I'm a bit more pragmatic about it. I don't mind the idea of filling in the blanks, so long as there is some guidance as to what those blanks actually are. For example, if we took a series of still pictures of a car on a road.

1. Car is driving on road. It is raining.
2. Car is going around corner, the tail of the car is way out of alignment and the car is obviously skidding.
3. Car is in the air, upside down, the guard rail around the corner is broken.
4. Car is a ball of fire on the ground.

Is this a simulation of a crash? Maybe not. But, it doesn't take a genius to fill in the blanks here. If we take out pictures 2 and 3, we have no idea what happened. But, with a bit of granularity, we can make some pretty educated guesses. So, as far as I'm concerned, it's close enough to a simulation that I'm not going to get too fussed about the exact nomenclature.

That aside, I do disagree with @Ovinomancer in that the jumping rules are a simulation of anything. Again, the lack of granularity hurts it. By the rules, a halfling, a human, a horse and an elephant all jump exactly the same distance if they all have the same strength. That's not much of a simulation. That's much more a simplified rule of thumb for an action that doesn't come up all that often but, needs something for when it does. So, we use "Move 10 feet, jump STR in feet." It's simple, it's easy and it gets the job done. But, if that's bar for a simulation, I'd say that's a very, very low one. True, you do get the point across - player declares that his character jumps, character jumps X feet, done. So, it does have a fairly 1:1 correlation between what the player declares and what happens in the fiction, so, there is that. But, as a simulation, it's seriously lacking.

 

[Hussar]

My take on all of this is simple. Nobody can tell me what I think simulation is

Truer words have rarely been spoken.

 

[Hussar]

Like if making chocolate chip cookies has a DC 5 and making macarons has a DC 15, then that simulates the latter being quite a bit harder to successfully make. Further that we add character's baking skill to the roll simulates that some people are better at baking than others. We can critique detail and accuracy of the simulation, but I think it is silly to say that it not a simulation at all!

Ok, let's work with this. But, instead, let's use a contested roll, because that's a little easier to illustrate my point.

A tells a lie to B. So, we use Deception vs Insight. All very well and good, and, from a certain point of view, looks like simulation. After all, some people are better at telling lies and some people are better at reading people. Ok, fair enough. So, A rolls and gets final total of 6. Very bad roll, not terribly skilled. So, he's not very good here right? He's got some huge tells and his voice has gone up into pitches that only dogs can hear.

But wait. B rolls and gets a final score of 5. So, now, we have a situation where the established fiction - A is really bad at this particular lie contradicts the result - despite it being a really obvious lie, B, who is not stupid or incapacitated in any way, believes the lie.

So, what happened in the fiction? Do we go back and retcon A? Character A was actually smooth and suave and told a convincing lie that convinced B who is normally a cagey, good judge of people? Or what? Well, the game certainly doesn't help us here. The game and the system couldn't care less how we narrate this. Because the game isn't concerned, at all, in this case, with anything approaching a simulation. All it produced was the result - B believed the lie. Do the die rolls count? When do they count? How do the rolls and the mechanics influence play? After all, A succeeded in the check. Is there a difference if I succeeded with a 6 or I succeeded with a 26? What's the difference and where do I look for any guidance on that?