D&D 5E Is the Real Issue (TM) Process Sim?

[Balesir]

The past couple of days have seen some threads on "the meaning of life - and the end of it" in D&D. The topics raised have included "Damage on a Miss" and "The Nature of Hit Points", but several folk have commented (and I agree) that these don't really nail the underlying issue. Note that I say "issue", not "problem"; the latter assumes that something or someone is "wrong", and I'm not convinced that is the case. But to business...

Reading through (as much as I could bear of) the Damage on a Miss "debate", the strident demands (as opposed to the simple statements of preference) being made seemed to hinge on an underlying assumption: that the game mechanical system should dictate not just the outcome of an adjudicated action, but also the in-game-world process by which that outcome came about. For instance, if "damage" was to be caused, then that will be because an in-game "sword swing" must have "hit" the creature taking "damage", or otherwise some similar eventuality must be described by the system to justify in in-game-world terms why and how that "damage" arose.

Now, if one is making a CRPG I can see that this argument is valid; at the end of the game mechanical process you have to generate a physical depiction (on screen or whatever) of what happened. The swinging sword must either impact upon the target or it must not. But tabletop RPGs don't work the same way.

Let's look at what does happen in a TTRPG. The system generates some result - lost hit points or whatever it might be. The system may also present some cues concerning how this result came about. And then - here is the critical bit - each player generates a picture in his or her own imagination of what exactly has happened in the game world.

No physical depiction of the action has been generated at all. The "movie scene" of what just happened exists only in the minds of the players playing the game - and those movies will all be different in minor or not-so-minor ways. No system, however detailed or stringent, will ever control completely the imaginations of the players as they generate their personal pictures of what has happened in game. This is a key point to understand, because it points to the reason and purpose of the game rules and mechanics.

Now, let's consider the degree to which a system defines the "how" of what happens in game.

Not defining the "how" at all seems immediately to be problematic, for two reasons. Firstly, it gives the players no clues at all about how to envision the scene - it presents a totally blank canvas (which begs the question why we are playing this game as opposed to any other). Secondly, and perhaps more seriously, it gives no clear guidance concerning the implications of the result of the outcome generated by the mechanics. It runs the risk of failing to communicate key features of the outcome that are due to the nature of the process that generated that outcome.

At the other end of the scale, defining in huge detail the process that leads to the outcome - for instance, detailing the exact path of the sword and evaluating its capability to pierce armour and skin, to slice flesh and break bones and determining which blood vessels it severs as it passes through* - generates at least two problems. Firstly, the sheer effort and volume of words required to write such a system for the majority of action types involved in even a quite focussed roleplaying game would be quite prohibitive. Secondly, the more detail is given about the process, the more likely it becomes that some players - especially players with knowledge pertinent to the subjects treated by the rules systems - will find the systems' outcomes hard to believe. Plausibility actually suffers with too much definition of process. As an example, talk of "swinging swords" and the very idea of such a thing as a hard divide between a "hit" and a "miss" are things that make no sense to me given the level of knowledge I have of medieval swordsmanship. Tell me an outcome and I can imagine a plausible route to that outcome no problems, but tell me about "misses" being so poorly directed as to "swoosh over the target's head" and I'm wondering what the bejeezus these guys are playing at.

So, given that these two ends to the scale are problematic, we are dealing with a point somewhere in the middle. It's similar to the "meat-to-chutzpah" scale for hit points in this sense - the ends of the continuum make no sense, so we pick a point in the middle. But that middle is a big place.

I pointed out above that TTRPG systems don't have to produce a physical representation of the action they adjudicate. No animation or similar representation is generated. That removes the neccessity for detailed process descriptions - but some folk nevertheless like them. This is, I think, the real difference of taste at issue, here. All that the actual play of a TTRPG requires is sufficient detail of outcome that clashes between what the players severally imagine to be the current situation in-game are minimised. This should be the baseline minimum any game system undertakes to provide. How much detailing of the process that leads to that outcome is provided is an aesthetic choice, but we should be aware that some players who like and even need that sort of thing will read such detail in apparently incidental words - let alone in such action-specific words as "hit" and "miss". The use of such words will be taken by some (many?) as the provision of process detailing, even if none is intended; such use ought, therefore, either (a) be avoided or (b) be used in such a way that they do, indeed, detail a process that is being dictated by the system.



