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

[dave2008]

It forces you to make decisions. Do you spend that action on Raise a Shield, or do you take a risk doing something else? I found it quite enjoyable when I played Pathfinder 2e at Origins. It was really rewarding making the right decision e.g., to spend an action instead to let me Aid an ally on their attack and help them crit. Every turn was like a puzzle to figure out the best way to use my actions. If there were never any tradeoffs, than Raise a Shield wouldn’t be very interesting because it would be an obvious action one would do every round regardless.

Thank you for sharing your experience. I like the general design philosophy and, like I said, I would expand it to 6 actions. However, I don't like it in play. I don't want to try and figure out the best way to use my actions. That is not something that interests me. I experience that mindset some in 4e (how do we make us of our move, action, and minor action) and I didn't enjoy it. So, as with many things for me, the unified action economy (3 or 6 action):

1. Win for design
2. Failure for game play

 

[Hussar]

We got pretty thin tools to do simulation in DnD.
The simulation mainly hold in place by a mutual agreement between players and dm.
The best tool to simulate is still the capacity of the players and Dm to describe their actions in a credible way, Translating technical aspect of the game, into a credible fiction.
Having +8 in survival don’t simulate anything. Making description about fresh water source, roots and herb you find, tracks you observe or are seen, really make the simulation Work. Succeeding a check don’t simulate anything.

But, that's not really a simulation though. That's just the people agreeing that X is okay. Since X can be anything, so long as it's acceptable to the table, then it's not really modeling anything because if you ran the same simulation fifteen times, you'd get 15, sometimes contradictory, answers.

If something is a simulation, then running that simulation from similar initial inputs should generate similar results. "Translating the technical aspects of the game into a credible fiction" isn't simulation, in the OP's sense of the word, at all.

The true problem is, people are still trying to bang that drum that "make stuff up" is a simulation. In a real simulation, the players and the DM shouldn't actually matter all that much. The simulation would actually tell you what happened.

So, no, in the OP's definition, there are very few actual simulation based RPG's out there. A few. Things like HARN or GURPS, and a handful of far more rigorous systems, but, D&D? Not even close.

AFAIK, the only reason to continuously try to bang the drum of "D&D as simulation" is to gatekeep the game away from those pesky folks that don't play the same way. Then, you simply define "simulation" as "anything I do at my table, that I like to do" and anything that's not what you like to do is not simulation. Has zero to do with actual game design and everything to do with people trying to shout down any sort of changes to the game that a certain segment of the fandom doesn't like. It's the same arguments that have been floated around since 2007. We MUST KEEP D&D PURE!!! We must never acknowledge that D&D is not in any real way a simulation (as per the dictionary, non-jargon meaning of the word) because if we acknowledge that in any form, that means that we open the door for all those hated mechanics that the pure of gamer must shun!

We MUST NOT EVER lower our guard!!! We must DEFEND THE HONOR OF D&D!!

It would be funny if it wasn't so pathetically obvious.

 

[Micah Sweet]

But, that's not really a simulation though. That's just the people agreeing that X is okay. Since X can be anything, so long as it's acceptable to the table, then it's not really modeling anything because if you ran the same simulation fifteen times, you'd get 15, sometimes contradictory, answers.

If something is a simulation, then running that simulation from similar initial inputs should generate similar results. "Translating the technical aspects of the game into a credible fiction" isn't simulation, in the OP's sense of the word, at all.

The true problem is, people are still trying to bang that drum that "make stuff up" is a simulation. In a real simulation, the players and the DM shouldn't actually matter all that much. The simulation would actually tell you what happened.

So, no, in the OP's definition, there are very few actual simulation based RPG's out there. A few. Things like HARN or GURPS, and a handful of far more rigorous systems, but, D&D? Not even close.

AFAIK, the only reason to continuously try to bang the drum of "D&D as simulation" is to gatekeep the game away from those pesky folks that don't play the same way. Then, you simply define "simulation" as "anything I do at my table, that I like to do" and anything that's not what you like to do is not simulation. Has zero to do with actual game design and everything to do with people trying to shout down any sort of changes to the game that a certain segment of the fandom doesn't like. It's the same arguments that have been floated around since 2007. We MUST KEEP D&D PURE!!! We must never acknowledge that D&D is not in any real way a simulation (as per the dictionary, non-jargon meaning of the word) because if we acknowledge that in any form, that means that we open the door for all those hated mechanics that the pure of gamer must shun!

We MUST NOT EVER lower our guard!!! We must DEFEND THE HONOR OF D&D!!

It would be funny if it wasn't so pathetically obvious.

So happy that you've figured it all out. Its not like people can just want as much simulation in the game as they can, because that's their preference. They have to be part of the dreaded gatekeeper brigade, dedicated to stopping you from enjoying D&D at all costs.

 

[Blue]

I want sufficient simulation that I can use my own experiences to understand my character's capabilities.

