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

[I'm A Banana]

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.

Generally speaking, if Y happens, it must have been caused by something (X). If in the mechanics, HP is lost, there must be a reason that HP is lost. If in the fiction, injury is suffered, there must be a source of that injury. The mechanic only exists to resolve the question of "I do X. What Y happens?" The mechanics do not resolve the question of "Y happened. What X did I do?"

The reason for this is because the action the players take in a TTRPG is "I do x." This is a core gameplay loop: Player does a thing, DM describes the results of doing the thing, player does another thing, and on and on.

The mechanics need an input (action) to describe an output (result).

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.

Causality works that way, too. Cause and effect. Effect depends on what caused it. A mechanical process in a game like D&D is there to help adjudicate the effect of the various actions the people are taking in the fiction.

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.

The system only generates a result when it is compelled to do so by some original cause. So the players know the cause before the result is generated. Regardless of the result, each player knows what happened that needed resolving. They know the inputs. The system helps generate the outputs.

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.

It isn't true that a physical description hasn't been generated "at all." It hasn't been generated in great detail, but the input action is a known quailty, and so has been generated by the player declaring, "I do X."

No system is going to model all the little details, but that's not the ask. The system is just asked to produce a broad output based on a broad input. I do X, what Y happens? The exact steps along the way are subject to personal interpretation.

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.

This seems to presume that the output is determined before the input, that we know the effect before we know the cause, that we resolve some process before the players ask for that process to be resolved. That seems backwards to me. We know the input, the action that needs resolution. What the mechanics resolve is the output.

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.

The system need not concern itself overly much with detail. The input is broadly described ("I attack the orc!"), and the output can be broadly described ("The orc is wounded!"). Genre considerations of the individual table can help direct the description (a table into medieval swordsmanship might reference specific styles and blows; a table with doctors on it might apply more detail to the wounds; a table playing it like a Tarantino movie might have blood & guts everywhere).

I pointed out above that TTRPG systems don't have to produce a physical representation of the action they adjudicate.

The systems don't, but the players do, namely by dictating that their characters perform an action before the system resolves that action.

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.

I think the style consideration that may lay at the heart of this is that there is a big gulf between those who put agency in the hands of the players (cause -> effect) and those that put that agency in the hands of the system (effect....but what cause?).

 

[dd.stevenson]

(snip)I regard the process-sim objections to abilities like DoaM or CaGI it as essentially red herrings. No one who loves D&D can be a purist for process-sim, because it's core resolution mechanic does not simulate any process! Until you lose all your hit points, the rules haven't actually specified any outcome within the fiction, let alone any process whereby that outcome eventuated. Hit point loss on its own is a purely metagame state of affairs!

Totally agree.

I agree with this. As I see it, this therefore leaves design space for DoaM. And it also leaves design space for no DoaM. But the reasons for including or excluding wouldn't be abstraction vs process sim. They would be questions like "Do or don't we want mechanics like DoaM that reduce uncertainty and mitigate failure in rather definite ways?" Because the answer to such questions seems to be quite varied across different players, perhaps a suite of options from which different groups can pick and choose is in order . . .

In my view D&D is primarily a set of gamist constructs that are cunningly dressed up and disguised as simulation. Therefore, one of the cardinal sins that a D&D designer can commit is to inadequately dress up their game mechanics. I have never played 4E, but reading the CRB, (like six years ago) my conclusion was that the 4E designers committed this cardinal sin early and often. It would not surprise me in the least if the key problem with these abilities you mention was either not enough makeup--or, worse--if it actively stripped away the makeup from other pre-established game constructs such as HP.

 

[DEFCON 1]

It would not surprise me in the least if the key problem with come and get it was either not enough makeup--.

Let us PLEASE not argue about Come And Get It again. Please please please. There's no consensus. Not on whether its a valid rule, nor even what the problem is people have with the rule. No one agrees on anything, so let's not bother discussing it again.

 

[Obryn]

Let us PLEASE not argue about Come And Get It again. Please please please. There's no consensus. Not on whether its a valid rule, nor even what the problem is people have with the rule. No one agrees on anything, so let's not bother discussing it again.

