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

[Hussar]

I'm actually rather curious. Maxperson, what definition of "simulation" are you using? AFAIC, for a simulation to actually be a simulation, it has to describe what is happening during the event that is being simulated. So, if I'm playing a computer flight simulator game, I know exactly why I crashed into the ground, for example.

But, D&D combat doesn't do that. It's abstract. The only thing D&D combat tells you is that opponents are alive or dead, and that's about it. For example, PC A attacks Monster B and rolls a modified roll high enough to hit the monster. The monster takes 10 points of damage. What happened in the fiction? Again, IMO, you could narrate what happened a million different ways.

Now, using the mechanics of the game, prove it. Prove that your interpretation of what happened actually happened that way. After all, a simulation should be able to tell you exactly, or at least even approximately what happened. But, D&D has never actually allowed you to do that. Did you hit the target? Did the target simply get scared? Did the target shift back and twist an ankle? Where did you hit the target? Etc. Etc. None of these questions get answered by the D&D combat resolution mechanics.

So, in what is being simulated here? How is this any different than me playing Mario Kart to determine if I landed the plane in my flight simulator game?

 

[Shasarak]

Why would you even roll initiative in that case? Just have both guys roll their attacks. Only if both hit and you want to know for some reason who got in the killing blow do you have to have an initiative contest.

Usually most fights do not involve 2 creatures. As you said, why would you even roll initiative?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

But the sort of thing I have in mind is the sort of thing @Saelorn is saying contradicts RPGing. Eg both the mechanical capabiliities of the paladin character reflecting not just the mechanical causal processes he participates in, but the actions and oversight of his mistress; and then the capacity (by non-pre-scripted narration) to build up a larger fate/destiny based story on top of that.

Fate and destiny contradict the notion of free will, within the game world, in much the same way that they would if they existed in real life (which is not a topic for this board, so let's ignore that obvious rabbit hole). Where a game is supposed to be a series of meaningful decisions, those decisions are no longer meaningful if the DM is (for example) actively framing the party into a scene.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Double-post :-/

 

[Shasarak]

But, D&D has never actually allowed you to do that. Did you hit the target? Did the target simply get scared? Did the target shift back and twist an ankle? Where did you hit the target? Etc. Etc. None of these questions get answered by the D&D combat resolution mechanics.

If nothing else at the very least you can use DnD mechanics to find out if you hit or not.

 

[Hussar]

If nothing else at the very least you can use DnD mechanics to find out if you hit or not.

But, again, what does that actually mean? We can't even know if that actually makes physical contact. Never minding what kind of physical contact. Did you hit his shield? Did you hit his leg, arm, torso? What?

Never minding a miss as well. What happened when I missed? Why did I miss?

Did I clang off his shield, dealing minor damage, or did I clang off his shield dealing no damage? The system doesn't tell you anything. It's all pretty much free form.

There are tons of systems out there that actually do tell you what happened in the fiction. AFAIC, that's what a simulationist system is supposed to do. It's supposed to tell you what happened during the simulation. If it doesn't, then it's not a simulation.

 

[Shasarak]

But, again, what does that actually mean? We can't even know if that actually makes physical contact. Never minding what kind of physical contact. Did you hit his shield? Did you hit his leg, arm, torso? What?

Never minding a miss as well. What happened when I missed? Why did I miss?

Did I clang off his shield, dealing minor damage, or did I clang off his shield dealing no damage? The system doesn't tell you anything. It's all pretty much free form.

There are tons of systems out there that actually do tell you what happened in the fiction. AFAIC, that's what a simulationist system is supposed to do. It's supposed to tell you what happened during the simulation. If it doesn't, then it's not a simulation.

What do you mean we dont know if it makes physical contact? That seems like a strange place to get caught up at.

As for where you miss, I have found it relatively easy to describe by looking at the roll and the targets defenses or reflexes to narrate if the attack was foiled by the armour or by the creature getting out of the way of the attack or just by your poor attack in general.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

It still doesn't make it even remotely simultaneous. To be simultaneous, you'd have to have each individual roll initiative every round, then with each square moved, every other creature on the field would be able to react, and then react to the reactions, and so on. You wouldn't be able to move and attack, since that would take too much time and people could react to your movement before you could attack. A 3 creature combat would take hours. A 20 creature combat would take days.

It's waaaaaaaay too slow to run a combat as simultaneous. Any system that claims to do so is lying, and what they are doing is giving you a non-simultaneous system that is closer than D&D.

You seem to be using "simultaneous" to mean "non-discretized; analog".

Sent from my SM-G355M using Tapatalk

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Usually most fights do not involve 2 creatures. As you said, why would you even roll initiative?

Even with more than two creatures, you don't have to roll initiative, especially if it leads as you say to one guy standing around feeling useless. Just say "you hit him for 20 points of damage and I hit him for 18 and now he's dead." You don't need to know who went first.

In about 50% of the combats at my table running AD&D/Speed Factor-ish initiative, it's unnecessary to ever actually roll initiative. I think this it's why they invest more in Int than Dex, because you ALWAYS need to declare an action but you seldom need to win initiative.

Sent from my SM-G355M using Tapatalk

 

[Maxperson]

I'm actually rather curious. Maxperson, what definition of "simulation" are you using? AFAIC, for a simulation to actually be a simulation, it has to describe what is happening during the event that is being simulated. So, if I'm playing a computer flight simulator game, I know exactly why I crashed into the ground, for example.

But, D&D combat doesn't do that. It's abstract. The only thing D&D combat tells you is that opponents are alive or dead, and that's about it. For example, PC A attacks Monster B and rolls a modified roll high enough to hit the monster. The monster takes 10 points of damage. What happened in the fiction? Again, IMO, you could narrate what happened a million different ways.

Now, using the mechanics of the game, prove it. Prove that your interpretation of what happened actually happened that way. After all, a simulation should be able to tell you exactly, or at least even approximately what happened. But, D&D has never actually allowed you to do that. Did you hit the target? Did the target simply get scared? Did the target shift back and twist an ankle? Where did you hit the target? Etc. Etc. None of these questions get answered by the D&D combat resolution mechanics.

So, in what is being simulated here? How is this any different than me playing Mario Kart to determine if I landed the plane in my flight simulator game?

Simulataneous =/= simulation. D&D combat is not a simulation. Nor is it even remotely simultaneous.