I don't, it would be so ridiculously misleading to be "here I am limited by real world athletics but there I can take a critical hit from a greataxe from someone twice the size of an elephant and continue to fight with no ill effect". I would look at a fight and go "I'm outnumbered five to one by trained warriors, there is no possible way to win that" instead of "I'm a 12th level barbarian and five hobgoblins won't even make me sweat".

There are so many places where high fantasy is at direct odds with reality that it is not just a wrong guide to use, it's and actively misleading and harmful one. It would be so all over the place without any real-world indication where real-world should apply and where the games rules veer hard in a different direction to either match the genre or to provide a playable game.

But in reality, most players have played the games, internalized to some degree the rules, so the ways the rules emulate the genre to provide a consistent experience is what they are looking at. Sometimes falsely calling it a simulation of real life, perhaps some are even lying to themselves that it is. But no one tosses their dice down in massive frustration about how unrealistic the game is when they aren't killed by a giant hitting them with a boulder, instead they play to the genre of heroic fantasy.

So, really examine what you are playing. Because there is so much that is designed either to match the genre or to provide a playable game that you don't rail against if real world simulation was actually an important point. At the very least everyone who truly held that would spit on D&D because it has vastly more places it does not match the real world in it's play then where it does.

 

[Blue]

Indeed simulation worth it for survival, basic martial fight, but when it comes to an archmage vs a demon simulation get overpassed.

If you are looking at a basic martial fight, D&D is not a simulation of real life. In reality numbers of assailants is such an equalizer, you couldn't get 8th level fighter taking down four orcs. You couldn't see someone take a critical hit with a greataxe and keep fighting. D&D combat is game.

 

[Reynard]

AFAIK, the only reason to continuously try to bang the drum of "D&D as simulation" is to gatekeep the game away from those pesky folks that don't play the same way. Then, you simply define "simulation" as "anything I do at my table, that I like to do" and anything that's not what you like to do is not simulation. Has zero to do with actual game design and everything to do with people trying to shout down any sort of changes to the game that a certain segment of the fandom doesn't like. It's the same arguments that have been floated around since 2007. We MUST KEEP D&D PURE!!! We must never acknowledge that D&D is not in any real way a simulation (as per the dictionary, non-jargon meaning of the word) because if we acknowledge that in any form, that means that we open the door for all those hated mechanics that the pure of gamer must shun!

We MUST NOT EVER lower our guard!!! We must DEFEND THE HONOR OF D&D!!

It would be funny if it wasn't so pathetically obvious.

What are you on about? For the most part this has been a pretty reasonable discussion, but you want to come in, throw a Molotov, and claim that anyone who doesn't like what you like is a gatekeeping villain.

 

[Baron Opal II]

I don't, it would be so ridiculously misleading to be "here I am limited by real world athletics but there I can take a critical hit from a greataxe from someone twice the size of an elephant and continue to fight with no ill effect".

I apologize. I seem to have explained myself rather poorly. Rain still falls, crops still grow, seasons still turn. That is the baseline for my simulation in the milieu. Until they don't, of course, which is when the PCs get involved.

As far as armed giants go, we are playing a fantasy game where we attempt deeds of renown without peer. It is appropriate that fantastical elements introduce themselves and are handled appropriately. But, since there is a nod to simulation, when they defeat the giant they don't take the axe and simply put it in their pocket, do they?

So, really examine what you are playing. Because there is so much that is designed either to match the genre or to provide a playable game that you don't rail against if real world simulation was actually an important point. At the very least everyone who truly held that would spit on D&D because it has vastly more places it does not match the real world in it's play then where it does.

I've been running games for longer than most players have been alive. I have the introspection down, I think. And, I am also sorry to inform you that your assumptions on who would spit on D&D are in considerable error.

 

[overgeeked]

As far as armed giants go, we are playing a fantasy game where we attempt deeds of renown without peer. It is appropriate that fantastical elements introduce themselves and are handled appropriately. But, since there is a nod to simulation, when they defeat the giant they don't take the axe and simply put it in their pocket, do they?

And yet they all do. The number of people who care about encumbrance is dwindling. The number of magical spaces to hold objects is increasing with each edition. And not only do most players actively not care about putting a giant's axe in their pocket, they actively want over-sized anime weapons. As much as I want simulation, or at least a nod to it, I think the fight's over. We lost a long time ago and simply refuse to admit it.

 

[SakanaSensei]

And yet they all do. The number of people who care about encumbrance is dwindling. The number of magical spaces to hold objects is increasing with each edition. And not only do most players actively not care about putting a giant's axe in their pocket, they actively want over-sized anime weapons. As much as I want simulation, or at least a nod to it, I think the fight's over. We lost a long time ago and simply refuse to admit it.

I once had a player ask if his minotaur with a "6 foot wingspan" could reach down into the ground and throw a giant hunk of earth and rock at something at range. Expectations can vary wildly, for sure.

 

[overgeeked]

I once had a player ask if his minotaur with a "6 foot wingspan" could reach down into the ground and throw a giant hunk of earth and rock at something at range. Expectations can vary wildly, for sure.

I had a player rage quit when I informed him that the cantrip mold earth did not work like earth bending from Avatar: tLA.