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

[The-Magic-Sword]

First, my apologies if my response set the wrong tone! My point was simply that how big a dragon is depends on the game/source material, as does how hot its breath might be.

But, as for your sources they are just that--a couple variants/options. For the 5E DMG, a 10x10x10 hunk of solid rock might average 27 hp, but could have up to 50, and would be resistance to fire, doubling it to up to 100, which an ancient Red Dragon might be able to destroy... But you don't really know because 5E is too abstract. How does the AC fit in, combined with the hp? I can't assume every large object made of wood, stone, iron, and adamantine all average 27 hp... I suppose I could, but that is very unrealistic IMO.

For Game of Thrones---never saw it, but I'll take your word on it.

Finally, magic does "break reality" as it is meant to do. And "magic" armor probably wouldn't melt, although you could be roasted alive inside it... Also, my goal isn't to make D&D more realistic, but to find a game which already does so. If I did want to just keep hacking away at D&D, I would agree most people would probably get something like the CON in hp and never a point more.

If your goal isn't DND may I suggest you post outside of Enworld's Dungeons and Dragons board, and without a DND General tag? This is definitionally the one place where its off topic.

 

[DND_Reborn]

If your goal isn't DND may I suggest you post outside of Enworld's Dungeons and Dragons board, and without a DND General tag? This is definitionally the one place where its off topic.

But I have gotten many suggestions with some explanations as to why I might like those games.

And (frankly) this is the only RPG board I am on. I know many people here have experience with other systems, so it seemed like a good place to start. I didn't mark this as a (+) thread, so personally I don't mind D&D advocates voicing their opinions on it, and sometimes those insights offer me a new way to look at a game I've played and loved for over 40 years.

As I examine some of the suggestions and learn more about them, I'll probably go to message boards about those games to learn more--but I had to start somewhere.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

But I have gotten many suggestions with some explanations as to why I might like those games.

And (frankly) this is the only RPG board I am on. I know many people here have experience with other systems, so it seemed like a good place to start. I didn't mark this as a (+) thread, so personally I don't mind D&D advocates voicing their opinions on it, and sometimes those insights offer me a new way to look at a game I've played and loved for over 40 years.

As I examine some of the suggestions and learn more about them, I'll probably go to message boards about those games to learn more--but I had to start somewhere.

No I mean, Enworld has a TTRPG General, you dont have to leave enworld to post in the right place.

 

[DND_Reborn]

No I mean, Enworld has a TTRPG General, you dont have to leave enworld to post in the right place.

LOL I know, I meant that as well. But this particular forum is where I go anyway--so like I said I might as well start somewhere.

 

[Oofta]

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.

Wouldn't be my cup of tea, but I think the explanation helps.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Wouldn't be my cup of tea, but I think the explanation helps.

Oh, I certainly don't expect the idea to appeal to many, but hopefully it did help.

 

[Hussar]

There are two reasons for which your reasoning here is improper:

1. You have an unreasonable expectation of what a simulation means. If you really expect this, no TTRPG will ever bring you the amount of narrative that you want. Even Runequest, which will tell you that out of a 9 points blow to your leg, 3 will be absorbed by your armor, and the remaining 6 will hit you so hard that your leg is disabled and you cannot stand on it, but it's not severed or permanently incapacitated, even then you will not have the narrative of where the blow actually struck, what damage it did do, are tendons severed or not, is bone fractured, etc. And it will not differentiate between a crushing blow from a mace, a slash from a sword, or a stab from a spear unless it's a special blow, and will not differentiate with the same wound received from a spell like Disrupt. There are more realistic "real world simulation" than D&D, but there are also many very successful games that are way less detailed and a lot more abstract, they are all simulators of something, but there are various levels, D&D is somewhere in the middle of simulation but it does not make it better or worse than other games. There are games which are way more abstract but they all simulate something, with more or less details, just like flight simulators from 30 years ago were much less detailed than the ones that we have today, but they were still simulators. As for your simulation of the car in the wind tunnel, it can similarly be more or less detailed, but even a high level one is still a simulator, just not as precise a one as something with 3000000 cells.