I think what this really needs is a pizza analogy.

 

[dd.stevenson]

There's no consensus. Not on whether its a valid rule, nor even what the problem is people have with the rule. No one agrees on anything, so let's not bother discussing it again.

Fair enough. Edited my post--

 

[mlund]

I just wanted to pick this out, because it's been one of my pet peeves for about 20 years now, and I agree 100%. The apex of this kind of silliness is double-sided weapons, imo.

Likewise, I agree whole-heartedly. It makes no sense AND its mechanically poor in general.

Generally speaking, if Y happens, it must have been caused by something (X). If in the mechanics, HP is lost, there must be a reason that HP is lost. If in the fiction, injury is suffered, there must be a source of that injury. The mechanic only exists to resolve the question of "I do X. What Y happens?" The mechanics do not resolve the question of "Y happened. What X did I do?"

The reason for this is because the action the players take in a TTRPG is "I do x." This is a core gameplay loop: Player does a thing, DM describes the results of doing the thing, player does another thing, and on and on.

The mechanics need an input (action) to describe an output (result).

The problem begins with a faulty assumption: "I swing my sword at the goblin" is not an accurate description of what happens in an attack roll.

"I attempt to defeat the goblin in melee. I'm wielding a sword and shield," is far closer to the mark. Depending on the outcome of the Attack Roll, Damage Roll, and the loss of Hit Points (completely game constructs) will give us an idea of what the outcome is inside the game world.

Depending on the game-mechanic results of the two rolls the specifics of in game world cause and effect can be defined.

A player announces an intended action for his character. The specific resolution (from start to finish) is still in the air until the dice settle.

It isn't true that a physical description hasn't been generated "at all." It hasn't been generated in great detail, but the input action is a known quailty, and so has been generated by the player declaring, "I do X."

Again, the problem lies in the holding the initial description ("I swing at him!") as specific and completely valid. When the announced action is "I disembowel him with my great ax," and the dice come up with a fumble the overreach is obvious. There's already a bundle of trouble wrapped up in writing narrative checks your dice can't cash

- Marty Lund

 

[Obryn]

The problem begins with a faulty assumption: "I swing my sword at the goblin" is not an accurate description of what happens in an attack roll.

"I attempt to defeat the goblin in melee. I'm wielding a sword and shield," is far closer to the mark. Depending on the outcome of the Attack Roll, Damage Roll, and the loss of Hit Points (completely game constructs) will give us an idea of what the outcome is inside the game world.

Depending on the game-mechanic results of the two rolls the specifics of in game world cause and effect can be defined.

I can't +rep you, so I'll pop in to say that's a really good way of phrasing it.

 

[I'm A Banana]

The problem begins with a faulty assumption: "I swing my sword at the goblin" is not an accurate description of what happens in an attack roll.

"I attempt to defeat the goblin in melee. I'm wielding a sword and shield," is far closer to the mark. Depending on the outcome of the Attack Roll, Damage Roll, and the loss of Hit Points (completely game constructs) will give us an idea of what the outcome is inside the game world.

The rolling of dice is an answer to the question, "What happens when I try to hit the goblin with my sword?"

Without that try, there's no roll of the dice. There's no outcome to resolve if there is no cause that creates the potential outcome.

Defeating the critter is just one possible consequence of trying to hit the goblin with your sword.

Depending on the game-mechanic results of the two rolls the specifics of in game world cause and effect can be defined.

That looks backwards to me. Mechanics exist to adjudicate results, not determine characters' actions.

A player announces an intended action for his character. The specific resolution (from start to finish) is still in the air until the dice settle.

The player announces what her character *does*. The resolution tells you what happens when she does that.

Again, the problem lies in the holding the initial description ("I swing at him!") as specific and completely valid. When the announced action is "I disembowel him with my great ax," and the dice come up with a fumble the overreach is obvious. There's already a bundle of trouble wrapped up in writing narrative checks your dice can't cash

That's why "I disembowel him with my great ax" isn't something you narrate your character as doing if you're making an attack roll (at least, if you don't want the roll's result to contradict you). The attack roll is an attempt. You can try. There's going to be resistance. A chance of failure. If there wasn't, we wouldn't roll the dice in the first place.