*: Just as an aside, yes, I do know of a system that actually did this...

 

[ExploderWizard]

The age old debate of simulation vs abstraction is forever muddied by those who want both to exist simultaneously. These processes are like oil and water and don't mix well.

The roots of D&D are in abstraction. IMHO so long as we want to leave the core assumptions of the game intact then abstraction should be fully embraced. This means that HP are kind of nebulous and that an "attack" roll is NOT a swing of a weapon per se. This also means doing away with 2 "attacks" simply because one is holding two weapons. If an "attack" is not mapped to a swing then it follows that allowing 2 "attacks" due to the presence of 2 weapons is sheer folly. This is, by the way, the point at which many who argue for the vagueness of HP want to get off the abstract bus. They want their cake and eat it too. They want an attack to map to a specific swing yet DON'T want damage from that attack to be mapped to that attack!

Abstraction and simulation are like karate as described by Miyagi. Walk abstract side of road-good, walk simulation side of road-good. Walk middle of road <squish!> just like grape.

 

[billd91]

I think you're doing a little conflating lack of abstractness with process simulation issues here. The issue I'm seeing, and that I think forms a significant contrast between players like me and pemerton (who has been known to point out process simulation as an element of how I describe my preferences) isn't the level of detail. I don't and have never had an issue with how detailed D&D combat is or isn't with respect to misses and hits. That's all part of the narration. What I see is the issue is the issue of root causality. What caused the PC to damage his target? He successfully hit the target number with his check - it doesn't matter exactly how he did so. The axe may have connected with the target's body and drawn blood, it may have hit his shield hard enough to cause pain, it may have glanced off the armor or shield but the target's ankle buckled under the strain. In any event, the task required to achieve the result was met. On the flip side, if the PC failed to achieve the target number for success (and, let's be honest, this could be many other game systems other than D&D, including Call of Cthulhu, Champions, Villains and Vigilantes, etc), he failed to achieve the conditions necessary to ablate the target's hit points. Maybe the target deflected the blow safely with his shield, maybe it glanced off the armor without injuring the target, maybe it was a clean miss because the target dodged effectively or the attack was ill timed. We can hash that out in the narration, no problem. The point is the root causality is contained within the event itself and can, often, be affected in the future. If the attack failed to cause damage, it was insufficient to the task of doing so. What can I do to make it sufficient in the future?

Here's where I see where I and pemerton differ the most - the success or failure is owned by the acting player (whether via the PC or an NPC). He is the source of the causation and, knowing that, can act on it in a rational way. If in a fight, can he come up with a tactic to give him a better chance at the attack? Maybe he can - that's up to him to find it. In a skill check, whether he is pursuing a foe on horseback or trying to engage the local ruler for help with his diplomatic skills, success or failure is because his attempt was sufficient or insufficient to the task at hand - not because some outside complication, uncontrolled and uncontrollable by the character, intervened. The example I'd bring up here is rain starting up and spoiling the diplomacy attempt. Any attempt to rationalize the cause of the failure is obscured because the chain of causality is irrational. There's nothing the PC can do in that situation to improve on that skill check - no lesson to be learned from the mistake. No alternative tactic other than "I guess I'll try on a sunny day" that can be taken away from that situation. The player's ability to predict the outcome of his actions becomes obscured and so does his ability to make meaningful choices.

So it's not really a question of the system producing a specific or unspecific level of detail. It's the system preserving the causality of the player doing something, observing the result, and understanding how the character got from point A to point B.

That's my general view. There are exceptions to the approach - saving throws being the most prominent I can think of that get really weird. But then saves have, as far as I'm concerned, always been a (near-)miraculous, last ditch attempt to save one's self from an otherwise unavoidable negative effect (not simply a defense to be hit).

 

[DEFCON 1]

For me... the answer is simple. It is impossible to reconcile a genuine representation of actual weapon fighting with a game mechanic that will actually be fun for a predominant number of TTRPG players.

