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

[Thomas Shey]

1. Is a game simulationist only if all its mechanics are simulationist, or can it be be simulationist so long as enough of (or the right ones among) its mechanics are simulationis?

The the Forge usage proponents might disagree, I don't think its usually useful talking about an RPG system being simulationist (or dramatist or gamist) only if all of the game supports that agenda, because I think the number of games that are all about only one of them is vanishingly small (and that even includes dramatism); there's almost always some dollops of at least one of the other ones in play (usually gamism but I can believe a theoretical model that's simulationist with a touch of dramatist or vice versa while not caring at all about gamist concerns. I don't specifically know of one, but then, dramatist focused games were coming heavily into vogue just as simulationist ones were dropping off the radar, so...).

1. Is a mechanic simulationist if it can sometimes yields results that don't correlate well with its reference?

Depends. Is it doing it deliberately or just because of process limitations? The latter is always going to be hard to avoid, whereas with the former it depends why its doing so and how often.

1. Does the text @DND_Reborn located (or any other text in 5e) count as a reference? Have we yet said enough about what counts as a reference? Do we find ourselves choosing between

His text does not seem to suggest that the peculiarities of D&D hit points represent anything in-setting except in a very zoomed out narrative supporting way, so I don't see how.

1. 1. Our putative reference (P) is not a reference (R)?
   2. P is an R, but not the kind we count valid (and how do we justify such picking-and-choosing)?

Again, is there any sign that people in the actual setting recognize things as working this way?

1. 1. P is an R, but mechanics aren't correlated with it?
   2. P is an R, but it contains specified problems preventing its use as an R (does it just needs revising)?
   3. There is no P (or R)?

Before going futher, does the text @DND_Reborn count as a reference? That is to say, does 5e contain (there or anywhere in the game text) any preexisting reference for hit points?

That I couldn't comment on.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Assume it's an unregulated match where two people simply punch each other until one drops, what would you track other than something that looks an awful lot like HP? I don't think you can't get that much more accurate than HP.

How do you allow for a one punch KO? Any punch has the potential to take a person out of the fight, so how does a game allow for that?

What about a cut that bleeds into the eye and makes it harder for that fighter? How does that happen?

What about stamina and how it impacts footwork and keeping your guard up? Both would likely relate to the ability to avoid a hit, but if we're using AC then it's static and not going to change over the course of the fight. That doesn't seem very simulationist.

What about punching the body versus the face? Would this do different kind of damage? Or impact performance in some way? Or just HP loss whichever one is hit?

You'd have to include these kinds of things, and probably several others, if you wanted it to even remotely simulate a boxing match. Simply giving each participant a Hit Point total and subtracting for each hit they suffer isn't simulating much at all. At least, not in any way that makes it any different than a battle between a fighter and a bugbear or anything else.

Anything we do is going to be an oversimplification.

I think anything we do is going to be a simplification. Whether it's an oversimplification is another matter. So to lean on the example of the boxing match, just AC and HP is an oversimplification. A system that allows for some of the things I listed and other relevant elements of a boxing match may still be a simplification, but likely not an oversimplification.

 

[hawkeyefan]

@Oofta @Hussar
I wondering about what would be needed to be added to the rules to make HP more clearly tie into the story (e.g. not carry 0 information to some) and still be easy to use and D&Dish. What about something like:

"Each character's hit point total represents both capacity to take actual damage (roughly 3/4 of their starting hitpoint total at 1st level rounded up) and ability to avoid taking actual damage from attacks due to skill, stamina, luck, etc.. (the rest of them).

So, each "hit" to a character could be thought of as doing a (roughly for higher level characters) 1/(2*level) fraction of the total of damage of the appropriate type (burns for fire, frost-bite for cold, cuts for slashing, bruises for bludgeoning, etc...) and the rest as a reduction in capability to avoid damage.

To smooth gameplay, the amounts are not tracked separately, and the default is to give no penalty for different amounts of damage taken, but the character will certainly have a rough idea how close they are to death and act accordingly.

The allocation of damage doesn't typically result in integer amounts. For narrative purposes, any "hit" at all involves a minor singe, tingle, scratch, or soreness as appropriate. A single hit for twice the characters level or more is definitely a noteworthy burn or cut.

A "simple gritty" version gives a -2 on all rolls if the characters is 'significantly bloodied' (that is significantly injured and at half hp or below) and gives a scar for any significant wound (single blow that causes 2*level of damage).

The optional rules also allow for the two types of hit points to be tracked separately as "wounds and vigor" with different healing options, healing rates, and penalties for each type of damage. This is facilitated by using an app or online tool (and is an option in DnDBeyond, for example)."

I think a largely untapped design element of 5e would be damage to Hit Dice.

I feel like an attack that in some way reduces Hit Dice would be a cool mechanic, and likely evocative of the kinds of dangerous enemies that had the ability to level drain and similar types of attacks from earlier editions. Or perhaps certain situations like Drowning or Falling would do Hit Dice damage rather than HP. Once you're at 0 Hit Dice, you're in real danger and any additional Hit Dice damage you take would mean you're Dying just as if you'd dropped to 0 HP.

This would give each PC a much smaller resource pool to absorb such attacks. It would give some monsters a really dangerous ability to use. It would make the spending of Hit Dice during a Short Rest a more meaningful decision, and possibly help mitigate some of the criticisms of 5e healing being too strong. It'd open up some new possibilities for spells, feats, and class abilities.

I know it's not the kind of penalty you described above as far as the impact that combat would have on a PC, but it's something I think is an untapped part of the game design.

