D&D General On simulating things: what, why, and how?

[Reynard]

Being one of the "middle schoolers" that started as a lad in the mid 80s with the Basic set and eventually discovering 1E right before it got replaced with 2E (which was my preferred D&D for many, many years), I have a strange relationship with "simulation."

NOTE: I am using the term in its most natural definition, not necessarily in its jargon definition. I am talking about, loosely stated, "presenting rules ina way that sort of look like how things actually work, if you squint."

Anyway -- because I started with a version of the game that at least sometimes nodded in the direction of this kind of simulation, my tendency is to continue to do so, even after it has not only fallen out of fashion but also out of the rules almost entirely. Part of me wants the game rules to reflect the reality within the game (and to some degree, the reality outside my window) even when doing so might not be the most efficient or "fun" way of doing things. That's a tall order, of course, and I am not interested in truly rigorous simulation. But even so, I would love to see rules for shields that reflect their absolute dominance in ancient combat, along with rules that take into account how demanding and horrible bending space and time to create magical effects could be. Some of these desires are similar to earlier editions, while others are not. Some other game systems that appeared early in the hobby were direct attempts to simulate history or fiction ina way D&D did not, of course, so we can talk about those games too.

But overall, let's have a friendly discussion about when and how to use simulation in D&D, and also why.

 

[payn]

There was a time I wanted heavy sim in the rules. Eventually, it just bogged down the game for little gain. Though, I sometimes miss it still. I think sim has for me become a thing of taste. Like old school vs nu-skool. Sometimes I feel like a nut, sometimes I dont. I am kind of glad to have systems that both lean in and out of it. Dont have strong feelings one way or the other at this point because I can have either if I want.

 

[Jack Daniel]

To me, the whole entire point of an RPG is that it can use something like simulation to subvert the structure of a story. Why do we want the rules of an RPG to help us accurately model "what would happen"? Because sometimes, narrative logic defies logic-logic and harms suspension of disbelief. When a hero escapes one danger after another just because they're the hero, or when the plot contrives to make happen one convenient coincidence too many, a part of us naturally balks at that.

How many times have you read a book or watched a movie and thought to yourself, "Wow, that main character just did something really stupid, because the plot needed them to do that so that the stakes could be raised; but I sure wouldn't be that dumb if I were in the hero's shoes!"? RPGs let us choose the smart move instead of the narratively predictable one — but, crucially, in order for that to make sense, the game-world has to operate on a logic that at least approximates the players' picture of reality.

 

[nevin]

For me simulation sucks. I'm doing this for entertainment and escapism, I don't want reality creeping into my games. I can turn on the news for that

 

[Micah Sweet]

For me simulation sucks. I'm doing this for entertainment and escapism, I don't want reality creeping into my games. I can turn on the news for that

I'm not sure i understand. What do you mean by simulation and reality?

 

[payn]

For me simulation sucks. I'm doing this for entertainment and escapism, I don't want reality creeping into my games. I can turn on the news for that

I totally get this sentiment. Though, I lean into gaming to explore further reality through a fantasy lens. I use gaming as training for my real world experiences. (Obviously not combat, but im talking RP, decision making, philosophy, and politics...)

 

[Oofta]

I like to have visuals that at least wouldn't look out of place in an action movie + magic. If it gets too far from that, I have a hard time immersing myself in the game.

I don't want real world logic (and think people discount possible side effects of magic) because I don't want my hero to defeat the troll only to die from an infection after the battle. That, and too much simulation would simply be too complicated.

At the other extreme I don't want to play in over the top anime world either. If things get too far from reality it's not believable. If I wanted to play a toon, I'd play a different game.

So for me 5E makes a reasonable compromise even if it's imperfect.

 

[Krachek]

Usually simulation attempt derailed because they also play on game balance, but pretend not doing so.

 

[el-remmen]

I definitely have a simulationist bent, but between some of it being too onerous even for me and players balking at some of it, I try to let it go when it doesn't totally break immersion for me. But there are some things we used to do along these lines that I'd love to do again. For example, a 3E house rule I had was that stablizing someone with a medkit took 1d10 rounds. The idea of stabilizing someone who is gravely injured without magic with one action is beyond the pale for me and I'd like to go back to that.

We never worry too much about encumbrance and where people keep stuff, but if your scroll or potions are in your backpack, shouldn't it take an action to root around and get it out, let alone use it? Heck, in my 2E days we assumed that all packs and encumbering stuff that wasn't a weapon was dropped at the start of a fight. So, getting a healing potion sometimes meant having to make your way back to where you dropped your pack! I loved that stuff, personally - but also understand that is not everyone's steez.