Two armored sword fighters going at it will usually block/parry/block/parry/block/parry until finally someone actually makes contact weapon-to-flesh. That contact will either be a superficial wound because the attack was mainly stopped by the armor or dodged... or that contact will knock the person out of the fight almost immediately (either by killing him or causing a wound so devastating that the person is in so much pain that they cannot carry on.)

So in terms of hit points and game mechanics... to "realistically" represent it, the combat should really be miss/miss/miss/miss/1 HP damage/ miss/miss/miss 2 HP damage/miss/miss/1 HP damage/miss/3 HP damage/ miss/miss/miss/75 HP damage!-- unconscious or dead.

But almost no D&D player would want to play a game like that. A whole heap of non-contact or superficial wounds until finally WHAM! the guy takes a sword to the abdomen spilling his guts out. The few that did? They probably wouldn't even be playing D&D... they'd be playing something like The Riddle of Steel (where that kind of swordfighting tries to be better represented.)

So to try and process sim any game mechanic to a narrative is not going to be functionally correct. There will always be issues, problems, and absurdity. And if you think there isn't, you are voluntarily ignoring all the reasons people can give as to why they don't align on a 1 for 1 basis.

Games are games. There are mechanics we interact with to try and complete whatever the mechanic is asking us to do. And in most cases, a descriptive or narrative story is layered on top of those mechanics in order to make the mechanics seem a little more interesting and allow for interesting design of the game space. Chess would still be chess if the pieces were just blocks called "Short piece", "Straight Piece", "L Piece", "Diagonal Piece", "Tall Piece", and "Capture Piece"... but way back when they decided to fluff the game up by describing it as a representation of combat on the field of battle. Kings, Queens, Knights, Castles, etc. etc. But nobody believes that's how Knights actually move. The mechanics and the story do not align on a 1 for 1 basis. Likewise... moving a piece across a gameboard and landing on someone's blue space does not actually mean you are paying someone rent for stopping in front of a hotel they own. Sure... the game has layered this "real estate acquisition" story on top of the game's mechanics... but its entirely superficial.

So expecting Dungeons & Dragons to actually accomplish it-- marry game mechanics to the description and narrative so that every single aspect of the entire game makes "absolute sense" and is "realistic"... to me is utterly ridiculous. It cannot be done. There will always be absurdity and "abstraction". So just accept it and enjoy the game mechanics for what they are. And if parts of the game mechanics don't do anything for you... then just go ahead and change them or not use them. It's no big deal if you do!

 

[am181d]

So in terms of hit points and game mechanics... to "realistically" represent it, the combat should really be miss/miss/miss/miss/1 HP damage/ miss/miss/miss 2 HP damage/miss/miss/1 HP damage/miss/3 HP damage/ miss/miss/miss/75 HP damage!-- unconscious or dead.

This can be modeled by separating HP into damage capacity and vitality or story points that are burned to dodge, parry, or grit teeth to shrug off damage. Once of my big disappointments with 4e is that it didn't grab the HP split from Star Wars.

Obviously the problem for implementing is how you handle spells and other effects (like poison) that would need to be rewritten to balance with an approach like this.

 

[DEFCON 1]

This can be modeled by separating HP into damage capacity and vitality or story points that are burned to dodge, parry, or grit teeth to shrug off damage. Once of my big disappointments with 4e is that it didn't grab the HP split from Star Wars.

Obviously the problem for implementing is how you handle spells and other effects (like poison) that would need to be rewritten to balance with an approach like this.

But see... even that's not enough to even get close to "process sim". Because we still completely skip over the psychological impact of combat in D&D.

Try to visualize actually getting shot in the chest. Or having your arm cut off. The pain and suffering of experiencing and going through that brush with death. Now visualize someone coming over and completely healing you of that wound... to the point that you jump up, travel 50 down another corridor and experience that exact same excrutiating pain and agony AGAIN as you run into another band of orcs and lose "damage points".

