What Does "Simulation" Mean To You? [+]

[A_Carrington]

The same could be true in simulation of reality, not just a genre simulation.

Here's an example to demonstrate the difference between two ways the word is being used: a the player of a high-level character wins a contested strength check to break free of a flying dragon, and a result falls thousands of feet. He takes the maximum of 20d6 damage, and lives. Which was part of his plan; he knew 20d6 couldn't kill him. The GM frowns, says "that's not realistic" and rules the character dies.

The GM broke the simulation in order to simulate reality.

If the character has more than 120 hit points, then it is realistic.

Realistic doesn't refer to the real world. If our hypothetical GM disagrees, and assuming that realism is always his primary decision making metric, then this situation never would have come up in his game, since there never would have been a dragon. If realistic refers to the real world, then dragons are not realistic.

Either the rules define how the game works, or they do not.

 

[Reynard]

If the character has more than 120 hit points, then it is realistic.

Realistic doesn't refer to the real world. If our hypothetical GM disagrees, and assuming that realism is always his primary decision making metric, then this situation never would have come up in his game, since there never would have been a dragon. If realistic refers to the real world, then dragons are not realistic.

Either the rules define how the game works, or they do not.

I think the point is that not all rules are simulationist rules, and not all simulationist things in a game are covered by the rules.

 

[A_Carrington]

The character's hit points simulate how much punishment he can take, and the falling damage rules simulate damage from impact. It doesn't matter if a level 20 fighter can survive a fall that I can't. The game isn't simulating me, it's simulating a level 20 fighter, which is something that only exists in the game.

Factorio is certainly absurd in comparison with real life, I don't know many people who can carry around 320 oil refineries in real life, but it is nevertheless a simulation. It just happens to be simulating things that are impossible in reality, like most games do. Similarly, the rules for pretty much any spell simulate impossible things. They're still simulating things.

Are there any rules that don't simulate anything? Maybe the rules for gaining experience from slaying monsters? I guess that's largely a philosophical position.

 

[Reynard]

The character's hit points simulate how much punishment he can take,

I think calling Hit Points simulationist is a stretch for nearly any definition of the term. Hit points don't represent a thing in the fiction, they a metagame element ties to other metagame elements like level.

 

[Micah Sweet]

If the character has more than 120 hit points, then it is realistic.

Realistic doesn't refer to the real world. If our hypothetical GM disagrees, and assuming that realism is always his primary decision making metric, then this situation never would have come up in his game, since there never would have been a dragon. If realistic refers to the real world, then dragons are not realistic.

Either the rules define how the game works, or they do not.

Now come on. A dragon is clearly one of those supernatural exceptions, so claiming that realism only matters if all supernatural elements are stripped away is IMO disingenuous.

 

[TwoSix]

If the character has more than 120 hit points, then it is realistic.

Realistic doesn't refer to the real world. If our hypothetical GM disagrees, and assuming that realism is always his primary decision making metric, then this situation never would have come up in his game, since there never would have been a dragon. If realistic refers to the real world, then dragons are not realistic.

Either the rules define how the game works, or they do not.

Well, the core problem is the DM using the term "realistic" when they really mean "verisimilitudinous".

Sim priorities are more focused on the setting following its own internal logic, even if that logic isn't "realistic."

The core problem with Hit Points in sim play is that people have trouble accepting the fairly obvious narrative that Hit Points provide supernatural resilience, and those supernatural properties should be known and understood within the setting.

As soon as you try to handwave away that a character with 150 HP won't take an action that can't kill them (like jumping off a cliff for 20d6 damage) because it isn't "realistic", you're building in a tension within 2 Sim priorities (modeling Earth-like behavior and modeling a supernatural not-Earth fantasy world.)

 

[Pedantic]

Well, the core problem is the DM using the term "realistic" when they really mean "verisimilitudinous".

Sim priorities are more focused on the setting following its own internal logic, even if that logic isn't "realistic."

The core problem with Hit Points in sim play is that people have trouble accepting the fairly obvious narrative that Hit Points provide supernatural resilience, and those supernatural properties should be known and understood within the setting.

This has always struck me as weird doublethink. Have the courage of your convictions, let the rules do what they say they do. If you don't want fighters wading through lava, then you need to change the underlying set of rules, not start creating unknowable specific counter cases.

The moment the rules are compromised this way, they become negotiable, and the structure of the game breaks down. Instead of the players looking to the GM for information about the game state, they're looking to the GM to arbitrate how they can interact with that state, and the scope for strategy narrows down to single actions, because players can't actually know what will be available to them after any given act of resolution.

It should be treated as a stark line to cross that completely changes the game being played, not a loose space the GM might want to mess around in.

 

[Micah Sweet]

This has always struck me as weird doublethink. Have the courage of your convictions, let the rules do what they say they do. If you don't want fighters wading through lava, then you need to change the underlying set of rules, not start creating unknowable specific counter cases.

The moment the rules are compromised this way, they become negotiable, and the structure of the game breaks down. Instead of the players looking to the GM for information about the game state, they're looking to the GM to arbitrate how they can interact with that state, and the scope for strategy narrows down to single actions, because players can't actually know what will be available to them after any given act of resolution.

It should be treated as a stark line to cross that completely changes the game being played, not a loose space the GM might want to mess around in.

I definitely believe rulings ought to be applied consistently, written down as needed and applied the same way every time the same circumstances apply.

 

[Reynard]

This has always struck me as weird doublethink. Have the courage of your convictions, let the rules do what they say they do. If you don't want fighters wading through lava, then you need to change the underlying set of rules, not start creating unknowable specific counter cases.

The moment the rules are compromised this way, they become negotiable, and the structure of the game breaks down. Instead of the players looking to the GM for information about the game state, they're looking to the GM to arbitrate how they can interact with that state, and the scope for strategy narrows down to single actions, because players can't actually know what will be available to them after any given act of resolution.

It should be treated as a stark line to cross that completely changes the game being played, not a loose space the GM might want to mess around in.

As it related specifically to Hit Points, I think there is room to say "Hit points represent a combination of luck, skill and grit" and use them as is when fighting orcs and dragons and stuff, AND say that falling from great heights or getting submerged in lava are deal breakers. You can use the old school death saves, or you can just have a rule that says "These sorts of super deadly things, as defined on this list, immediately drop a character to 0 HP and they must start making death saves" or similar.

 

[Lanefan]

I think calling Hit Points simulationist is a stretch for nearly any definition of the term. Hit points don't represent a thing in the fiction, they a metagame element ties to other metagame elements like level.

Level doesn't have to be a purely-metagame element in the slightest, and can very well exist in the setting. All it needs is that some sort of in-setting training is required in order to level (which IMO should be the case anyway).

There's real-world examples* of "levels" all over the place, mostly to do with having to complete or fulfill one step in a training and-or experience+ process, and prove you have done so, before moving on to the next.

* - Grades 1 to 12 in school. Belt colours in martial arts. Apprentice-journeyman-master in trades. Loads of others.
+ - which experience points model beautifully!