D&D 5E Do NPCs in your game have PHB classes?

[pemerton]

I don't think that you know what a simulation actually is, if you honestly expect anyone to buy into that. Any simulation is restricted to finite resolution

The issue with turn-by-turn initiative is not "finite resolution". It is the treatment of every person's movement and action as causally discrete - insulating each from the effects of the rest - when the most salient feature of the actual in-fiction situation is that these things are occurring more-or-less simultaneously and are able to affect one another.

Consider character A whose turn comes first in the turn order. Suppose that s/he movesso that s/he escapes the fireball, although s/he only leaves the AoE on her last 5' of movement. At least notionally in the fiction, the fireball is cast sometime in the same 6 seconds but not in the last 1 of those seconds - especially if, after casting the spell, character B then moves his/her full movement. So how did that work?.

This is not abstraction or simplification of causal processes. It's not actually modelling the causal processes at all. Again, contrast 1st ed AD&D's initiative rules which actually do have some process-sim elements (in the rules for spell interruption and simultaneous weapon attacks).

Sure, and you could also play in Discworld, if you really want to. Don't expect anyone to take the game seriously, though.

Well, the only people I need to take my game seriously are my players. And happily, they do!

But if you think a game cannot be serious in which providence, hope, effort, etc are factors in action resolution, I find that very odd. How else do you expect events like Wormtongue throwing the palantir out of Orthanc, or extraordinary accomplishments like the three companions running across Rohan to rescue their friends, to take place in a game?

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

But if you think a game cannot be serious in which providence, hope, effort, etc are factors in action resolution, I find that very odd. How else do you expect events like Wormtongue throwing the palantir out of Orthanc, or extraordinary accomplishments like the three companions running across Rohan to rescue their friends, to take place in a game?

I don't think you can have a game in which Providence is taking an active role, comparable to its role in Lord of the Rings. You can have a fun story, but I don't think you can have a meaningful game because too much is happening off-screen without the players' knowledge.

My experience is that monotheism + divine providence makes for good lives and boring games. In games we seek out tension, in life we do the opposite. That's why people hate DMPCs.

 

[pemerton]

I don't think you can have a game in which Providence is taking an active role, comparable to its role in Lord of the Rings. You can have a fun story, but I don't think you can have a meaningful game because too much is happening off-screen without the players' knowledge.

My experience is that monotheism + divine providence makes for good lives and boring games. In games we seek out tension, in life we do the opposite. That's why people hate DMPCs.

But the whole point of fate/inspiration/etc is that you don't need a DMPC. The players choose when their PCs' hopes are rewarded, when providence is at work, etc.

You don't need to keep fate secret, either. I think it works better when it is overt, and the consequence of the players' own choices for their PCs. (That means you can't know the fate of the game at the start of the campaign; I think that's a good thing, myself.)

For an example of what I have in mind, consider this actual play post, which shows how fate and providence are part of my 4e game without needing DMPCs or any sort of railroading. (4e doesn't have literal fate points, but it has other mechanics that more-or-less take their place.)

 

[Maxperson]

The issue with turn-by-turn initiative is not "finite resolution". It is the treatment of every person's movement and action as causally discrete - insulating each from the effects of the rest - when the most salient feature of the actual in-fiction situation is that these things are occurring more-or-less simultaneously and are able to affect one another.

Consider character A whose turn comes first in the turn order. Suppose that s/he movesso that s/he escapes the fireball, although s/he only leaves the AoE on her last 5' of movement. At least notionally in the fiction, the fireball is cast sometime in the same 6 seconds but not in the last 1 of those seconds - especially if, after casting the spell, character B then moves his/her full movement. So how did that work?.

This is not abstraction or simplification of causal processes. It's not actually modelling the causal processes at all. Again, contrast 1st ed AD&D's initiative rules which actually do have some process-sim elements (in the rules for spell interruption and simultaneous weapon attacks).

Combat being run the way it is is a necessary evil. You can still run a sim game with turn based combat, since if you didn't, you'd be running no game at all, or at least a game with no combat in it ever.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

But the whole point of fate/inspiration/etc is that you don't need a DMPC. The players choose when their PCs' hopes are rewarded, when providence is at work, etc.

