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

[EzekielRaiden]

There's a difference between trying to simulate something and not caring about simulations but finding out where the drama is.

Yeah, that's where I'm at here, and I actually prefer a bit more narrative in my gaming.

Like I'd say I'm ~50% gamist, ~35% narrativist, ~15% simulationist.

I value, very highly, a balanced and "learnable" game. Those are purely gamist considerations which do not intersect with the other two categories. But part of the value there (only part, but still part) is that I can get the opportunity to tell a satisfying story through gameplay. Some of my favorite mechanics in 4e, 13A, and DW are the ones where performing the mechanic IS the story, and doing the story IS the mechanic--the difference between an instance of a narrative/trope and an expression of a rule vanishes. E.g. the difference between 4e "Lay on Hands" and other editions; in 3e-and-before and in 5e, LoH is just "here's a pool of healing, have fun," while in 4e you must sacrifice your own healing to heal others--and can get REALLY good at healing others if you build for it (e.g. Cha/Con Dragonborn, Knight Hospitaler theme, Hospitaler PP).

But once the game-ability has been satisfied...I'm there for a good story. I want mechanics that will support developing a good story, even if they don't have a clear representation in the world as objectively real entities or processes. Hence why I don't really care that 4e martial daily powers have a limit of 1/day, nor that DW's Discern Realities move can "reveal" that the situation is more dire than previously thought on a -6 (or, with my house rules, that a 13+ can reveal things are better than previously thought.) Hence, also, why I have such problems with secret behind-the-scenes rewrites of monsters or their actions (which causes issues for the aforementioned gamism) but don't have issues with similar actions that are either in the open (and thus gamist) or learnable/established-in-advance (and thus woven into the narrative).

Despite that covering the vast majority of my tastes, though, there's still just a little bit of me that likes some simulationism, treating the world as though it were an extant physical entity running on consistent and (theoretically) universal rules. That's absolutely not the majority of my preference, but more like...the cherry on top, the bit that makes me smile and think "dang, they actually pulled that off." Simulation, for me, isn't the main focus, but rather the final bit of polish you put onto a game that is already (a) a very good game and (b) effective at generating interesting narratives both small and large (e.g. "using Lay on Hands" vs "a year-long arc that culminates with a cynical ally being inspired to seek goodness in the world and leading the charge against a dangerous foe.") If you can get that polish in, GREAT, that's lovely, it elevates a game immensely. But I can attend to that polish myself if necessary. I'd much rather have a very well-constructed game first, then ensure the game engenders or inspires cool stories, then polish it up afterward.

 

[Thunderfoot]

Okay, time to get in trouble... ahem NO RPG SHOULD BE A SIMULATION. waits for rocks, spears, assorted footwear and other projectiles to stop flying No really, they shouldn't be. No amount of fantasy can be simulation because it's 'fantasy'. Now, parts can be simulationist, simulation-like or even simulation adjacent. But anyone who would like to explain how a dragon flies and breathes fire AND can live on an earth like planet in a true simulation of that beast is probably ingesting some illegal substances.

Fantasy does not equal reality and vice versa. Plain and simple. Now as far as rulesets attempting to simulate real world damage, Rolemaster would be the first and only real candidate. RIFTS might be a close second, but there is some 'skid' in the math department, in my opinion, when it comes to that ruleset.

Honestly, a good simulations take every little possibilty into account, and I for one don't want 210 pages of ink describing a single hit point of damage from.every possible combination of factors. Stub toe while falling over boot. Cuts self shaving with dull masonry trowel. etc. That's why the DM's ability to describe a hit or miss can make or break a game session.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Contrast to when we played Stormbringer, and when two half competent swordsmen went at it, the fights took hours - attack, parry, attack, dodge, attack, parry, and so on.

But, even then, it's a pretty shoddy simulation. I'm making up numbers here, but if D&D simulates 0.5% of reality, even the crunchiest of games simulate...2%? Yay?

I believe the reason for playing the more complex games is not that they are better simulations of reality, but simply because one enjoys playing crunchy, complex games.

And, for what it's worth, when I play DragonWood (a very simple card game) with my 5-year-old, we have no problem imagining the battles happening. In my mind they are no less vivid than in any RPG I've played.

