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

[pemerton]

@DND_Reborn

I have a lot of experience playing and Gming Rolemaster: it is pretty rules-heavy, but has what you're looking for. A semi-retroclone has also come out fairly recently - Against the Darkmaster – The Classic Tabletop RPG Game of Fantasy Adventure - and some people on rpg.net seem to like it - Thoughts on Against the Darkmaster?

HARP is a lighter version of RM - I'd say it's about the same heaviness as 3E D&D.

People upthread have mentioned C&S, Harn and RueQuest. I think there is a fairly recent version of RQ called Mythras. My RQ knowledge is about 30 years out of date as far as editions go, but I can say that it is lighter than RM, and probably a bit lighter than HARP. Personally I prefer RM to RQ - happy to explain why if you like.

The Riddle of Steel is another one that I hear talked about.

If anyone knows where to get a copy of TRoS at a reasonable price, please point me towards it!

But anyway, TRoS is ultimately a story/character-driven game sitting on top of a RQ-ish chassis.

Jacob Norwood, who designed TRoS, writes the foreword to more recent versions of Burning Wheel, which is my favourite FRPG and which I would cheerfully recommend to anyone who is looking for visceral, character-driven RPGing with a strong simulationist chassis as the starting point (but not really the focus).

Torchbearer is another FRPG that is more simulationist than D&D, but in overall feel of gameplay (and as the name suggests) closer to Moldvay Basic or classic AD&D than to RQ or BW.

EDIT: There's also Pendragon, which has its 6th ed currently in development.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

For me, I'd actually say games like DND and Pathfinder (to differing degrees by edition) are simulations-- but they're simulations through the lens of gaming, they give numbers for different objects and creatures to define their properties, and use those to determine what would happen in various contexts, the fact that the simulation is mediated through a desire for the resulting game to be fun, doesn't make it not a simulation, just a different type of simulation. They (usually) go out of their way to make different lore things feel different by giving them different numbers. The problem is more that some people want to move away from it being a simulation where they feel it hurts the game, so the arguments you hear about it not being a simulation are chiefly in the context of trying to justify moving towards mechanics that break down the simulation, or people being annoyed about places where the rules aren't as much of a simulation as they would prefer.

When my Magus lands a spellstrike, the rules telling me to add the damage dice of the spell together with the damage dice of his Katana, have defined the properties of each of those things in order to 'simulate' them, and then instructs me on how to combine them, to 'simulate' my character's ability to do that in the game world and its effects on a creature. Which in turn has hit points that 'simulate' how hard and how many times we need to hit it with these damaging effects to bring it down. These elements are abstracted to different degrees, but in principle, they are elements of the simulation.

I would go so far as to say Simulation is just a lens through which you view game mechanics "how does x simulate y."

 

[pemerton]

I agree strongly with @Grendel_Khan - when someone starts a thread asking for pointers towards FRPGs that are more simulationist than D&D, trying to argue that D&D really is a simulation isn't really helpful.

Here are some examples of the sorts of thing that you won't find in RM or RQ:

* In 3E D&D, dragons have +30 or better natural armour bonuses. What does that mean in the fiction, given that someone needs to be a god, or close to, to forge +6 plate armour which grants something like a +15 bonus to AC? In Rolemaster or RuneQuest or Burning Wheel, it's always pretty clear what various stats mean in the fiction.

* In any version of D&D, as @Hussar said, a character is hit for 5 hp of damage and, unless this also inflicts a condition (like dying, or dead, or 4e's bloodied) then it is completely unspecified what has happened in the fiction, except that the character was perhaps set back in some fashion. In RM or RQ or Burning Wheel, we know where a blow struck, whether or not armour blocked or blunted it, whether it was a mere bruise or something more serious, etc.​

Something else that flows from the basic mechanics-to-fiction set-up of games like RM, RQ and BW tends to be a less gonzo, more "realistic" or grounded setting. Generally these systems foreground non-combat conflicts and action resolution to a greater degree than D&D does; and when combat occurs it tends not to involve the same numbers and weirdnesses of opponents as D&D does. This tends to complement the simulationist feel of the mechanics.

These systems also often involve higher rates of failure than modern D&D does - that's definitely true for BW, but I would also say that RM contains quite a bit of failure. This can combine with the core mechanics to push towards a "gritty" vibe, which also complements and reinforces the sense of a non-gonzo setting.

 

[Charlaquin]

I don’t think there’s really such a thing as a “simulation game.” Rather, every game simulates something. The question is what are your priorities? What do you want to simulate?

 

[pemerton]

I don’t think there’s really such a thing as a “simulation game.” Rather, every game simulates something.

Compare (say) Dungeon World, Tunnels & Trolls, Rolemaster, RuneQuet and Torchbearer.

There are real differences in how these games play, including in how their mechanics correlate to the fiction. It seem helpful to have a word to pick up on some of the most salient differences, and "simulation" or "simulationist" seems as good as any.

 

[Charlaquin]

Compare (say) Dungeon World, Tunnels & Trolls, Rolemaster, RuneQuet and Torchbearer.

There are real differences in how these games play, including in how their mechanics correlate to the fiction. It seem helpful to have a word to pick up on some of the most salient differences, and "simulation" or "simulationist" seems as good as any.

I don’t think it’s a good word for it at all because it implies distinct categories, which is just not how it works. All of those games simulate things, they just have different priorities in terms of what they simulate and how.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Compare (say) Dungeon World, Tunnels & Trolls, Rolemaster, RuneQuet and Torchbearer.

There are real differences in how these games play, including in how their mechanics correlate to the fiction. It seem helpful to have a word to pick up on some of the most salient differences, and "simulation" or "simulationist" seems as good as any.

That is kind of the point of @Charlaquin's statement, the simulation game that suits depends on what the person looking for in simulation wants to see simulated. Or may be more accurately the game they want is one that does have the friction points that bothers them.
It will have however different friction points where the game outputs results that conflicts with ones sense of reality and with out knowing the pain points is it kind of hard to recommend alternatives to D&D.

 

[Oofta]

D&D, to me simulates action movie fantasy. Realistically, people die from wounds and infections days or weeks after battle on a regular basis for example. Action movie fantasy? Slap a bandaid on it and you're good to go.

So how much simulation do you want? One slip and you're dead? You survived the battle but die from sepsis?

 

[DND_Reborn]

D&D, to me simulates action movie fantasy. Realistically, people die from wounds and infections days or weeks after battle on a regular basis for example. Action movie fantasy? Slap a bandaid on it and you're good to go.

So how much simulation do you want? One slip and you're dead? You survived the battle but die from sepsis?

I don't want "action" movie fantasy, no. If I did, I would just be happy playing D&D.

AD&D had rules for regularly checking to see if your character picked up a disease or became ill, for instance. 5E lacks that, among many other things. However, even some of the systems it has are overly simplified for my tastes. Instead of continuing to mod the heck out of it, I was curious what other systems are out there for medieval fantasy that more accurately model real-life in many of the terms I've expressed.

I would rather play a game where "hits" are actual hits and you might survive a few hits before you died, but one hit might also kill you. Combat should be avoided whenever possible, and a man with a drawn sword is actually dangerous.

 

[dave2008]

Not when the game also includes magic... items and/or spells.

However, no one would be able to learn magic or make magic items if 8-story dragons existed. They would be dead before they got the chance!