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

[pemerton]

As with all action heroes the PC's damage is cosmetic until it's not.

And in what way is that a modelling of an in-fiction causal process that yields relatively determinate fiction? What you've stated here is exactly what makes it not a simulationist mechanic.

 

[pemerton]

We don't need to invoke Schroedinger here. It's enough to say that the fiction hasn't been established yet. That's something that non-simulationist mechanics allow for - the deferral of authorship until we get more information out of the resolution process.

Though there can be problems even from other POVs if it takes too long.

I think that this is an interesting question - how long can authorship be deferred without the supposed RPG turning into something more like chess? My feeling is that it's quite contextual - eg if the details of authorship are being deferred, but in the meantime the resolution process is providing some fairly generic colour and a sense of pacing and anticipation/release, then maybe the waiting can be quite a bit.

If what goes on while we wait is essentially a whole little minigame/boardgame which is cognitively intense but basically fiction-free, then maybe there's a problem!

I think D&D generates a fair bit of colour, with its different weapons and damage dice and (in more recent versions) damage types and so on. So I don't think the length of deferral is, in itself, an issue.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I think that this is an interesting question - how long can authorship be deferred without the supposed RPG turning into something more like chess? My feeling is that it's quite contextual - eg if the details of authorship are being deferred, but in the meantime the resolution process is providing some fairly generic colour and a sense of pacing and anticipation/release, then maybe the waiting can be quite a bit.

I think I was more talking about the fact some decision making is done at the wrong part of the process if the mechanics force that.

An example I've seen multiple times is when a character (PC or NPC) goes down in a system and a check to see if they're dying or dead is not done until the end of the combat. Someone attempting to apply first aid during the combat kind of needs to know the answer to that question fairly immediately, not when its all over (of course it can be the system assumes first aid takes long enough its not combat relevant, but that isn't a given in any particular system). Even if the result is "dead" it can bring up questions of "if they were treated promptly, would they actually be dead?"

If what goes on while we wait is essentially a whole little minigame/boardgame which is cognitively intense but basically fiction-free, then maybe there's a problem!

I think D&D generates a fair bit of colour, with its different weapons and damage dice and (in more recent versions) damage types and so on. So I don't think the length of deferral is, in itself, an issue.

What I'm talking about is probably not relevant with D&D necessarily anyway, but I've seen it come up elsewhere.

 

[pemerton]

From examples like this, it feels like simulationist isn't a quality games either have or don't have.

Post 192, upthread - which was mostly in reply to you:

BW uses the trappings of classic simulationist RPGs for PC build. The PC sheet would warm the cockles of a RM player's heart! The Lifepaths are amazing. As a player, you can see the internal causal logic of the system manifesting in the process of building your PC. The contrast with PC build in (say) 4e D&D, or Agon, or even Prince Valiant, is striking.

<snip>

But actual play of BW is not simulationist at all! There is a superficial illusion of simulation in the rules for setting DCs, and for building a dice pool (if artha are ignored); but as soon as you get to the rules for narrating failures, and the rules for using or awarding artha, it becomes evident that these key drivers of play do not have any sort of goal of modelling in-fiction causal processes.

The Riddle of Steel is similar in many ways, which is why it's fitting, and not coincidence, that Norwood wrote the Foreword for more recent editions of BW.

Traveller PC build is, like BW's, highly simulationist - the lifepath process models the unfolding of the character's career. We get aging, and the notorious survival checks. (Yes, these also serve a risk-vs-reward function, but that doesn't stop them being part of the causal modelling, like RM's fumble rules.)

The combat is similarly simulationist, although light on the details of injury (swooning/lightly unconscious, in a coma, dead) and (like BW, interestingly) adopting armour-as-defence-buff as opposed to RM's and RQ's armour-as-damage-reduction.

But non-combat resolution is a mix. The patron encounter system can be understood and applied in a simulationist spirit, and so can the rules for writing computer programs. But the rules for chases (found in the Air/Raft skill entry, I think), for encounter avoidance, and for using vacc suits without incident - just to pick a few examples - are much closer to AW-style "moves" than to processes for modelling in-fiction causal processes. They set parameters around who can say what, but they don't tell us what has happened in the fiction. Someone has to make it up - usually the referee by default, though Traveller is pretty open to player input.

And from post 325:

There is an additional point to think about though too. When someone says this or that system is a simulation, I doubt they mean 100% of the game. There are all sorts of fuzzy, grey areas in between.

