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

[Hussar]

And I want all of this “sim stuff” table-facing, clearly encoded, handling-time-friendly, and tightly integrated.

That is one seriously, seriously tall order.

 

[Hussar]

I'm referring to well known issue with (I'm already sorry that I mentioned this) "disassociated mechanics." Especially with martial powers it often was rather unclear how their usage limits related to the reality being modelled. So instead of say, Captain America having "Flip a Car" power they can use once per scene, I would just prefer the Captain America to have physical stats that allows them to flip cars.

Heh. I promise not to dive down this rabbit hole. I get what you mean and I will try to keep with the spirit of that.

And, sure, it makes sense that you have Captain America just be strong enough to flip cars. But, therein lies the rub. In D&D, Captain America can't flip cars. Not without magic anyway. And, once you start going down that road, game balance gets really, really hard. Because, now, if we let Captain America be that strong all the time, without the balance of having a writer that's going to control what he does with it, now, we have players who simply pull Batroc's arm off and beat him with it.

Because if you actually go the full sim model of Captain America, and then hand it to the player and tell that player he can do whatever he wants with it, well, guess what? Captain America is now going to look absolutely nothing like Captain America. Simply because players are 1000 times more pragmatic than any superhero will be. Those guys that jump Cap in the elevator in Winter Soldier aren't just beaten up a bit, they're dead. Cap's chucking their corpses out the window from the 15th storey.

So, which is a better way to model Captain America? Give him a power that lets him "Toss a car" once per combat, or grant him the power to toss a car whenever he wants and now he's pulling every bad guy's head off?

 

[Reynard]

You know the places you would like to see sim systems, your original post was asking for a discussion about it, but you won't reveal the places you would particularly like to see the them.

The trap/gotcha was apparently in your original post.

What do you mean? I have said it over and over. I was responding to a question about where I wouldn't want to see sim elements.

 

[Reynard]

Look, as far as some sort of 'simulation', I am not really looking for game mechanics that try to tell me what my view of things should be. I need, everyone needs, coherence. Settings pretty much invariably include a default assumption that things work like in the real world. This is the only way we can REASON about what is going on. Likewise people behave like people, otherwise we cannot reason about them. Regardless of genre or agenda or anything else every game, every fiction in general, has these characteristics.

I just don't know why some model has to exist of this. Its enough that the table agrees "this is the kind of fiction it is" (genre/tone/setting) and that should MOSTLY be enough. So, there's not a need for systems to tell us how far we can jump and etc. It is what it is. If we all see it as comprehensible and coherent with the rest of the fiction, that's all that matters. We saw the fictional position, we reasoned about things, we were able to make decisions and consequences followed in expected ways.

So, I would like it best when there isn't some sort of 'toggle' between what I can do in fiction and what I can do in mechanics. People have been focusing on D&D fighters, but it is just an example. D&D particularly is a peculiar game this way. Like, wizards are just guys, there's nothing weird about them, except they cast these crazy spells. I mean think about virtually every other fiction you ever read/watched/played this was not true!

For me, table agreement isn't really sufficient because even with that agreement people's inner eyes see different things or, from earlier in the thread, their Invisible Rulebooks are different. So mechanics about, say, success and survival in tromping through the wilderness to get to the dungeon, help keep everyone on the same page.

Now, just to be clear, exactly what those rules are and how "realistic" they are is something that should be determined by all that agreed upon fiction you talked about.

 

[Reynard]

I'm referring to well known issue with (I'm already sorry that I mentioned this) "disassociated mechanics." Especially with martial powers it often was rather unclear how their usage limits related to the reality being modelled. So instead of say, Captain America having "Flip a Car" power they can use once per scene, I would just prefer the Captain America to have physical stats that allows them to flip cars.

For my part anyway I am not really talking about "hard sim" when it comes to combat, monsters or the fantastic elements of the game or setting. You can be Achilles and still exist within the context of a world that feels familiar.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Heh. I promise not to dive down this rabbit hole. I get what you mean and I will try to keep with the spirit of that.

