D&D General D&D isn't a simulation game, so what is???

Cadence

Legend
Supporter
1651257936942.png
 

log in or register to remove this ad


clearstream

(He, Him)
You're trying to make a narrow focused discrimination based on motivation and thought process for the origin of fiction. I don't see the point, it's still total fiction. In addition D&D's magic is called Vancian magic because Jack Vance came up with the concept first. Gygax and Arneson may or may not have picked it because it also served their purposes, but they did not invent the idea.
To my mind, one just resists the initial impulse that a simulation must have a preexisting reference. One motive for doing so is that otherwise one unreasonably excludes game creation as a form of imaginative expression in its own right. In the past, Jo Writer wrote stories about worlds they imagined. Now and in future, Jo Designer will craft games about worlds they imagined.
 


FrogReaver

As long as i get to be the frog
To my mind, one just resists the initial impulse that a simulation must have a preexisting reference. One motive for doing so is that otherwise one unreasonably excludes game creation as a form of imaginative expression in its own right. In the past, Jo Writer wrote stories about worlds they imagined. Now and in future, Jo Designer will craft games about worlds they imagined.
I think as with most creative endeavors it’s the chicken and the egg. Another place we see this is the character creation process. Sometimes we have an idea and find mechanics to suit and sometimes we have mechanics and find an idea to suit, but most the time we are starting somewhere in the middle and iterating until we find something acceptable both in concept and in mechanics.
 

Oofta

Legend
To my mind, one just resists the initial impulse that a simulation must have a preexisting reference. One motive for doing so is that otherwise one unreasonably excludes game creation as a form of imaginative expression in its own right. In the past, Jo Writer wrote stories about worlds they imagined. Now and in future, Jo Designer will craft games about worlds they imagined.
I agree that it feels somehow dismissive to say that game designers are not also authors.

But we also do have preexisting references, which is one of the strange aspects of this. Very few authors other than Vance had any kind of explanation of how magic actually worked at the time D&D was written, it was either all-powerful mage, supernatural being or novice playing with power they didn't really understand. I'm not sure what would have qualified as preexisting if Vance doesn't count.
 




Oofta

Legend
But what if you shoot the car in the gas tank? 😉

Well, apparently according to Mythbusters (may the show rest in peace) shooting a gas tank doesn't do much of anything. They even tried incendiary tracer rounds and it did nothing other than punch a hole in the tank.
 

Thomas Shey

Legend
So to simulate a comic genre wouldn’t we just have energy beams blow through concrete but not through people? I don’t understand why you say that doesn’t constitute a simulation?

Because its not actually simulating anything in the setting. Its an entirely dramatic conceit. If you asked a super scientist "Why do energy beams destroy steel but not vaporize that avenger of the night?" They'd likely go "What are you talking about? Of course they'd vaporize him."

Now in setting the event occurs because the beam "never quite hits dead on" or "always has an obstruction" or "isn't at full power" but that sort of things is a clear case of writer-intervention--that is to say a dramatic choice--not anything about the setting in theory. Its like the discussion of mooks earlier. If you ask someone in a setting that features them why they go down so easy (and often, notably, selectively, since you'll sometimes get That One Guy who is more trouble), they'd tell you its because the guy fighting them is just so badass, ignoring the other apparently identical cases where it doesn't work that way (or coming up with a bunch of different reasons that happens).

They're not features of the worlds involved; no one in those worlds no matter how knowledgable would see them that way. They're features of a particular stylization of the fiction that goes on.
 

Thomas Shey

Legend
Well, apparently according to Mythbusters (may the show rest in peace) shooting a gas tank doesn't do much of anything. They even tried incendiary tracer rounds and it did nothing other than punch a hole in the tank.

As far as I can tell, the only exceptions to that is when the tank is nearly empty and as such is full of vapors, at which point you can under some circumstances get a fuel-air mixture thing. Though I'm surprised they didn't get a gas fire with the incindiary rounds--I guess they must have blown all the way through too fast.
 


Oofta

Legend
As far as I can tell, the only exceptions to that is when the tank is nearly empty and as such is full of vapors, at which point you can under some circumstances get a fuel-air mixture thing. Though I'm surprised they didn't get a gas fire with the incindiary rounds--I guess they must have blown all the way through too fast.
But even with a nearly empty tank, bullets don't create sparks like they do on TV. They just make a hole. The bullet will be hot, but not hot enough to ignite the fumes. I did a quick google search and found a Russian version of the test. On a side note a cigarette butt will also not ignite gasoline spilled on the ground and cars that are on fire almost never explode. Even if they do it's only a small explosion not a huge fireball.

TV and movies lie, man. :mad:
 

niklinna

Legend
As far as I can tell, the only exceptions to that is when the tank is nearly empty and as such is full of vapors, at which point you can under some circumstances get a fuel-air mixture thing. Though I'm surprised they didn't get a gas fire with the incindiary rounds--I guess they must have blown all the way through too fast.
Well, my joke was more about how far down the rabbit hole you're willing to go in your simulation. Punching a hole in the tank, in the real world, will have an effect, if only to cause a continuing fuel leak (akin to bleed/damage over time effects)—but do your game rules consider such possibilities, and if so, how do they handle them? In other words, even a simple thing like fuel is not so simple if you even start to look into it.
 


clearstream

(He, Him)
I suspect they're saying that the element is neither simulationist nor dramatist/narrativist in intent, so it must be gamist in some cases (and keep in mind, its statistically likely some people in the thread consider gamism kind of a dirty word in regard to RPGs). That of course turns on you viewing all elements needing to fit in some incarnation of the three agendas, which I've always been agnostic about.
I too am agnostic about three agendas. "Gamist" is poorly defined and likely IMO merges together multiple priorities.

Regarding your definition, contrast "ease" with "challenge", which is said to be a gamist priority. Until I see a robust definition for gamist anyone bucketing systems into it for me is on shaky ground.
 


Thomas Shey

Legend
But even with a nearly empty tank, bullets don't create sparks like they do on TV. They just make a hole. The bullet will be hot, but not hot enough to ignite the fumes. I did a quick google search and found a Russian version of the test. On a side note a cigarette butt will also not ignite gasoline spilled on the ground and cars that are on fire almost never explode. Even if they do it's only a small explosion not a huge fireball.

TV and movies lie, man. :mad:

Oh, yeah, a regular bullet would be really unlikely to do it. The two times I saw it occur, both involved welding equipment.

And yeah, burning cars can burn awfully hot but an explosion is pretty unlikely.
 

Thomas Shey

Legend
Well, my joke was more about how far down the rabbit hole you're willing to go in your simulation. Punching a hole in the tank, in the real world, will have an effect, if only to cause a continuing fuel leak (akin to bleed/damage over time effects)—but do your game rules consider such possibilities, and if so, how do they handle them? In other words, even a simple thing like fuel is not so simple if you even start to look into it.

Actually, almost every vehicle combat rules set I'm familiar with does consider fuel leaks as a possible result of attacks.
 

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top