And in D&D, this stuff happens ALL THE TIME. Every dungeon trek involves getting injured in all kinds of horrific ways... ways that make the Saw films look like Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure... and every single PC just shrugs off each and every incident after being healed by a cleric to do-si-do through the dungeon again and again to the very end. And D&D PCs do this every - single - day. For YEARS. And not once do any of these characters think "You know... maybe being burned alive like that wasn't really worth the 500 copper pieces I found." Would you want to be burned alive every couple hours as part of your job to earn a living? I don't think so. You'd quit. After the first or second time. And yet, our PCs don't.

And yet you want to tell me that D&D combat in any form can be considered "realistic"? Please. It is ALL FANTASY. Every single bit of it. There is absolutely NO REALISM to the combat or the life around combat of Dungeons & Dragons whatsoever. So to get hung up on individual rule bits is to miss the forest for the trees.

 

[Mercurius]

Some good points here. I think [MENTION=7006]DEFCON 1[/MENTION] explained it really well and points out the inherent concerns with trying to take a process sim approach to D&D - its like Zeno's arrow: it may get closer to the target, but cannot possibly get there. To quote Seinfeld, "not that there's anything wrong with that!" But the problem is, the more specific you get - the more you veer towards simulation - the more you are confined by that simulation.

D&D has always been a game that different groups, especially DMs, can make their own. That's part of the fun of it, and something I think Mearls & Co are trying to really emphasize with Next - which is a nice "return to tradition" from the last couple editions. But they're largely doing it by keeping a certain level of abstraction, that is not getting too focused on simulation.

There are some assumptions either spelled out or implied by the RAW, hit points being a primary example. I personally don't see a valid argument that Hit Points are "meat." Perhaps some of them are meat, but at most it is something like the Constitution score, and perhaps not even that. One could argue that the "meat-portion" of HP must inherently be equal to or less than the lowest maximum damage for a weapon, that a critical hit by any weapon should be able to kill any humanoid. As soon as the maximum damage of a well-placed punch cannot kill another human-sized creature, then it gets into the abstract; it is more than just meat. So what is that, a few HP?

So HP represents more than meat - and this isn't just "my take." This is how the rules have been written since the early days of the game and it is implied by the rules themselves - weapon damage, the lack of deleterious effects from lowered HP, etc. HP are an abstraction, and the game rules as a whole are an abstraction; they refer to the game itself, which is an abstraction, not to life, nor even to the narrative of the game. In a way we could say that an RPG has three separate, but relating domains: real life game table with players and DM; the rules themselves; and the interactive narrative or story, aka "theater of mind." They are completely separate, but relate with each other. But the point is that the rules don't refer to the real world or the theater of mind; they are an abstraction that adjudicates action within the latter.

I think where some folks get into trouble is by trying to deny this necessary aspect of the game, of any game. Even the most simulationist game is going to have some level of this. I would even suggest that, as tempting as it is, as soon as we start introducing more simulative elements like Body vs. Vitality Points, or Bloodied, we end up moving away from the core of the game as it is written and played by most. HP are open-ended enough so that DMs can individualize them.

If we want greater definition it may be that any damage before 0 HP is relatively minor - bumps and bruises, minor cuts - and anything below 0 HP requires medical attention. This means Damage on a Miss actually makes sense - within the context of the game itself - because it implies that a two-handed weapon always, unless a natural 1 is rolled I presume, causes some kind of harm. I mean its easy to justify: Imagine swinging a great axe and even if it is blocked, it jars the opponent.

But my point is that we don't need to go there, and as soon as we go there we end up with (potential) problems. By keeping HP abstract, there is more freedom to decide, as individual DMs, what is going on in the theater of mind.

 

[Balesir]

I think you're doing a little conflating lack of abstractness with process simulation issues here. The issue I'm seeing, and that I think forms a significant contrast between players like me and pemerton (who has been known to point out process simulation as an element of how I describe my preferences) isn't the level of detail.

If that is what you got from my post then my bad - I must have explained insufficiently well (or it rained at the wrong time ).

What I'm drawing a distinction between is the outcome - however detailed or otherwise it might be - and the process that got there. In a TTRPG the system needs to define the former - defining the latter is a matter of taste.