 

[Thomas Shey]

@Oofta @Hussar
I wondering about what would be needed to be added to the rules to make HP more clearly tie into the story (e.g. not carry 0 information to some) and still be easy to use and D&Dish. What about something like:

"Each character's hit point total represents both capacity to take actual damage (roughly 3/4 of their starting hitpoint total at 1st level rounded up) and ability to avoid taking actual damage from attacks due to skill, stamina, luck, etc.. (the rest of them).

So, each "hit" to a character could be thought of as doing a (roughly for higher level characters) 1/(2*level) fraction of the total of damage of the appropriate type (burns for fire, frost-bite for cold, cuts for slashing, bruises for bludgeoning, etc...) and the rest as a reduction in capability to avoid damage.

To smooth gameplay, the amounts are not tracked separately, and the default is to give no penalty for different amounts of damage taken, but the character will certainly have a rough idea how close they are to death and act accordingly.

The allocation of damage doesn't typically result in integer amounts. For narrative purposes, any "hit" at all involves a minor singe, tingle, scratch, or soreness as appropriate. A single hit for twice the characters level or more is definitely a noteworthy burn or cut.

A "simple gritty" version gives a -2 on all rolls if the characters is 'significantly bloodied' (that is significantly injured and at half hp or below) and gives a scar for any significant wound (single blow that causes 2*level of damage).

The optional rules also allow for the two types of hit points to be tracked separately as "wounds and vigor" with different healing options, healing rates, and penalties for each type of damage. This is facilitated by using an app or online tool (and is an option in DnDBeyond, for example)."

This is a slightly different and more formalized version of what I suggested (though just like it, it doesn't do much about the ancillary problems involving things like falling and healing that start to fail the sniff test at some point); it at least avoids the coyness that has dogged D&D hit points throughout the editions, and lets you say something authoritative about what a set of damage means at any given point. I still don't think its a particularly good model on simulationist grounds, but it doesn't fail-out completely.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I think anything we do is going to be a simplification. Whether it's an oversimplification is another matter. So to lean on the example of the boxing match, just AC and HP is an oversimplification. A system that allows for some of the things I listed and other relevant elements of a boxing match may still be a simplification, but likely not an oversimplification.

In fact, I've noted that barring games specifically focused on it, one of the big failure states of a lot of combat systems in games is unarmed combat; you hear a lot of discussion about it regarding wrestling, but often fisticuffs aren't handled much better.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I think a largely untapped design element of 5e would be damage to Hit Dice.

I feel like an attack that in some way reduces Hit Dice would be a cool mechanic, and likely evocative of the kinds of dangerous enemies that had the ability to level drain and similar types of attacks from earlier editions. Or perhaps certain situations like Drowning or Falling would do Hit Dice damage rather than HP. Once you're at 0 Hit Dice, you're in real danger and any additional Hit Dice damage you take would mean you're Dying just as if you'd dropped to 0 HP.

This would give each PC a much smaller resource pool to absorb such attacks. It would give some monsters a really dangerous ability to use. It would make the spending of Hit Dice during a Short Rest a more meaningful decision, and possibly help mitigate some of the criticisms of 5e healing being too strong. It'd open up some new possibilities for spells, feats, and class abilities.

I know it's not the kind of penalty you described above as far as the impact that combat would have on a PC, but it's something I think is an untapped part of the game design.

But... probably not very simulationist.

 

[hawkeyefan]

But... probably not very simulationist.

Not really, no. Although, I suppose if we applied falling damage in this way, it may perhaps simulate a fall better than the current method. But that's such a low bar that I don't know if we can really see a slight improvement there as being a strong simulation.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Not really, no. Although, I suppose if we applied falling damage in this way, it may perhaps simulate a fall better than the current method. But that's such a low bar that I don't know if we can really see a slight improvement there as being a strong simulation.

100%

I think the short version of the arguments I'm seeing is that if you just make up what happens in response to applying the rules, it's not a simulation. It's not that the GM can't make things up for hp loss, frex, but that they have to if they want anything to happen that makes it not a simulation.

 

[hawkeyefan]

100%

I think the short version of the arguments I'm seeing is that if you just make up what happens in response to applying the rules, it's not a simulation. It's not that the GM can't make things up for hp loss, frex, but that they have to if they want anything to happen that makes it not a simulation.

I think that my bar for what is a successful simulation is that it has to accomplish more in some way than the kinds of approximations and/or pure fabrications of other rules.

Meaning if your simulation rule doesn't do more than my rule that I just made up because it sounded like it would be fun, then I don't really see the point of the simulation.

And this is my criticism of most attempts at simulation in RPGs; they most often don't tend to wind up with any "more realistic" outcome than the rules that aren't attempting to simulate the real world.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I think that my bar for what is a successful simulation is that it has to accomplish more in some way than the kinds of approximations and/or pure fabrications of other rules.

Meaning if your simulation rule doesn't do more than my rule that I just made up because it sounded like it would be fun, then I don't really see the point of the simulation.

And this is my criticism of most attempts at simulation in RPGs; they most often don't tend to wind up with any "more realistic" outcome than the rules that aren't attempting to simulate the real world.

I don't think there's a difference here for simulation. Simulation doesn't have to be simulating "reality" at all -- it can simulate genre, or a trope, or something else. I think that you've swapped in "simulating reality" for "simulation" and here, sure, you have a point, but only because you've reduced it to a specific goal for simulation. To whit, I could have a rule that has a strong simulation for magic -- when the mechanic resolves, it tells us exactly what happens in the fiction. This is very much simulation, but not at all realistic.