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

[Crimson Longinus]

This is weird. It largely contradicts the advice in the 4e DMG. I'm not surprised that the game was unsatisfactory when the play advice was not followed.

Yes, I know. I also knew you'd say that. My GM was obviously not following that advice, they were just using encounters they felt made sense in the fiction. And that the game cannot handle a super common fantasy trope (fighting one big monster) is a colossal design flaw. Again, with a shared power pool this would not be an issue.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

In 3E (or at least 3.5) dragons have damage reduction, which will protect them against random troops of archers. In 4e, tier considerations (ie a troop of ordinary archers is simply not a threat to an Epic tier foe) do the same work.

So this seems to be an AD&D and 5e thing. It's the dragon's version of not being able to flip the car!

Or it is mechanics working coherently for a setting where humanoid kingdoms exist everywhere and are not routinely overrun by invulnerable dragons!

 

[DND_Reborn]

I mean "no" we will never agree on this topic seems a fair assumption.

I wasn't aware you and I were disagreeing...

by your definition

I never made one...

Virtually all simulations simplify complex realities. It's just a matter of scale.

And yet this we agree on (I think)...



For example, if you shove a creature, knocking it prone, we know it is prone and you caused it. But the how you accomplished this is completely narrative.

Did you grab it and use your foot to trip it? Did you put both hands on it and just push it over? Since 5E's "shove" doesn't differentiate between a shove and a trip or do some sort of hip toss, we just don't know. So, this is the narrative provided by the player and/or DM as to the "how" is accomplished.

Was the attempt easy for you? Difficult? Again, we have no way of knowing this from the simple contested roll involved. Now, you could use a system where the closer the contested roll, the harder it was, but unless that also carries some impact there is little point in doing it so (in general) it isn't done. This is the matter of scale, you mention. It could be done, but what would the point be other than determining one aspect of the narrative--the difficulty. (Even with that, you still have to decide how granular you want it to be...).

Personally, I don't have any issue with this. The systems in 5E generate a very general and vague simulation in most cases, and the narratives fill in the details when needed or desired.

 

[Hussar]

Well, simulation to you means "it can't ever be applied to RPGs because I say so, no matter how other people would view it."

I've provided pretty clear evidence about why you can't call these mechanics a simulation. So, no, that's not true.

The gravity simulation only works at a visualization level, it doesn't address how it works. As far as determining outcomes that have uncertain results, simulations use random black boxes all the time. If all we care about is that the results on what we are simulating come close to reality, it's good enough. It's just silly that I can't say aspects of D&D are simulation and would have to say something like "D&D mimics aspects of the real world in a simplified manner that does not rely on the underlying physical interactions because we don't have a supercomputer to do the analysis." Because that, to me, seems to be the alternative.

So what? I don't need to know how gravity works in order to simulate the effects of gravity. Your own example SHOWS that you can simulate the effects of gravity and that simulation is not a black box at all. We can use the simulation quite effectively to demonstrate how gravity works. If I wanted to, for example, demonstrate what happens when a satellite is deorbited around a planet, this would work perfectly well.

"How it works" is something you're adding in, not a criteria I've ever even suggested. What I have suggested is that for mechanics to actually be simulationist, they actually have to simulate something. They can't be black boxes. A black box that only spits out results isn't a simulation.

Calling aspects of D&D simulation is not a judgement or a justification. It's not saying that it's better or worse. It has nothing to do with whether I "like" it or not. It's just saying that many aspects mimic reality. It's using common definition of what the word means to everyone not using an academic definition.

But, these aspects DON'T MIMIC REALITY. If it's a black box, and you seem to be agreeing that it is, then it's not mimicking reality. You can keep harping on this idea of "academic definition" all you like, but, it's not really helping your argument. I'm using the basic definition of simulation. The character standing at the bottom of the hill ---->cloud of completely unknowable probabilities---->character is at the top of the hill is NOT a simulation.

 

[Baron Opal II]

Speaking about characters being mythic badasses and able to do things beyond real world levels.

WOW.

You did, among other people.

You claimed:
Post #157: "I want sufficient simulation that I can use my own experiences to understand my character's capabilities. If my character needs to jump 10 ft., that shouldn't be too trying if my character is fit. If I need to jump 25 ft., my character had best be Olympic level in fitness and wholly unencumbered. Or, have an angle, magic or otherwise."

This is directly contrary to your character following genre conventions and because you are a mythic badass who can go toe-to-toe with dragons can also perform every other natural feat at mythic hero proportions.

Referring to first level, since we're talking D&D. At no time do I expect D&D PCs to remain wholly within typical mortal parameters throughout their adventuring carrier.

Granted, an important omission. Hopefully post #329 clarifies my position better. I imagine post #216 was insufficient.