And in reply, post 329:

Right. I've given examples of this upthread: manoeuvring in a vacc suit, in Traveller, is not resolved in a simulationist fashion. Nor is using Streetwise to find a corrupt official. In Rolemaster, PC build is not simulationist in the way it is in BW or Traveller (lifepaths) or RQ (cultures and occupations).

In Burning Wheel, although PC build is simulationist, and setting obstacles for action resolution is, framing and narrating failure - which together drive the game - are not.

So the notion that "simulationism" is a property first-and-foremost of game procedures - PC build, action resolution, GM-side/setting-and-framing content introduction being the main three - seems to be an accepted premise in the thread.

I still can't help feeling there is something more to it. Some fundamental design intent that games might be differentiated on.

I think Ron Edwards did a reasonable job of identifying it here, under the heading "Internal cause is king":

Consider Character, Setting, and Situation - and now consider what happens to them, over time. In Simulationist play, cause is the key, the imagined cosmos in action. The way these elements tie together, as well as how they're Colored, are intended to produce "genre" in the general sense of the term, especially since the meaning or point is supposed to emerge without extra attention. It's a tall order: the relationship is supposed to turn out a certain way or set of ways, since what goes on "ought" to go on, based on internal logic instead of intrusive agenda. Since real people decide when to roll, as well as any number of other contextual details, they can take this spec a certain distance. However, the right sort of meaning or point then is expected to emerge from System outcomes, in application.​

Traveller is able to aim at this, despite its vacc suit and chase rules, because those don't sit at the core of the system. Or to flip it around: someone like me, who looks at the vacc suit rules as one of the strongest of the Traveller subsystems, is coming to the game looking for a less-than-fully-sim experience. (Which it can support, with some very minor changes to how the world map is generated.)

And here, Edwards quotes a lengthy passage from Maelstrom Storytelling, about how to frame scenes in terms of thematic/dramatic intent, and that includes the following remarks:

If the players enjoy the challenge of figuring out how high and far someone can jump, they should be allowed the pleasure of doing so - as long as it doesn't interfere with the narrative flow and enjoyment of the game. . . .

Players who want to climb onto your coffee table and jump across your living room to prove that their character could jump over the chasm have probably missed the whole point of the story.​

And Edwards then remarks, "I can think of no better text to explain the vast difference between playing the games RuneQuest and HeroQuest."

The ethos of simulationism is internal cause is king - we resolve the jumping of the chasm by (i) knowing how wide the chasm is, (ii) knowing how far a person can jump, and then (iii) comparing (ii) to (i), perhaps with some randomisation if appropriate. The ethos of HeroQuest and Maelstrom is that we resolve the jumping of the chasm by (i) setting a difficulty that reflects the dramatic stakes of the story, then (ii) applying some resolution that reflects how much the character is committed to overcoming those stakes, and (iii) narrating appropriate colour - including, perhaps, widths of chasms and puissance of thews - that reflects the outcome generated by applying (ii) to (i).

Hit point loss in D&D is fundamentally a measure of what has been staked rather than what in-fiction causal processes have occurred.

 

[DND_Reborn]

All of this reminds me of a thread I started a short time ago, about getting rid of the attack roll.

When an attack is made, you respond to it, expending energy to avoid it via parry, dodge, or whatever. Even if someone misses you all the time, you aren't just standing there, right?

So, is there no loss of hit points because the attack was literally so ineffective you really didn't spend any effort avoiding it? Or, just maybe, it flat-out missed you?

RAW, we have critical hits on a natural 20, and an always miss on a natural 1. I know some people have asked for damage, even on a miss, and it makes me wonder if something like the following might be a good way to go:

• Natural 1: clean miss, no damage.
• Less than AC: ineffective attack, minimum damage (no roll).
• AC or greater: effective attack, roll damage normally.
• Natural 20: solid hit, maximum damage (no roll; instead of double dice).

This way, even a string of poor luck will allow the wearing down of an opponent.

I would add this caveat: If you are reduced to 0 hit points from an ineffective attack (did not succeed in reaching your AC), you do not fall unconscious. Instead, other options open up: morale breaks, spend HD to gain hit points immediately, fatigued or some other condition, etc.

It would speed up combat a bit for groups you want it to go faster as well.

Just a thought...

EDIT: If Less than AC seems too much to always be dealing minimum damage, maybe Under 10 is a clean miss, and 10 or higher but less than AC would be a better option...

 

[clearstream]

Hit point loss in D&D is fundamentally a measure of what has been staked rather than what in-fiction causal processes have occurred.