 

[nevin]

Exactly, I don't want some dark dreadful this is how much the world could suck if magic was real. Lord of the rings is great I love the books, but I'm looking more for Narnia, and king Arthur, the belgariad, the elenium, curse of the misteraith,. I want the world to be magical, and I don't want the magic to just turn into psuedo science, 7th, 8th,and 9th level spells should be scary even to the caster. Paladins should be scary even to 20th level mage's. I want the players to be able to shape the world, but I want them to be worried about the unpredictable consequences of magic. Without that unknown factor I'd just as soon play a sci-fi game

 

[Charlaquin]

Even modern D&D is still fundamentally pretty simulation-y, it just leans more on high-concept simulation as opposed to process simulation. In non-jargon terms, 5e doesn’t try to use its rules as a physics engine the way 3e does, but “creating a living, breathing world” is still held up as the ideal. That world doesn’t have to be “realistic” or reflective of reality, but it’s still considered desirable to make the world “believable” or “consistent.” Often, we try to emulate the feel of a particular genre. That’s still simulation, you’re just simulating something other than reality.

 

[overgeeked]

It sounds like we started around the same time only I’ve held onto AD&D rather than switched to 2E. And I’m largely of the same mind in regards to loose simulation. You can only move so far for so long before exhaustion sets in, you can only carry so much before the weight slows you down, you need food and water to survive, you need sleep, etc.

I want all of that reflected in the game. Though I’m not sure how much the rules can or should reflect that. By that I mean three things. First, the set of rules required would need to be too long to read to even remotely reflect reality…to say nothing of the rules required to reflect all the things that are “unreal” in the real world. Second, more specifically, no matter how long the rules they cannot accurately simulate reality as there are too many variables in play. Third, rules that reflect the real world are largely redundant as we all already have experience with the real world. Varying degrees of experience and different experiences, yes, but we all have a rough physics simulator running in our heads. Along with rough models for all kinds of other things.

These models we have already running in our heads are sometimes referred to as invisible rulebooks.

The Invisible Rulebooks

When asked to explain the Invisible Rulebooks in person, I usually start with this scenario. If it's any consolation, it rambles in person, ...

rolltop-indigo.blogspot.com

Conversely, the more rules you have, the harder it is to read and absorb them all, to say nothing of running the game. Rules also invariably limit player choices either intentionally or unintentionally. This quote from Over the Edge always stuck with me and I've found it to be true.

"And why the simple mechanics? Two reasons: First, complex mechanics invariably channel and limit the imagination; second, my neurons have better things to do than calculate numbers and refer to charts all evening. Complex mechanics, in their effort to tell you what you can do, generally do a fair job of implying what you cannot do."

Which is why I prefer minimalist gaming, rules ultra-light, and FKR-style play.

Less Rules To Do More

Hanging out on forums, game design communities, discord servers and the like I come across a lot of people trying to hack games, old school D&D in particular to do more than what it currently d…

aboleth-overlords.com

Minimalist Gaming Doesn't Exist!

Every so often, the topic of minimalist gaming arises, and we've concluded that it doesn't exist! Now this might seem strange coming from t...

pitsperilous.blogspot.com

 

[Reynard]

These models we have already running in our heads are sometimes referred to as invisible rulebooks.

The Invisible Rulebooks

When asked to explain the Invisible Rulebooks in person, I usually start with this scenario. If it's any consolation, it rambles in person, ...

rolltop-indigo.blogspot.com

That is a really great blog post. Thank you.

 

[chaochou]

Simulation is an element of D&D that grew out of its wargaming roots. Simulation in wargaming remains quite a contentious topic. Some people think sci-fi wargames can be simulations. Others don't.

My benchmark for simulation is 'can be tested against reality'. A wargame about the the Battle of the Bulge needs to be able to recreate the actual events as one of its outcomes. The effectiveness of different units needs to fall within a range of plausibility generated by our knowledge of their actual battle effectiveness. Supply limitations need to be based on actual knowledge of supply shortfalls and logistical difficulties. Movement speeds need to match the known capabilities of men and vehicles. And so on.

So if a Panther meets a Sherman Firefly at 700 yards we can have a reasonable idea - based on matters of record - of the range of outcomes and their probability in that engagement. So the stats of a Panther, relative to a Sherman - together with a gameplay loop - can be created to try and match those outcomes. You can also take the known technology of a T80 and a Challenger II and try to create a predictive model on a hypethetical conflict - but again based on the measurable reality of speeds, muzzle velocities, ammo loadouts, gun traverse speeds, targeting systems, smoke dispensors.

This is what, broadly speaking, wargamers consider 'simulation' - whether military formations behave according to their known, demonstrable, evidenced limitations from the historical record and whether the troops and supplies available in the game match those that were present in reality. Even then, there's an element of subjectivity in these descriptions. Some wargamers have very narrow views on the range of outcomes in certain circumstances, others are more accepting of a broader range.