By way of example: a detailed outcome might be "the target of the assault has a Minor Blunt Contusion to the left calf and a Major Cut wound to the left shoulder causing a Minor level of bloodloss; furthermore, the target's shoulder armour has sustained a Major level of damage and they are dazed for one Impulse of time". This has detail, but it doesn't relate the detailed outcome with the actions of the attacker in detail. The actions of the attacker may simply have been described as "he made an attack", and the resolution system to get to the outcome may not have even used concepts such as "hit", "miss", "strike" or such like. The way that the wounds eventuated may be entirely open for interpretation.

I don't and have never had an issue with how detailed D&D combat is or isn't with respect to misses and hits. That's all part of the narration. What I see is the issue is the issue of root causality. What caused the PC to damage his target? He successfully hit the target number with his check - it doesn't matter exactly how he did so. The axe may have connected with the target's body and drawn blood, it may have hit his shield hard enough to cause pain, it may have glanced off the armor or shield but the target's ankle buckled under the strain. In any event, the task required to achieve the result was met. On the flip side, if the PC failed to achieve the target number for success (and, let's be honest, this could be many other game systems other than D&D, including Call of Cthulhu, Champions, Villains and Vigilantes, etc), he failed to achieve the conditions necessary to ablate the target's hit points. Maybe the target deflected the blow safely with his shield, maybe it glanced off the armor without injuring the target, maybe it was a clean miss because the target dodged effectively or the attack was ill timed. We can hash that out in the narration, no problem. The point is the root causality is contained within the event itself and can, often, be affected in the future. If the attack failed to cause damage, it was insufficient to the task of doing so. What can I do to make it sufficient in the future?

Let's break this down. What you seem to require here is that one part of the resolution system - the "success roll" - forms the divider between "the character's action had some effect" and "the character's action had no effect at all".

If we are looking at the resolution system simply as a process to get an outcome, that makes no real sense at all; it seems arbitrary and somewhat puzzling.

If, on the other hand, we assume that this one particular part of the resolution process - the success roll - maps directly onto some key action (or inaction) that forms part of the in-game process by which the character does or does not achieve results, then it makes perfect sense. In other words, this requirement demands (or at least appears to demand) that there is a direct correspondance between elements of the game mechanical resolution process and the in-game actions that the game mechanical process is being engaged to resolve. This is "process sim". The elements of the game mechanical resolution process define specific elements of the in-game process that results in the outcome resulting from the resolution.

There is nothing wrong with process-sim - some folk like it, others don't - but it unequivocally is not neccessary for TTRPG rules.

Here's where I see where I and pemerton differ the most - the success or failure is owned by the acting player (whether via the PC or an NPC). He is the source of the causation and, knowing that, can act on it in a rational way. If in a fight, can he come up with a tactic to give him a better chance at the attack? Maybe he can - that's up to him to find it. In a skill check, whether he is pursuing a foe on horseback or trying to engage the local ruler for help with his diplomatic skills, success or failure is because his attempt was sufficient or insufficient to the task at hand - not because some outside complication, uncontrolled and uncontrollable by the character, intervened.

That strikes me as somewhat idiosyncratic, but fair enough. Presumably, then, by this and your explanation of "saving throws" further down, the targets of weapon attacks and seduction/persuasion effects should get saving throws, too? After all, happenstance evasions of such things are far from unheard of. Although, I guess, this could simply be the extreme end of genre simulation, where the genre is TV and movies (where happenstance failures seem to be far rarer than in real life - I guess they go along with visiting the bathroom and getting cramps...)

The example I'd bring up here is rain starting up and spoiling the diplomacy attempt. Any attempt to rationalize the cause of the failure is obscured because the chain of causality is irrational. There's nothing the PC can do in that situation to improve on that skill check - no lesson to be learned from the mistake. No alternative tactic other than "I guess I'll try on a sunny day" that can be taken away from that situation. The player's ability to predict the outcome of his actions becomes obscured and so does his ability to make meaningful choices.

I guess I'm thinking "so what?", here. That's how life is.

So it's not really a question of the system producing a specific or unspecific level of detail. It's the system preserving the causality of the player doing something, observing the result, and understanding how the character got from point A to point B.