 

[Vaalingrade]

You can simulate fantasy genres and tropes.

The trouble comes when people don't know what they're trying to simulate, what should be simulated in order to keep fun the priority, and how deep it's reasonable to simulate.

Like, it all falls down most often because people are trying to simulate mundane Earth circa 1200AD but also dragons and wizards and gods and 15-1600s tech, but also only as far as they personally understand physics and physiology and society with a level of research anywhere between -1 and 0.

 

[Hussar]

There does seem to be a pretty strong theme running here that simulation=realism. It most certainly doesn't. You can certainly have a simulation where dragons fly and breathe fire. That's not a problem. Simulations don't have to explain how that happens. It just does. Just like my example way, way back of a car in a wind tunnel simulation doesn't have to explain where the wind is coming from or even how that car got made.

But, a simulation, once you set the initial parameters, regardless of what those parameters are, has to be able to tell the observer something about what happens once you start the ball rolling. Things like flying dragons and totally fantasy elements aren't really a problem for the simulation. That's just part of the initial parameters. Dragons can fly. End of story. The simulation part comes in when you want to know if you can hit that dragon's wing and alter its flight path. The more detailed the simulation, the more variables you can add, but, if the simulation cannot even answer any questions, then it's not a simulation, it's a game.

 

[clearstream]

No, I still want to focus on heroic events. PCs IMO are ordinary people who get caught up in extraordinary events and through cunning, luck, and skill manage to win the day.

But, as I mentioned, I want those skills and accomplishments to happen through more real-world mechanics and rules that model real-life more accurately. For example, flight speeds in D&D are ridiculously slow given the movement rules for moving and dashing. A hawk has a flight speed of 60, which even with always dashing would be less than 14 mph. Of course, the rule in the DMG would have them only flying 6 mph. Hawks fly much faster than that, even just "cruising" and not trying to fly as fast as they can.

You've got me curious now which systems realistically simulate bird flight, and if they are ones I might enjoy?

Yes, that is an approach but not one I want to do, personally.

Of course. I'm not saying you should, only that to simulate is to simulate something, and we have choice over that. As an immersionist I see that often overlooked about simulation. We normally want the game world to be different, so the question is - in what ways? What matters to us?

Say in one world wings aren't required for flight, only the desire to. That can still be a realistic world on its own terms.

 

[clearstream]

Yeah, that's where I'm at here, and I actually prefer a bit more narrative in my gaming.

Like I'd say I'm ~50% gamist, ~35% narrativist, ~15% simulationist.

Perhaps it's immersionist that is on a par with gamist and narrativist. While simulationist concerns are orthogonal just as mechanistic ones are.

The thread author uses realistic bird flight speeds as an indicator of what they mean to be the sort of simulation-of-real-world that they are concerned with. Accuracy, inaccuracy, or silence on bird flight does not necessarily (and in most cases won't) impinge on gamism or narativism.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

There does seem to be a pretty strong theme running here that simulation=realism. It most certainly doesn't. You can certainly have a simulation where dragons fly and breathe fire. That's not a problem. Simulations don't have to explain how that happens. It just does. Just like my example way, way back of a car in a wind tunnel simulation doesn't have to explain where the wind is coming from or even how that car got made.

But, a simulation, once you set the initial parameters, regardless of what those parameters are, has to be able to tell the observer something about what happens once you start the ball rolling. Things like flying dragons and totally fantasy elements aren't really a problem for the simulation. That's just part of the initial parameters. Dragons can fly. End of story. The simulation part comes in when you want to know if you can hit that dragon's wing and alter its flight path. The more detailed the simulation, the more variables you can add, but, if the simulation cannot even answer any questions, then it's not a simulation, it's a game.

I hope that I have not given that impression with my posts. I understand that a simulation need not conform only to the rules of our own reality. Rather, as I have understood the term, simulation requires that it have rules--whatever those rules are--and those rules are ultimately never violated. The "ultimately" can be important. In our world, Newtonian mechanics were thought to be pretty much infallible for a long time, until we discovered the "deeper magic" of general relativity; so too could a fantastical simulation have rules that seem to be universal and infallible but actually end up being a finite (but commonplace) subset of more general (but rarely invoked or "needed") rules.

