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

[MichaelSomething]

Trying to add realism to D&D is a dangerous road that can lead you down dark paths...

 

[pemerton]

Why does the ablation of physical stats not kick in until after combat? (Is there any effect as combat goes on?)

I can't speculate why that was chosen, but its more true than not as it turns out; adrenaline papers over an amazing degree of injury until a person comes down, even things you'd think it wouldn't like broken fingers.

The 1977 edition was not clear on whether or not the consequences of wounds are applied immediately. The 1981 edition resolves the uncertainty as I described.

I don't know why it was done that way - perhaps to make it simpler? Or because of the adrenaline phenomenon Thomas Shey describes? Perhaps two considerations mutually reinforced one another?

From memory, a character who has not been severely injure (two stats at zero) has their stats go to the half-way point between injured value and max value after 10 minutes rest. And this rule was in the 1977 version. Maybe there was a view that tracking the full penalty consequences was not only too fiddly but too punitive?

 

[clearstream]

The system only generates information about the system itself. It's entirely self-referential.

There seems to me another way of grasping your comment here (one that I'm not sure from what followed that you intended.) You might recall earlier I suggested that a simulation has a reference (in the sense of that which it simulates).

Perhaps an RPG is simulationist if

1. it intends our real world as a reference, excluding fictions and beliefs,
2. it is granular and prescriptive enough on all included real-world phenomena that interest us,
3. we find ourselves able to suspend disbelief in respect of the simulation(s) of the included phenomena.

An alternative definition is that an RPG is a simulation if

1. the output of the mechanics of that RPG include granular descriptions of what we must imagine in the fiction
2. "must" means that a reasonable player would have and would need no alternative to imagining what is described
3. we never need to author descriptions on-the-fly

3. is unreasonable of course, as we do need to author descriptions on-the-fly for everything the mechanics don't describe, but I find it quite tricky to say what is going on here. One could say - "as to what the mechanics describe, we need not author fiction" - but that would be true no matter what the mechanics describe.

I think one has to add the two definitions together to get to simulationist. In both cases, there are a lot of subjective variables

• what counts as granular enough?
• what interest us?
• where are we able to suspend disbelief?
• what is our experience of the real world (suppose a person who regularly fights giant ants in chainmail says of Arms Law that it's nothing like that?)
• what if a group has a different idea of what is reasonable?
• why are fictions and beliefs excluded? what about simulationism of cultures and societies (and economics, which might straddle domains)

Maybe you need the first definition to say what descriptions are good? To prevent a nefarious designer replacing all the words in arms law descriptions with things that have nothing to do with meat. "Concussion" becomes "embarrassement" and so on. The model and rules remain exactly the same. (This last has always been a key challenge for me where folk argue for pre-authored descriptions. What if a group dislike, distrust or doubt those descriptions? Do they still say the game is simulationist?)

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Trying to add realism to D&D is a dangerous road that can lead you down dark paths...

Nonsense.

Monotremes are mammals and lay eggs.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I thought about using an aggregate at one point. Add up all your ability scores, divide them by six, and use the result to determine hit points.

I considered this as well, but frankly the average nearly always rounds to +1 or +2 at best, at which point you might as well just choose one or the other and add that static number at each level.

Like I said, even something as simple as adding armor as DR plus a wounds/vitality system goes a long way.

Probably why I always found the d20 SW system the best for d20 (or for D&D at all) the best system.

 

[Krachek]

Ah. While that's interesting in terms of making other things actually contribute to the "non meat points" part of hit points, it still doesn't answer what's going on with a given hit.

I believe that it’s when you state that hit points are full of simulation flaws that you can use it wisely to run a game. If you are confident that hit point are a realistic solution to handle fight that will lead you to endless conflict and frustration.

It is the job of the DM and the players to continually fill the hole opened by the flawed rules of the game. Otherwise if both are continually pin point the flaws and break in the simulation it will collapse every session.

 

[Oofta]

So it seems we've devolved into the old "HP sucks" argument. I guess it was inevitable.

My take? Either a game tracks damage and location with appropriate penalties or it does not. While I don't have wide experience with TTRPGs, I have played a wide variety of video games. The only games I can think of that track detailed damage* are for vehicles - whether you're piloting some traditional vehicle like a space ship with shields or piloting a mech. With Mech Warriors for example you could lose the use of a missile bank or have various components overheat and become unusable.

Every FPS I've ever played from Doom on only has HP. Occasionally when you get low enough your vision goes red or something, but it doesn't really make a difference because it's just an indicator.