I'm confused here as to whether we're talking about the player or the character. Some conflation in play might be acceptable (and even desirable, in some play styles), but in discussions about the game (and especially about game rules) it's simply confusing. Is it the character or the player that is supposed to be drawing rational inferences, here - and why?

 

[Dausuul]

To me, there is a fundamental disconnect here: The idea that "simulation" must result in a narrative that can withstand in-depth examination. I don't think that's what most players and DMs are looking for. Rather, the goal is mechanics that quickly and simply produce a narrative that's good enough to pass muster in the heat of the game.

Hit points are a perfect example of this. Everyone knows that the hit point mechanic falls apart on close inspection. You can dive down a rabbit hole of corner cases and oddities that demonstrate its absurdity. But for generating a quick and dirty narrative, hit points are perfect. They are a simple, clear, easily understood metric for "How beat-up am I?" When you get hit, you're wounded and lose hit points. When you're healed, the hit points come back. Simple.

The problem with damage on a miss is that you have to think about it in order to make sense of it. If you roll to attack, and miss, and then announce that you're dealing damage anyway--wait a minute. You missed, but you still hurt the guy? Who with the what now? For many players, that smashes their immersion to bits. Sure, you can carefully explain how "miss" doesn't always mean an actual miss, and hit points aren't always meat, and so on and so forth. But as they say in politics, if you're explaining, you're losing. You lost when the players' immersion was broken. The great virtue of traditional hit points is that no explanation is required.

 

[Balesir]

To me, there is a fundamental disconnect here: The idea that "simulation" must result in a narrative that can withstand in-depth examination.

Well, I wasn't really talking about "simulation" at all. The term "process-sim" is really about an imagined process-to-process correspondance, not a simulation, as such. Whether "process-sim" is a good term for it is a valid question, but it is what it is; I didn't originate the term.

As for "resulting in a narrative that can withstand in-depth examination", I didn't intend to imply that as a requirement. I might agree that it relies on creating a narrative, rather than a start point and an end point with hints about what the narrative might have been in between - but that narrative doesn't need to be complex or comprehensive, particularly.

I don't think that's what most players and DMs are looking for. Rather, the goal is mechanics that quickly and simply produce a narrative that's good enough to pass muster in the heat of the game.

This might possibly be true for "most players and DMs", but what I'm saying is that the "narrative" part is not actually needed for a TTRPG. In fact, it can be problematic it if either exists when it's not wanted, or it doesn't exist when it's desired.

The problem with damage on a miss is that you have to think about it in order to make sense of it. If you roll to attack, and miss, and then announce that you're dealing damage anyway--wait a minute. You missed, but you still hurt the guy? Who with the what now? For many players, that smashes their immersion to bits. Sure, you can carefully explain how "miss" doesn't always mean an actual miss, and hit points aren't always meat, and so on and so forth. But as they say in politics, if you're explaining, you're losing. You lost when the players' immersion was broken. The great virtue of traditional hit points is that no explanation is required.

No explanation of it is required - except when it is required... This is a whole debate I went through (in far more time than I actually needed to) long ago. In general, these things only "make sense" in this way to those who have become habituated to them. And it's quite possible to de-habituate yourself (I've done it - again, long ago). Players who started out with White Wolf systems have far less trouble with it, for instance.

All this aside, however, there are those who - for whatever reason - prefer there to be a direct correspondance between rolled dice and imagined stages of an "attack". This is "process-sim", and there are folk who like it - even who have difficulties without it. TTRPG writers have to deal with that, by one means or another. In the case of "hit" and "miss" I think using different words would help (but would probably have traditionalists up in arms) - the terms "success" and "failure" would do. For "hit points" I think there really is no choice but to treat them as things other than "meat", systemically. No coherent system can be produced otherwise, and segregating "Endurance" or "Health" or whatever from "Fatigue" or "Vitality" has been done on-and-off from at least 1982 onwards and it really just complicates the issue without actually solving it. Individual wounds gives excellent verisimilitude, but won't give a "heroic" or "action adventure" narrative. So we have what we've got.