But, I'm not talking about precision. I'm talking about answering any questions AT ALL. Like you said, Runequest tells me in pretty decent detail, where that attack hit and what the effects of that attack are. D&D cannot even tell me that you hit anything. It cannot tell me that you even connected with the target. So, it's not a question of more vs less detailed, it's a question of actually providing ANY detail whatsoever. Which D&D in no way actually provides any detail. You cannot take the results that the mechanics give you and give any narration that is actually supported by those mechanics. You lost five HP because flowers magically sprouted from your arm is an equally valid, under the mechanics, narrative as a hit to the leg.

1. You are mistaken about what D&D simulates. It does not simulate reality, it simulates fantasy worlds where wounds are very rarely detailed and are usually shrugged off in a few moments because the cinematic of the genre and its consumers demand it. See an example below.

D&D is a very good simulation of the genre book/movies. For example, when Aragorn goes over the cliff and falls unconscious, he realistically would have died from his injuries, but even if he did not, he would have taken weeks to be even slightly operational again. Instead, after looking weak until his horse takes in to Helm's Deep, and looking vaguely tired during the talks, he fights all night as if nothing had happened, and is even more impressive at dawn than before. This is what D&D simulates, without any level of detail, bur frankly, who the hell cares about the details of Aragorn's injuries when everyone expects - and indeed it happens - that with a short rest he will be fighting at 100% all night ?

Which is fair enough. I agreee that it doesn't simulate our reality. Simulation does not equal simulating our reality. My criteria for simulation is that the mechanics MUST inform the narrative. If the mechanics do not, in any way, inform the narrative, then it's not a simulation. It really doesn't matter how detailed. It does matter if there are any details at all.

 

[Hussar]

So, having written high energy physics simulations for research (which I mention to give context, not to claim authority over simulations, in general), I have to disagree with you. Simulations can be, and often are, constructed to give you results like the real world (the "what") without giving you accurate information about the underlying actions that bring the results about (the "how").

Indeed, when a simulation does tell you how something happens, that is usually because you already have a theoretical model, and you built the simulation to test if that model to see if it then produces the expected results.

D&D doesn't have a theoretical model underlying it, so it won't tell us how the world operates. It will only tell us the results of that operation.

Mind you, I also am not a fan of "it is a simulation, we just don't know what it is simulating" take on it - that seems to reduce the term "simulation" to meaninglessness. By that logic, the mug of tea I'm drinking is a simulation, too.

Fair enough. I did think that saying how in my post was also offset by my also mentioning that we aren't told anything about what is happening either, but, I wasn't clear enough.

A simulation has to tell you ANYTHING about what is being simulated. Is that a fair thing to say? If a simulation doesn't actually provide any information whatsoever, is it still a simulation? Since D&D actually provides zero information most of the time (outside of living/dying I suppose), can we still call it a simulation?

 

[Cadence]

Fair enough. I did think that saying how in my post was also offset by my also mentioning that we aren't told anything about what is happening either, but, I wasn't clear enough.

A simulation has to tell you ANYTHING about what is being simulated. Is that a fair thing to say? If a simulation doesn't actually provide any information whatsoever, is it still a simulation? Since D&D actually provides zero information most of the time (outside of living/dying I suppose), can we still call it a simulation?

HP loss is still non-zero information isn't it? It says how close to death the player is - it just doesn't tell the player how they have to choose to narrate it.

A miss is still non-zero information, isn't it? It says that whatever happened didn't even tax your reserves or health at all.

 

[Hussar]

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.

But, it is a useful thing to be able to categorize, even if the categories are a bit fuzzy.

I would differentiate between a video game like Halo and Civilization. 4X games tend to lean pretty hard into simulation territory since each instance of play begins from a small kernel and then expands using a set of specific rules. And, everything along the way is visible to the player. I can tell you what happened in a 4X game much easier than in a FPS. You could argue that an FPS is a simulation game, but, most people aren't going to think about it that way.

I find that most people who are trying to argue that D&D is a simulationist game have a very strong agenda to try to gatekeep the game and ensure that the game stays "pure", separated from mechanics where the fact that D&D isn't a simulation of anything becomes highlighted.