 

[Li Shenron]

So, given that these two ends to the scale are problematic, we are dealing with a point somewhere in the middle.

Very nice post overall. I think the issue at hand is a case of "associated mechanics" vs "disassociated mechanics".

I totally agree with your description of problems arising with either too detailed association or too abstract disassociation.

However, I think the sweet spot generally falls much closed to an association than a disassociation. "Hit" is a word that in common language pretty much implies contact. A game that pretends to be attached to a story set in a world where the common laws of physics are the same as ours, must abide to any expectation that the players have when using those words. If you need a 100-words explanation of what "hit" means in the game compared to what it means in normal language, then the game has already failed at support narrative.

 

[ExploderWizard]

The problem begins with a faulty assumption: "I swing my sword at the goblin" is not an accurate description of what happens in an attack roll.

"I attempt to defeat the goblin in melee. I'm wielding a sword and shield," is far closer to the mark. Depending on the outcome of the Attack Roll, Damage Roll, and the loss of Hit Points (completely game constructs) will give us an idea of what the outcome is inside the game world.

Depending on the game-mechanic results of the two rolls the specifics of in game world cause and effect can be defined.

A player announces an intended action for his character. The specific resolution (from start to finish) is still in the air until the dice settle.



Again, the problem lies in the holding the initial description ("I swing at him!") as specific and completely valid. When the announced action is "I disembowel him with my great ax," and the dice come up with a fumble the overreach is obvious. There's already a bundle of trouble wrapped up in writing narrative checks your dice can't cash

- Marty Lund

So much yes. A melee attack roll in D&D simply means a best efforts of the character for the combat round. A high level fighter gets more attack rolls to represent his level of effectiveness compared to the low level fighter, not because he/she actually swings that many more times. In AD&D this would mean that a typical melee fighter would only swing a weapon ONCE in the span of a minute.


This is because D&D combat was designed at the wargame unit scale, thus the built-in abstraction. There are rpgs with much less abstract combat resolution that maps individual actions such as the swing of a weapon to specific results.

The rolling of dice is an answer to the question, "What happens when I try to hit the goblin with my sword?"

Without that try, there's no roll of the dice. There's no outcome to resolve if there is no cause that creates the potential outcome.

Defeating the critter is just one possible consequence of trying to hit the goblin with your sword.

That looks backwards to me. Mechanics exist to adjudicate results, not determine characters' actions.



The player announces what her character *does*. The resolution tells you what happens when she does that.

That's why "I disembowel him with my great ax" isn't something you narrate your character as doing if you're making an attack roll (at least, if you don't want the roll's result to contradict you). The attack roll is an attempt. You can try. There's going to be resistance. A chance of failure. If there wasn't, we wouldn't roll the dice in the first place.

You do see the difference right? Saying " I attack the goblin" gets you same overall result as " I swing my sword at the goblin" in an abstract adjudication system. Either way , damage is scored on a "hit" and not on a "miss", but the results of this are different to the minds eye depending on how abstractly we have mapped them to what took place.

For example if Joe the fighter successfully attacks Grog the goblin for 5 points of damage, there are a couple ways it could have gone down if we treat the results abstractly. Joe could have caught Grog's leg with a spinning sweep of his sword, then when Grog's leg gave out, Joe could have smashed Grog across the back of the neck to finish him.

In the abstract, this is very descriptive and works well to desribe the ultimate result of the die roll, which indicated Joe reduced Grog to less than 0 hp in the round.

If the hit roll represented a single swing of a weapon then Joe couldn't have done that because he is only entitled to one attack per round. The abstraction allows for a greater level of creativity in applying description to the roll of the dice. In this case Joe's player could have described his attack roll as a series of 5 very swift brutal slashes that cut Grog down before he could raise his weapon. This also works under the blanket of abstraction but falls apart when trying to map results to discrete activity.