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

[Thomas Shey]

That and the diagonal movement complaints are part of why simulationism gets a reputation of making games unnecessarily more complex.

That and 3e.

I'd say that has more to do with D&D being a generally poor shell to hang a simulationist approach on in the first place. OD&D, for all of Gygax obsession with minutia in some places, is gamist as all hell is a schematic way, and many of the elements that made it so have carried down ever since.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I think you're going to just have to take our word for it that's not at least the only reason here, or you've just decided to engage in Internet Telepathy.

Yeah, my wording was poor. Maybe what I should have said is, “More complexity still doesn’t make it a good simulation, so if that’s your goal it’s not going to succeed. But there are other perfectly good reasons for enjoying more complex games.”

 

[clearstream]

Again, there is a very large difference between "This simulation is very vague and doesn't supply much information" and "This system supplies no information at all."

I think we can't really say that 5e supplies no information at all. It supplies information, if perhaps not the information desired. You mean something more like the latter, right?

[EDIT Too complex a discussion to start right now!]

 

[Thomas Shey]

Yeah, my wording was poor. Maybe what I should have said is, “More complexity still doesn’t make it a good simulation, so if that’s your goal it’s not going to succeed. But there are other perfectly good reasons for enjoying more complex games.”

I think I'm still going to have to disagree; while complexity, per se, doesn't ensure a good simulation, at least its more likely to produce consistency than ad-hoc solutions with lighter games, and consistency is, if not everything in a good simulation, at least an important thing.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I think I'm still going to have to disagree; while complexity, per se, doesn't ensure a good simulation, at least its more likely to produce consistency than ad-hoc solutions with lighter games, and consistency is, if not everything in a good simulation, at least an important thing.

I’m guessing you mean consistency in a way other than what I think of, because it seems to me that system complexity leads to less consistency. The simplest systems are the most consistent. What am I missing?

 

[Thomas Shey]

I’m guessing you mean consistency in a way other than what I think of, because it seems to me that system complexity leads to less consistency. The simplest systems are the most consistent. What am I missing?

Since I don't understand your response (more complex games generally require less ad-hoc decisions both in resolution and output IME) I don't know quite how to respond to this.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Since I don't understand your response (more complex games generally require less ad-hoc decisions both in resolution and output IME) I don't know quite how to respond to this.

Ah, I see. Yes, I can agree that in simple games more is left to GM adjudication, which can then be inconsistent. I was thinking about consistency not in the application/interpretation of rules, but in the rules themselves.

In a mechanically simple RPG like Dungeon World, a fighter does 1d10 damage and a thief does 1d8. (I may have the numbers wrong; it's been a long time.). Very consistent.

Or in Quest, which is even simpler, all weapons do 2 damage, except improvised weapons and unarmed do 1 damage. Even more consistent.

In D&D...with only low to moderate complexity...all of the sudden different weapons do different damage, supposedly balanced by other pros and cons, and all of the sudden everybody complains and argues about how illogical some of those rules are.

So my claim is that as game rules get more complex, perhaps in an attempt to more accurate simulate reality, more apparent contradictions are going to arise. That's the kind of consistency I was referring to.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Ah, I see. Yes, I can agree that in simple games more is left to GM adjudication, which can then be inconsistent. I was thinking about consistency not in the application/interpretation of rules, but in the rules themselves.

Well, I'm not convinced a more complex game is necessarily inconsistent even within the context of the rules. There certainly can be ones that are (Powers and Perils, I'm looking at you), but games like, say, most BRP derivative strongly stick to the same approach within their context.

In a mechanically simple RPG like Dungeon World, a fighter does 1d10 damage and a thief does 1d8. (I may have the numbers wrong; it's been a long time.). Very consistent.

Or in Quest, which is even simpler, all weapons do 2 damage, except improvised weapons and unarmed do 1 damage. Even more consistent.

In D&D...with only low to moderate complexity...all of the sudden different weapons do different damage, supposedly balanced by other pros and cons, and all of the sudden everybody complains and argues about how illogical some of those rules are.