Starting here, yes on first reading I think I agree with you there. Vexingly, that doesn't prevent D&D hit points also being placeable along a simulationist axis.

I think Ron Edwards did a reasonable job of identifying it here, under the heading "Internal cause is king":

Thank you. I've read parts of that before. Seems about time to read the whole thing.

In Simulationist play, cause is the key, the imagined cosmos in action.

The way I understand this is that we have an imagined cosmos (what I have called a reference) and we expect our processes to correlate with it. We have a model that should be a collection of properties we attribute to the reference, and rules that should tell us how to translate from the model to outputs or updated states articulating behaviour we find plausible for the reference. The term "imagined cosmos" is interesting, because for me it suggests we anticipate the mechanics collectively to represent something more than they do individually. Jumping alone doesn't imagine a cosmos in action.

Where this all runs into problems for me is "internal cause is king". I read "the relationship is supposed to turn out a certain way or set of ways, since what goes on "ought" to go on, based on internal logic instead of intrusive agenda." Very well, let's consider D&D hit points in that light. Foremost, I want to establish that to be simulationist is not to satisfy Jo's idea of a cosmos or Addy's idea of a cosmos: it is to satisfy an idea of a cosmos. Addy might not be satisfied by the simulation of Jo's cosmos, feeling it goes off in entirely the wrong direction and has interests, assumptions, world-things that don't fit what Addy wants to see. But Addy preferring Addy's idea of a cosmos does not deny Jo just as much right to prefer Jo's idea of a cosmos.

Setting aside a normative judgement of what is an allowed cosmos, I think we must be open to any cosmos as a reference. A far future cosmos with unproven technologies is one such cosmos -

... the players' enjoyment comes from identifying with the character and vicariously experiencing the situation with that character, just as the reader of a novel and the viewer of a movie identify with the character ...

Or perhaps it is the technologies of science-fiction books and movies that are being thought of, without real concern as to proven?

I eventually realised that the text @DND_Reborn located is an important part of the descriptive component of the output of the D&D hit point mechanic.

DESCRIBING THE EFFECTS OF DAMAGE Dungeon Masters describe hit point loss in different ways. When your current hit point total is half or more of your hit point maximum, you typically show no signs of injury. When you drop below half your hit point maximum, you show signs of wear, such as cuts and bruises. An attack that reduces you to 0 hit points strikes you directly, leaving a bleeding injury or other trauma, or it simply knocks you unconscious.

Hit points represent a combination of physical and mental durability. the will to live, and luck. Creatures with more hit points are more difficult to kill. Those with fewer hit points are more fragile.

Restructuring this game text to make the instruction clearer

1. Following the basic approach of D&D, DM's are reminded of their power to make things suit themselves and their group.
2. If after decrementing HP the remainder is half or more, there are no signs of injury. The number on the dice is the amount of will to live or luck depleted.
3. If after decrementing HP the remainder is less than half, narrate signs of wear, such as cuts and bruises.
4. If after decrementing HP is reduced to 0, narrate a direct strike leaving trauma.

So the mechanic is a single pool, with clear thresholds for a specified narration, remembering of course that all D&D rules are subject to DM fiat. Jo finds themselves disliking this cosmos as a reference, but it is still a cosmos.

It's not a cosmos that matches our real world other than in passing: which opens the door to saying that to be simulationist a game must match our real world more than passingly. I think that raises doubts over a world like Glorantha.

Glorantha was created by its deities from the Primal Void of Chaos. At first, there was no history, for the initial creation formed the period of magic and timeless simultaneity called God Time. During this time, all the world was populated with the beings and races of the Golden Age.

Jo thinks Glorantha is a reasonable alternative-Earth. Addy finds it preposterous, except if taken to be not-our-real-world. Not even an alternative-Earth. For Addy, Glorantha is a product of processes too ridiculous to be taken as anything but a frank fiction... but if it's frank fictions one is thinking of, then let me introduce you to the heroic cosmos of D&D!

This goes around and around. It's not that you aren't making excellent points. It's perhaps that I am asking an ontological question and you are asking a normative one. Possibly you would say that normally the heroic cosmos of D&D can't be accepted and isn't intended as a reference for plausible causes of an imagined cosmos. The pre-authored descriptions may seem far too sparing, and like everything in D&D too subject to DM override. (But then one has to ask, is it DM override that prevents a game being simulationist to any degree? I'd suggest not.) The fact is though, that there are pre-authored descriptions, they are consistent, cause can be traced through the mechanic, and it represents an heroic cosmos that someone could have in mind as a reference.

