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

I mean rules designed to simulate actual things in the real world as much as is practical, and do the same with fantasy stuff based on a consistent depiction of what that fantasy stuff is. So if I create a town, I want that town to have everything it would make sense for it to have, based on my best understanding of what that would be.
#1) OK, that is a level of simulation I have an interest in, but don't really care about. This has no impact on my enjoyment of the game. It may impact my worldbuilding enjoyment, but it is something that my players never, and I mean never, engage with. Therefor I don't spend much time on it. Though I do find the topic interesting.
If a character is not supposed to be magical, I want them to be no more fantastic than action movie physics allow. And I want to model those people and places as close to reality (or whatever rules have been determined for fantasy elements) as possible.
#2) So this is what I would call "physics simulation." I do want some of this in my game and could accept more than what we currently use (as long as it doesn't impact the fun). This is why we use bloodied hit points, armor with DR, death at 0 BHP, etc. I tinker with these type of rules a lot, but only implement a fraction of them as we homebrew rules as a group, not DM fiat.
5e does not really do that, but Level Up does most of what I want, and I can and do houserule whatever else I need, subject to player buy in.
I feel LevelUp does #1 well, but doesn't really hit my needs with #2. Fortunately, how 5e house rules work for Level Up.
That being said, verisimilitude in worldbuilding matters more to me than PC verisimilitude. That's why my favorite fantasy RPG is actually ACKS. That game care a lot about accurate worldbuilding.
It matters to me from an esoteric design perspective, but not a game perspective. As noted previously, that is just not something my players ever, ever, interact with, so it is usually not worth my time to even tinker with it to much.
To answer your second question, I do run into conflict sometimes. I prefer the game to be fair to both sides, even to my detriment as a PC, and prefer to err that way when necessary.
I think we might have a misunderstanding. I don't see what I was discussing as an issue of fairness at all. However, could just be different viewpoints of the same issues.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Pathfinder 2e has a nice take on shields (requires an action to Raise a Shield, and there are feats for customization). Not sure how adaptable it is to 5e.
It would have to be a bonus action in 5e I would think. I prefer it a set bonus and then maybe fighting style grants a bonus w/ a reaction or bonus action or both. The idea that you have to use a whole action to raise a shield, which is protecting you even if it is not raised, seems a bit off to me.
 



It seems weird to say that you can only simulate what exists in reality, since games can simulate genres and genres are not discrete real world things, but abstract categories with lots of slippage - and yet, if something is completely outside of the genre within a given gaming context we would be able to say something like "That simulation of slapstick comedy in TOON doesn't work if the results are dead baby animals." Now if the genre it were simulating was "Dark Comedy" those same dead baby animals could be made to work.
 


You must be using the word "reasonable" differently than me, because I do not find it reasonable under any logic that rogues and fighters use different rules for swimming.
I mean it is reasonable to have a problem with those situations, and they should be addressed fairly when they come up. I'm agreeing with you.
 

It has a very detailed yet playable combat system, with a realistic feel.
I know I have heard of it before (and not just from the movie ;)), but I can't remember if I ever got it or not. I will have to search around and see if I have it and if not maybe pick it up and check it out.

Question: why are you not playing it now?
 

It has a very detailed yet playable combat system, with a realistic feel.
OK, I just did a little research and it doesn't sound like my taste, but I will check it out when I get more time. I did find it interesting that it was possible to miss on a hit! Not sure that is better than the 4e damage on a miss ;)
 

I know I have heard of it before (and not just from the movie ;)), but I can't remember if I ever got it or not. I will have to search around and see if I have it and if not maybe pick it up and check it out.

Question: why are you not playing it now?
I play 5e and its derivatives because that's what my players are familiar with it and want to play it. I played in a short campaign of Riddle of Steel about 10 years ago, and remember really liking the combat system. I don't remember much else about the game, to be honest.

As I've said, if I had my way I would be running ACKS. it has the best worldbuilding for my desires I've ever seen. Level Up is a great system and a good compromise.
 

Remove ads

Top