You don't need to keep fate secret, either. I think it works better when it is overt, and the consequence of the players' own choices for their PCs. (That means you can't know the fate of the game at the start of the campaign; I think that's a good thing, myself.)

For an example of what I have in mind, consider this actual play post, which shows how fate and providence are part of my 4e game without needing DMPCs or any sort of railroading. (4e doesn't have literal fate points, but it has other mechanics that more-or-less take their place.)

From examining your play report, I see now that don't seem to be talking about anything even vaguely similar to the actions of Providence in Lord of the Rings. Your play report seems pretty straightforward. I agree that you can have a fun game that works the way your play report seems to; but I was talking about something else involving an omnipotent, omniscient offscreen player in the game who causes your actions have different effects than you initially expect them to. E.g. Frodo "should" have died, by game logic, and Sauron should have won, because Sauron was playing the game better than Frodo... but not better than Iluvatar.

What I get out of your play report is that you're using the Nice Job Breaking It Hero trope, which isn't really anything to do with providence or fate as far as I can see.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Combat being run the way it is is a necessary evil. You can still run a sim game with turn based combat, since if you didn't, you'd be running no game at all, or at least a game with no combat in it ever.

Or a game with non-turn-based, simultaneous-resolution combat. You know, like AD&D.

 

[Maxperson]

Or a game with non-turn-based, simultaneous-resolution combat. You know, like AD&D.

Never happened. AD&D was turn based. You got your initiative and went on your turn. You did nothing else until then, except watch 20 goblins all move one at a time, 10 orcs all go and do things one at a time, and the rest of your party do what they were going to do, you guessed it, one at a time. There was no simultaneous.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Never happened. AD&D was turn based. You got your initiative and went on your turn. You did nothing else until then, except watch 20 goblins all move one at a time, 10 orcs all go and do things one at a time, and the rest of your party do what they were going to do, you guessed it, one at a time. There was no simultaneous.

That's not how the 2nd edition PHB described the game, and not how I played. Esmerelda is casting spells at the troll while Rudolph the half-elf is shooting his bow over the head of the dwarf who is charging, etc.

 

[Maxperson]

That's not how the 2nd edition PHB described the game, and not how I played.

I don't care how they described it. How it really worked was turn based. Otherwise it would have been impossible to split up and avoid being hit by the fireball the wizard you all beat on initiative was casting. I would also bet very good money that you used initiative and everyone took their turns in the proper order, and it wasn't a chaotic free for all with everyone moving and attacking simultaneously. Which, unless you did that, meant you used turn order and not simultaneous combat.

Esmerelda is casting spells at the troll while Rudolph the half-elf is shooting his bow over the head of the dwarf who is charging, etc.

You can justify however makes you feel good, but it's a fact that the two orcs who beat you on initiative could move a full 12" and block the exit that was 2" from your character before your character could do squat. That would be impossible if combat was simultaneous. In a simultaneous combat, everyone would be able to react to every inch of movement from everyone else as it happened and not have to wait until someone else was done moving.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I don't think you can have a game in which Providence is taking an active role, comparable to its role in Lord of the Rings. You can have a fun story, but I don't think you can have a meaningful game because too much is happening off-screen without the players' knowledge.

You can bring off-screen action to the table (via a 'cut scene' for instance), you just need players who are OK with compartmentalizing what's revealed /and/ appreciate the perspective, and probably a whole table dynamic that's more collaborative-storytelling-oriented (so, more player decisions driven by 'story,' for instance).

My experience is that monotheism + divine providence makes for good lives and boring games. In games we seek out tension, in life we do the opposite.

Can't exactly offer the rousing success of Christian RPGs as a counterpoint.

Combat being run the way it is is a necessary evil. You can still run a sim game with turn based combat, since if you didn't, you'd be running no game at all, or at least a game with no combat in it ever.

IMHO, 'simulation' and 'game' are very much at odds. You can't use Grand Theft Auto to predict crime waves, you couldn't move very many units of NASA Global Climate Modeling for the PS/4. The point of a good game is to fun, and if at all competitive, it helps to be fair to all players. Neither is a prerequisite for a good (accurate) simulation.