 

[Hussar]

Personally, I don't have any issue with this. The systems in 5E generate a very general and vague simulation in most cases, and the narratives fill in the details when needed or desired.

See, this is where I just can't wrap my head around it. If all the details are just "filled in", that's not a simulation. Like you said, you have no idea how that target became prone. It's no different from my climb the hill example. It's 100% black box and the mechanics in no way actually tell you anything about what happens in that black box - only the results.

Which means that it's not simulating anything. The results are plausible and the table fills in the gaps to make it more plausible to that table, but, again, that isn't a simulation. It shouldn't matter what table you run a simulation at, if the initial parameters are the same, then once you start the simulation, you should get the same (or at least very close to the same) results. If I put the car in the wind tunnel, it shouldn't change how the air flows whether I'm standing there watching it or you are.

To me, this:

Initial Point (known to everyone) --------> Engage mechanics (all points are unknowable) ========> Final Result (dictated by the mechanics and the points between the initial point and here are back filled by the participants)

Is not in any way, shape or form a simulation.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Not so weird. There are some Square-cube law relationships happening here.

I don't understand what square-cube law has to do with this. Except if we cared about it making exponentially scaling the same bodyplan totally absurd. But presumably we don't care about that. (Well, I do a little bit.)

The evidence for what I’ve written is in AD&D, then firmed up in 3.x and 4e Dragon books (and base texts). Those numbers I cited are D&D Red Dragons. Those pictures I cited and the scale picture is correct.

I don't even know where the kaiju dragon is from what it has to do with anything. Also, as person who has worked as professional illustrator, I can say with confidence that you shouldn't trust art for establishing coherent scale. Artists just draw things how it looks good in that pic. Hell, in films the exact same monster or starship can be completely different size in different scenes.

The squares are just weird abstractions for battlemats just like a PC doesn’t really occupy a 25 square ft space nor even really the square space the token/figure would be in at any given moment as melee combatants would be constantly circling left/right, feinting and retreating and advancing for distance management/control.

The squares are just used to manage the intricate combat rules and give us some abstract sense of spatial and size relationships so we can skillfully employ those intricate and intersecting combat mechanics.

Sure, it is an abstraction, but is should have some connection to what is being abstracted. How the hell are you representing a hundred foot dragon with a twenty foot square? What on Earth is even happening here? How are people meant to visualise this? This is again the sort of disconnect between the fiction and its representation that massively bugs me.

EDIT - in case it’s not clear, if you wanted to accurately model Ancient Wyrms head < > tail and wing <> wing you’re talking a minimum 18x20 squares figure or max 24x30 squares. No battle mat could handle that and it’s not particularly useful as a position simulator.

Then either don't have kaiju dragons or write rules that can even remotely accurately represent kaiju dragons. Perhaps have tokens for the legs of the kaiju dragon or something. Or maybe the battlemat is the dragon and you fight on its back.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

But, again, the point being, even at 20x20x20, that's still freaking enormous for an animal. And one hell of a lot bigger than a T-rex, which was your point of comparison earlier.

T-Rex is the huge dragon, gargantuan is closer to some sort of a sauropod.

 

[DND_Reborn]

If all the details are just "filled in", that's not a simulation

To me, the mechanics determine the outcome, which is part of the simulation IMO -- reaching the end state. Without the mechanics, you don't even know if the process worked, worked with complications, or failed entirely.

But even the last two states are up to the DM really. Like your climbing example, you rolled a 9. The DM decides if that is progress with a setback or complete failure.

I understand that lack of information on the black box process means it is not a simulation to you, but then what is the difference from the beginning state to the end state?

To me, it is simulating the action, but we agree the black box in between is the gray area--we know nothing about this. Anyway, that is why I said 5E is a vague simulation of such things and the rest (the bulk of it) is either narrated or ignored (if unimportant to the group).

FWIW, LOVE this stick figures LOL!!!

 

[DND_Reborn]

As an aside:

T-Rex is the huge dragon, gargantuan is closer to some sort of a sauropod.

For reference (Tyrannosaurus | T-Rex Dimensions & Drawings | Dimensions.com):

Even removing the "tail" portion you would have about 20 feet from nose to back/hip. Although the width is narrow (just about 6 feet), it's occupying space IMO would be about 20x20 or Gargantuan by 5E standard. I know 5E's statblock has them at Huge, however, but a T-Rex in a 15x15 area might seem a bit cramped.

Frankly, I wish the Colossal size was retained in 5E for even larger sizes.

Maybe something like this:
Tiny (2.5)
Small/Medium (5)
Large (10)
Huge (20)
Gargantuan (40)
Colossal (80)

with doubling each time?

So, each smaller size could have 4 creatures in the space of the next larger.