So ... you have 1 case where damage specifics matter because it has an immediate impact on game play. In every other case, it's ignored because HP only tracks one thing: are you capable of fighting back. Basically the games track damage and you less capable of fighting which can lead to death spiral or it's a mere flesh wound or out of the fight.

Which has been kind of my point. A death spiral can be interesting challenge, but most games don't implement it because it's extra overhead and isn't as much fun for most. Tracking damage specifics if it has no mechanical impact doesn't add any real value to the game, it just adds overhead so we leave it up to the group. Want to describe wounds because it adds to immersion or tone? I do this sometimes, especially for monsters. But I wouldn't want the overhead of a system telling me this and I can imagine how complex it would need to be to be "accurate".

I don't want a death spiral ala Mech Warrior because it would add so much complexity. So is HP simulation? I don't really care. Does it tell me anything? Of course it does, just not "fluff" that some people insist is necessary. What level of fluff would do it? How accurate would a simulation have to be to be considered a simulation? Why does it matter?

*Yes, I'm sure there are exceptions for games that I've never played. Aiming at specific location such as the head can lead to more damage, but it's still just generic damage.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The system only generates information about the system itself. It's entirely self-referential. You cannot look at the information generated and use it in any way, other than within the system itself. Initiative has no actual narrative meaning unless you think that everyone just stands around with this sort of weird stop start action. It's a game artifact. Conditions are kind of information, but, are generally only information inside the system. After all, how do I knock a snake prone? Prone is a condition. What, exactly, is radiant damage? Why does electrical damage not cause burns? So on and so forth.



Again, and I keep coming back to this, it's not a difference of vague information vs large amounts of information. It's a difference between small amounts of information and none at all. The 5e combat system doesn't generate any information that isn't self-referential. Even things like "being closer to death" doesn't have any actual meaning. What does "being closer to death" look like? Feel like? How do you narrate that I am now 10% closer to potentially dying. Note, that even being knocked down doesn't mean that I'm dying. I might, true, but, I also might stand up next round with 1 HP without any outside intervention.

IOW, any narration you make can be immediately contradicted.

It's not hard to make a system that is actually somewhat more simulationist. Like I said, even something as simple as adding armor as DR plus a wounds/vitality system goes a long way.

Armor as DR and a wounds/vitality system are on my homebrew bucket list.

 

[Micah Sweet]

This is very much at odds to how I observe the game being played. Initiative is how promptly and decisively everyone acts. It takes facts from and inserts facts into the fiction. We don't envision stop/start action, but we do envision that the Alert character is very prompt and decisive.

I think many RPG's will feel empty of content if we choose to say nothing at all other than what is pre-authored.


Sure, all simulations have edge cases. Occasionally we fight snakes. Very, very rarely someone lands something on one that should apply the prone condition. If it's a giant snake rearing up over the party that might matter: GM guides the group. If tracking burns is important to your game - sure - but where is the tracking for my mussed hair? I have to know I'm still presentable even mid-fight.

I'm teasing but also, you choose burns I choose hair. Surely if lacking what you want means not counting as simulationist, then lacking what I want should count the same. Or if not, why not?


All simulations only generate self-referential information. That is the only possible information they are able to generate. It is always up to the recipient of that information to do the rest (to decide how to interpret and act on it.)

They has said this several times. The problem isn't what information is lacking, but that all information is lacking. Simulation requires some amount of what you refer to as "pre-authoring", or its not simulating anything. You and your group are simulating the combat, after its all over and you can create a narrative.

 

[clearstream]

They has said this several times. The problem isn't what information is lacking, but that all information is lacking. Simulation requires some amount of what you refer to as "pre-authoring", or its not simulating anything. You and your group are simulating the combat, after its all over and you can create a narrative.

Sure. That's why I proposed that an RPG is simulationist if

1. it intends our real world as a reference, excluding fictions and beliefs,
2. it is granular and prescriptive enough on all included real-world phenomena that interest us,
3. the results of the mechanics of that RPG include granular descriptions of what we must imagine in the fiction,
4. we find ourselves able to suspend disbelief in respect of the results and descriptions of the included phenomena
5. a reasonable player has and needs no alternative to imagining what is described

This puts the burden on the game system to supply descriptions as output along with numbers, but I think we want to go further than that. I think we probably want to say that the descriptions shape future choices and resolutions otherwise they're empty fluff, which we might as well provide ourselves.