And, sure, it makes sense that you have Captain America just be strong enough to flip cars. But, therein lies the rub. In D&D, Captain America can't flip cars. Not without magic anyway. And, once you start going down that road, game balance gets really, really hard. Because, now, if we let Captain America be that strong all the time, without the balance of having a writer that's going to control what he does with it, now, we have players who simply pull Batroc's arm off and beat him with it.

It would of course require reconfigurating the system somewhat. But if we are talking about high level D&D game and what casters can do in it, I don't think balancing martials having a low-level always-on super strength would be at all impossible in that context.

Because if you actually go the full sim model of Captain America, and then hand it to the player and tell that player he can do whatever he wants with it, well, guess what? Captain America is now going to look absolutely nothing like Captain America. Simply because players are 1000 times more pragmatic than any superhero will be. Those guys that jump Cap in the elevator in Winter Soldier aren't just beaten up a bit, they're dead. Cap's chucking their corpses out the window from the 15th storey.

So, which is a better way to model Captain America? Give him a power that lets him "Toss a car" once per combat, or grant him the power to toss a car whenever he wants and now he's pulling every bad guy's head off?

Yeah, it is a matter of taste. But personally I would prefer the method that mostly models the physical reality. If the player wants to portray Captain America that goes on superpowered killing spree, then that's their choice.

 

[Reynard]

It would of course require reconfigurating the system somewhat. But if we are talking about high level D&D game and what casters can do in it, I don't think balancing martials having a low-level always-on super strength would be at all impossible in that context.


Yeah, it is a matter of taste. But personally I would prefer the method that mostly models the physical reality. If the player wants to portray Captain America that goes on superpowered killing spree, then that's their choice.

I think part of the issue is the steep power ramp of post 3E high level D&D. It makes itself apparent in different ways depending on edition, and it isn't necessarily smooth between classes, but it's definitely there. Creating a set of rules -- mechanical and conceptual -- that accommodates but low level scrub characters and high level super heroes is definitely challenging.

 

[Manbearcat]

That is one seriously, seriously tall order.

Agreed.

Again, this isn’t Edwards’ Simulationism nor immersionists’ Sim priorities sufficient to make them feel like their play experience isn’t individually jarring. I’m trying to interact with the lead post in my last two posts (as best as I’m able…it’s a little difficult to tease out the boundaries so I wrote my own).

Following from my premise in that post, the “D&D” (a prerequisite of the post) I’ve run of late that meets those parameters I set out (primarily a game engine language that achieves playability through elegance, rigor, robustness and being comprehensible) is Torchbearer and Stonetop. Blades in the Dark would also fit all of those parameters, though it’s clearly not D&D.

 

[jmartkdr2]

I'm referring to well known issue with (I'm already sorry that I mentioned this) "disassociated mechanics." Especially with martial powers it often was rather unclear how their usage limits related to the reality being modelled. So instead of say, Captain America having "Flip a Car" power they can use once per scene, I would just prefer the Captain America to have physical stats that allows them to flip cars.

In this particular case - maybe flipping a car is his maximum strength output - that is, his max-out power lift. It isn't something he can sustain for a dozen or more reps. He won't be able to flip a car again until he has a chance to rest and recover.

Th trick it to make it clear that this isn't a combat-only feat of strength, which is a thing I've seen some dms do.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

In this particular case - maybe flipping a car is his maximum strength output - that is, his max-out power lift. It isn't something he can sustain for a dozen or more reps. He won't be able to flip a car again until he has a chance to rest and recover.

And the issue with how 4e did this and your (reasonable) explanation is that all the powers were independent of each other. So you could be "too tired" to do one physical feat, but simultaneously not too tired to do three others, as long as they all were different. More coherent way to model what you suggest would be to have some sort of "vigour points" you'd use to power various physical "powers." (And if the game would have exhaustion mechanic, this should be tied to that. Classes with "vigour points" would lose those when they take exhaustion before suffering actual exhaustion levels.)