 

[Campbell]

Here I look at design intent. Are designers trying to model either a real world process or an already existing fiction? Sure. It is possible for the tail to wag the dog and construct a somewhat consistent fiction from game mechanics that were designed with gameplay in mind first. That's basically just post hoc justification though.

There's nothing wrong with a game designed to be a game first and foremost. The best iterations of the game embrace that. Just because someone makes a distinction between different sorts of games that does not mean they are making some sort of argument that one game should change to be more like the other. Design is fundamentally about tradeoffs. To gain in one area you often have to lose in another. Different games have different strengths and weaknesses. This is a good thing. It means we can have all sorts of gaming experiences.

 

[clearstream]

Here I look at design intent. Are designers trying to model either a real world process or an already existing fiction? Sure. It is possible for the tail to wag the dog and construct a somewhat consistent fiction from game mechanics that were designed with gameplay in mind first. That's basically just post hoc justification though.

That's very much what I am getting at. We can appeal to characterisations of games by people. There's nothing wrong in doing so and it is useful for many purposes such as the OP's.

It's not the same as an ontologically distinct category of game, with features that games outside it can be categorically denied possession of.

There's nothing wrong with a game designed to be a game first and foremost.

If I can share my feelings candidly, I wish we wouldn't keep reiterating this as if it were at issue. It's certainly not salient to the argument I've been making. Games valued as simulationist aren't lessened by their failure to have ontological distinctness.

Design is fundamentally about tradeoffs. To gain in one area you often have to lose in another. Different games have different strengths and weaknesses. This is a good thing. It means we can have all sorts of gaming experiences.

I couldn't agree with you more, but again this is answering a doubt that hasn't been raised. Just because design involves tradeoffs, doesn't mean that simulationist game systems are categorically distinct. It's back to Wittgenstein's family resemblances. There's no one quality that makes a game simulationist, but we can recognise games with some preponderance of qualities as simulationist. Design intent alone isn't enough, for example.

 

[DND_Reborn]

If I can share my feelings candidly, I wish we wouldn't keep reiterating this as if it were at issue. It's certainly not salient to the argument I've been making.

Nor has it had anything to do with the points I've been making. D&D is perfectly fine for what it is.

To say making it more simulationist or less would make it better or worse is purely subjective. It would (obviously by now) be my preference, but I certainly hope no one has taken that to mean I expect the feeling to be anywhere near universal. In fact, I am fairly certain I have acknowledged that my position is against the grain for what most players expect or want out of D&D.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I couldn't agree with you more, but again this is answering a doubt that hasn't been raised. Just because design involves tradeoffs, doesn't mean that simulationist game systems are categorically distinct. It's back to Wittgenstein's family resemblances. There's no one quality that makes a game simulationist, but we can recognise games with some preponderance of qualities as simulationist. Design intent alone isn't enough, for example.

"Categorically distinct" is not, I think, a useful term here. When I use a term like "simulation" in referring to a game, I'm referring to its primary intent and apparent design. As I've noted, it is very difficult (and questionably desirable) for a game to be all the way over on one axis. But you can look at what a game is doing, and apparently trying to do. And that can still convey useful information.

What it can't do, is present a value judgment, except from the perspective of people who consider simulationist/dramatist/gamist to be values by themselves (which there are absolutely people who do, but the very first development of these terms in an RPG was by people trying to make a point that there was value in all three (even if a good part of them treated gamist like the red-headed stepchild), just to different people to different degree). Edit: I know you've indicated this is not your issue here, but I do think its been an undertone of some responses in this thread.

I honestly think a good part of resistance on this question is either from people who (for whatever reason) really want D&D to be able to wear the hat of "simulation" whether it seems to fit or not, or who consider other people saying it doesn't as doing so as a backdoor criticism of it (even though there have been multiple people in this thread who made it clear that they don't consider that particularly a criticism).

(As I've noted, fairly few modern games are particularly simulationist, in part because a preference in that direction has never been that common and shrank over time (I'd speculate it correlates slightly to the diminished percentage of heavy wargamers in the hobby compared to early on. One could question that by noting that the strongest presence of simulation-heavy games took about five or so years to start to land, but I think that had to do with the relatively minimalist tendency of most of the earliest RPGs), so that there's simply not that much of a market for it as compared to the other two wings and combinations thereof).