In general, though, such "deeper rules" moments need to be very rare and momentous (a point where simulation touches on narrative ideas), otherwise it just feels like the rules are merely ever-evolving guidelines and the "feel" of simulation is lost. As a result, the rules need to either change very rarely (and always with justification) or never change at all--and, ideally, those rules need to either be explained very well up front, or they need to be so intuitive that there is no need to explain them until you run into the few non-intuitive bits.

That is where simulation gets is association with "realism," or rather groundedness, to use my not-quite-identical term. A game (or any medium) that fails to be sufficiently grounded, either by failing to resemble the audience's perception of the real world ("realism") or failing to explain itself sufficiently so we develop an intuitive awareness of its rules, will fail to be a simulation. Even if it is otherwise very good at establishing the chain of material causation (or "more detailed," as you put it), a lack of groundedness is a fatal flaw from a simulation standpoint, and "like the real world" is the low-hanging-fruit of writing grounded things. Hence, in the absence of anything more specific, people will almost always assume that the game stays grounded specifically by resembling the physical world we actually occupy, except in the places where it explicitly doesn't, which will be explained to the reader in sufficient detail.

 

[pemerton]

I believe the reason for playing the more complex games is not that they are better simulations of reality, but simply because one enjoys playing crunchy, complex games.

Are you reporting your own biography here? Or conjecturing about what motivates others?

I played Rolemaster as my principal RPG for nearly 20 years. The reason wasn't that I particularly enjoyed "crunchy, complex games". It was because in RM, the character sheet gave a near-total description of the PC's capabilities (unlike the AD&D PC sheets of that era) and the resolution system - especially the combat resolution system - created vibrant, visceral fiction. I played one session and went out and bought the boxed set, and didn't look back for a couple of decades.

 

[clearstream]

There does seem to be a pretty strong theme running here that simulation=realism. It most certainly doesn't. You can certainly have a simulation where dragons fly and breathe fire. That's not a problem. Simulations don't have to explain how that happens. It just does. Just like my example way, way back of a car in a wind tunnel simulation doesn't have to explain where the wind is coming from or even how that car got made.

But, a simulation, once you set the initial parameters, regardless of what those parameters are, has to be able to tell the observer something about what happens once you start the ball rolling. Things like flying dragons and totally fantasy elements aren't really a problem for the simulation. That's just part of the initial parameters. Dragons can fly. End of story. The simulation part comes in when you want to know if you can hit that dragon's wing and alter its flight path. The more detailed the simulation, the more variables you can add, but, if the simulation cannot even answer any questions, then it's not a simulation, it's a game.

One normal distinction between simulation and game is the absence versus presence of score or goal. Working through your last sentence, you should see that games and simulations are not differentiated by ability to answer questions: both can answer some questions.

Although, perhaps your comment is meant in another way that I could agree with. A simulation has a reference: S is a simulation of R. One value of S is that it can answer questions (make predictions) about R. Another way to put that is that an answer to a question in S ought to be the same as the answer to the parallel question in R. That is a property the OP seeks: answers about bird flight in S are the same as in R.

What I am thinking is

• A game is not distinct from a simulation on the grounds of failure to answer questions.
• A game may be distinct from a simulation on the grounds of lacking or incomplete fidelity to a reference. (For instance not containing answers, or having different answers, to the same questions.)
• A game may be distinct from a simulation on the grounds of having score or goal. (I believe we can recognise some phenomena as RPG that don't have score or goal.)

I proposed another approach, which is to take S to be a simulation of some R. So that answers in S are one's way of knowing that R. I justified that in part by saying - it's all pretend anyway. Pragmatically, given our myriad of aims and finite effort available with which to satisfy them, we cannot satisfy all aims. Further, one value of simulations is the omission of information (the simulation is a simplification that allows us to investigate the phenomena without knowing everything about it, so usually simulations don't map 1:1 to anything anyway.

The approach I suggested is not an exception in cases of normal RPG play, because we do not ask all questions that we could answer about that R, thus incompletely knowing it at any moment. Different participants can have different ideas of R, too. This is all noticeably similar to Baker's intuitions about the uncertainty of knowledge of fictional position and I think arises in similar ways.