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

[Cadence]

 

[Cadence]

 

[clearstream]

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]

I am using emulation and simulation as synonyms here. Sorry if that's confusing.

Np. Wasn’t clear initially and I was just confirming.

 

[FrogReaver]

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]

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.

 

[Krachek]

View attachment 156375

Hit points definition didn’t change much since first edition, despite the many debates seem to proove the opposite.
gygax words are still valid in 5ed. And I perfectly agree on this to play my game in 2022.

 

[niklinna]

The lethality of a gunfight cannot be measured as a steadily consumed resource like gasoline.

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

 

[Thomas Shey]

View attachment 156374

So, basically it was a gamist decision fundamentally, which is what I've been saying.

 

[Oofta]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Thomas Shey]

What’s the difference in emulating a genre vs simulating a genre?

Terminology, mostly. As noted, as used here simulation is a term-of-art. As originally used, simulation is about world, drama is about story, and game is about challenge/play.

 

[Oofta]

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.

 

[niklinna]

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.

 

[Cadence]

So, basically it was a gamist decision fundamentally, which is what I've been saying.

He needed a magic system, one of his favorite books had one that would work great in a game. He took it.. Would he have done that if he hadn't read it? Or read it and hated it? Parsimony seems to be both.

 

[clearstream]

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.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Marvel Heroic RP/Cortex+ Heroic treats magic like any other ability.

Then making the appropriate "check" or whatever would be the limiting factor.

View attachment 156374

View attachment 156375

Very nice find!

 

[Thomas Shey]

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.

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]

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.