But when it comes to fantasy rpgs, all these concepts are meaningless from the start. What exists is make believe, the range of outcomes are inventions. There are no demonstrable limitations. There is no 'simulation' of what happens when a small white dragon lands on the roof of a house. The answer has to be made up by someone, and the other participants have to agree. That's all there is to it. Make-believe creature, make-believe house, make-believe outcome.

The illusion of simulation is created by creating great libraries of numbers in statblocks and pretending they represent a reality. But all those statblocks are invention. They can't be tested against anything, so they can't ever be right or wrong. They can be agreed to or not agreed to, but that's not a test of simulation - that's a test of whether the invented mechanics meet the aesthetic preferences of the group.

And that's what I see most of all when people talk about simulation - the question isn't whether something is verifiable, the question is whether outcomes meet an entirely subjective aesthetic preference which can be
a) labelled as 'real' or 'plausible', and
b) attributed to the system rather than the people playing

I used to play a lot of this style, but don't nowadays. My group and I still want plausible actions and outcomes, but we expect them to come from the people playing rather than the game system.

 

[Reynard]

Another thread just reminded me of one of the "simulationy" things that bugs me in 5E especially: the pace of advancement is such that you can have a bunch of novice adventurers head off toward the dungeon, terrified of meeting goblins in the woods, and literally a week later return at 3rd or 4th level and not be one bit worried about the stuff that a week ago scared them to death. it just feels off to me. But if you make the monsters in the woods werewolves or trolls to ensure the PCs will still be worried a week later, you've created a deathtrap for them on the way out should the random encounter appear. Of course as GM you can always put your finger on the scale, but that itself is anti-simulation.

 

[Deset Gled]

Simulation is one of the foundations on which all RPGs are based, even if people don't like to admit it. A basic connection to the real world is the basis for all consistency and communication. It doesn't matter if it's a game about powerful wizards or mice that fight like knights, when you sit down and learn about a TTRPG for the first time, you come to the table with certain expectations about how the world works; those expectations are based on reality.

Every RPG is a simulationist RPG. Something like gravity exists and you don't have to worry about your character floating off the ground. Characters commuicate in a language that the player understands. When something hits something else, there is reaction. Nobody starts writing a TTRPG rulebook by completely redefining the entire world.

 

[payn]

Another thread just reminded me of one of the "simulationy" things that bugs me in 5E especially: the pace of advancement is such that you can have a bunch of novice adventurers head off toward the dungeon, terrified of meeting goblins in the woods, and literally a week later return at 3rd or 4th level and not be one bit worried about the stuff that a week ago scared them to death. it just feels off to me. But if you make the monsters in the woods werewolves or trolls to ensure the PCs will still be worried a week later, you've created a deathtrap for them on the way out should the random encounter appear. Of course as GM you can always put your finger on the scale, but that itself is anti-simulation.

Now leveling is something that has never ever been sim to me. Thats firmly in the "game" pile of design. I usually come to terms with it by just placing leveling under the hood mechanically. I need it for game purposes, but for RP its not known or discussed in character. One of the reasons I really like bounded accuracy of 5E is it makes that blending process so much easier. Goblins are still a threat, they just need the numbers to do it. The more experience you have the greater the threats you can face, but even the best will be overrun with enough fodder.

 

[Reynard]

Now leveling is something that has never ever been sim to me. Thats firmly in the "game" pile of design.

Right, but it doesn't have to be designed in a way that is so aggressively in conflict with the "sim" elements. The slower, less spectacular pace of leveling in earlier versions certainly helped avoid making the mere act feel like a break in immersion. Until magic users got 5th level spells anyway...

 

[Oofta]

Now leveling is something that has never ever been sim to me. Thats firmly in the "game" pile of design. I usually come to terms with it by just placing leveling under the hood mechanically. I need it for game purposes, but for RP its not known or discussed in character. One of the reasons I really like bounded accuracy of 5E is it makes that blending process so much easier. Goblins are still a threat, they just need the numbers to do it. The more experience you have the greater the threats you can face, but even the best will be overrun with enough fodder.

When it comes to leveling, there has to be a certain granularity to people improving their skills so I've never had an issue with it. On the other hand, I agree that people may refer to someone as a green fighter or an archmage, but they have no clue what a level is. Or hit points, or specific AC or any number of other things.

The pace at which PCs level is another issue entirely.

 

[payn]

Right, but it doesn't have to be designed in a way that is so aggressively in conflict with the "sim" elements. The slower, less spectacular pace of leveling in earlier versions certainly helped avoid making the mere act feel like a break in immersion. Until magic users got 5th level spells anyway...

I'm not so sure. Then again, I didnt really hit my prime in the old school days either. Leveling always felt a bit rapid and disconnected in D&D. I guess thats why I came to terms with it like in my post. Now, my favorite Sci-fi system Traveller seems to marry the two in a much better way than D&D ever has. Though, many struggle with it because the "game" part isnt as defined and obvious as D&D. YMMV.