Well, often that's because, honestly, they may claim to simulation but what they're really about is a vaguely simulationist looking structure that's actually super-gamist. I'm not allergic to some compromises here, but you should be aware that's what you're doing (Hero System melee weapons make some accommodations to not having a very limited number of weapons being a Winning Way, and don't really have the setup where some weapons only make sense during some periods, but the kinds of benefits a weapon has do tend to show some resemblance to the benefits you'd expect for similar weapons--picks being armor piercing for example). The kicker is if you get far enough down the road to paying attention to game benefit, any notable simulationist concern falls by the wayside (13th Age being a poster child here).

So my claim is that as game rules get more complex, perhaps in an attempt to more accurate simulate reality, more apparent contradictions are going to arise. That's the kind of consistency I was referring to.

As you can see, I don't think there's anything intrinsically true about that. I think you see it a lot because what the more complex rules are serving is not a simulation agenda, but a game one. But that's not a necessity in complex rules, its just the fact that at the end of the day, a simulation agenda is not a common one; probably never was, and has become even more so over time. I'd say I can count the number of games that are focused meaningfully on simulation (remembering I peel genre emulation off elsewhere) that came out in the last two decades on the fingers of one hand, and most of them are pretty obscure.

 

[dave2008]

Something like this would be my answer as well if I cared. Maneuvering in battle is far different from just cruising around at "I need to get from point A to point B" speed.

Then again, it's an oddly trivial thing to me to care about. If I cast animal messenger and it really matters how fast that hawk can travel, I'll google the flight speed of a hawk. When it comes to creatures that couldn't fly without the aid of magic, I care even less. I don't assume that combat rules apply in all situations.

I think it is best modeled by traits. I was fairly athletic. In HS I ran a sub 2 min half-mile and was consistently one of the fastest players on the soccer field. However, my max speed topped out at 12-15 mph. Usain bolt hits 22+ mph. That is huge difference and it is not even taking into account the "common" person. I just don't think there is any simple way to simulate that without specialized traits.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I think it is best modeled by traits. I was fairly athletic. In HS I ran a sub 2 min half-mile and was consistently one of the fastest players on the soccer field. However, my max speed topped out at 12-15 mph. Usain bolt hits 22+ mph. That is huge difference and it is not even taking into account the "common" person. I just don't think there is any simple way to simulate that without specialized traits.

Enter the Athletics skill (and preferably a decent/high Strength score...).

That is the difference. Not everyone is trained in Athletics, or has Mobile to gain +10 speed, etc. Most sprinters (especially at the college level and higher) are fairly strong and would have a good or better Strength score as well.

And even the "common" person can "run" (sprinting is a different issue IMO), even if not for long.

The simplest solution (for a starting point anyway) is to have "Dash" add double your speed to your movement for the turn, effectively making a speed 30 creature able to move 90 feet. Honestly, even that is a bit slow but something most "common" people can probably do. That would translate into about a 22-second 100-meter run. It is sort of fast, but not really compared to anyone who can actually "sprint".

Next, allow skills to grant variable boosts like they used to. For instance, a DC 10 Strength (Athletics) check might increase your Dash multiplier from x2 to x3, allowing you to move 120 feet (remember to add the original 30, which I included). DC 15 would be x4, for a total of 150, DC 20 is x5 for 180, and DC 25 is x6 for 210 total. At 210, you are basically Usain Bolt. Without Athletics proficiency and a decent Strength score, you aren't likely to make those higher DCs. If they seem too low, bump them all up by 5 even.

Add in a condition or two, like difficult terrain imposes disadvantage on the check, or perhaps a very smooth area would grant advantage instead, and you have a feasible system.

For PCs, with feats and features, they could perform better than real-life, but for a fantasy game I think most people would expect that at some point.

@dave2008, FWIW I ran in high school and college as well, but my longest event was the 1/4-mile (which frankly, I hated doing when I had to!).