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

[Thomas Shey]

Oddly enough, that bothers me a lot less than a lot of rules artifacts; with a winged creature, its easy rationale "tripping" as "tangling up their wing". Its much odder if you have something that flies purely by levitation.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

And Micah Sweet accusation of threadcrapping?

The lead post was about Simulation - How and Why? That is 100 % what the Ancient Wyrm vs Fighter conversation is about!

One of the primary tenets of 5e design was that they were going to start with the fiction of D&D and build mechanics through natural language that hews to that. This might have been the very first designer goal we saw out of Mearls, Crawford et al.

The issue I’ve been angling at is that the problem that D&D has and needs to resolve (see Simulation - How and Why?) is that one of its two staple classes (Fighter and Wizard) fights monsters (even lower tier ones like Trolls, Ogres, Giant/Ethereal Spiders, Displacer Beasts, Wyverns) where the fiction requires superhuman athletic prowess to merely survive sparring with let alone actually slaying the creature! But then this superhuman athletic prowess inexplicably disappears outside of the fiction of combat!

That is not Fiction First design (as was intended)! That’s Fiction Never!

And then people point to the Mechanics (Mechanics First) as their cue for the fiction! This was not the design intent of the 5e designers! Things have become inverted.

See @Ovinomancer example of DW for how Fiction First design and play resolves.



Where is this strawman you’re accusing me of? What argument have I distorted or misrepresented? And why are you leading with that (inexplicable) accusation rather than addressing the receipts (which you fail to address)?

Here is a tutorial on how strawmanning works (feel free to reference it in the future):

Person 1: Subset of thing x (D&D Ancient Wyrms) is inspired by thing y (Smaug) from thing z (The Hobbit).

Person 2: All of thing x (D&D) isn’t thing z (The Hobbit).

That format is a strawman.

Can we get back to those receipts that you didn’t address (which was the point of my post)?

Late AD&D w/ FR Greybox > Master Set > Immortals Set > 2e > 3e > 4e.

29 years minimum of Ancient Wyrms of calamitous size in the fiction of D&D. If you need exact sizes, you can find actual metrics for everything listed in 2e, 3e and 4e with lengths of 88 - 150 ft, wingspans of 150 ft, weights from 165000 lbs to 1.28 million lbs (again, already referenced…3 times now).

And to get back to the thrust of the post (and the point of engagement with the thread), how do we resolve the discontinuities of Fighter athletic prowess in combat and out of combat (Simulation - How and Why?)?

My proposal for actual Fiction First design and play (Simulation - How and Why?)? Make them more physically capable than they presently are and make that scale through the levels such that Epic Tier (where they’re clashing with Ancient Wyrms) sees superheroic Fighters.

Discontinuities resolved.

And much easier to GM (framing endgame obstacles and resolving action declarations - setting DCs and saying “yes” or “no” to action declarations - becomes more intuitive and easier with an established and functional baseline).

What I would point out is, IF the agenda for 5e really WAS simulationist in any sense, WRT fighters at least, then that IS how they would be handled! Heck, it isn't even that hard, really. In fact 4e has a difficulty with it in that battle maps can only get so big and really mythical fighter action threatens to need far more scale. 5e, luckily for it, eschews maps and such, so basically this is less of an issue. I mean, try it, start describing PC physical capabilities as being more and more 'gonzo' with level. I'm sure it will work fine, albeit the details of encounters and environments might need to be changed here and there. I mean, sure, it will be less REALISTIC, as in like the real world, at high levels, but it will be more CONSISTENT and if what is meant by @Oofta et al is what they all claim then it will be a BETTER SIMULATION of the magical world (yes, my head asploded when I said that).

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

This came up in our game one time when a player wanted to trip a flail snail. I ruled that the snail couldn’t be tripped because its center of gravity is too low. The player went with a different approach.

To me this indicates that there is a simulation and it’s running in the DMs head. After all we’re the ones who have to make the constant adjudications and we turn to the rules to assist in that where they can. But first the simulator has to determine that the result is uncertain.

It was generally held by most 4e players/GMs, though not stated anywhere in the rules nor even implied, that the mechanics 'just work as stated' and its up to the GM (usually) to decide on what, if any, fictional situation arises. So, like with the Flail Snail the consensus would be to simply say it gets the prone condition, which then does its standard mechanical 'stuff'. Maybe the snail is tipped over, maybe it is just unable to get its bearings until it spends a move action to reorient. As I say though, the actual game text never demands this, and it would seem that it is perfectly 'legal' for the GM to simply say "nope, the thing cannot be prone!" (and a stat block can say this, wny not). Either way works, though the former way tends to avoid some issues. This of course was a point that was flailed on by a quite a few waves of 'traditionalists'.

I think its still what I'd call 'depiction' though. The questions that I always asked myself were things like whether the prone condition might be switched with something else, or how to best depict the difference between a flail snail and a bugbear. I want a game that is articulate, but it needn't be driven directly in a model-like way. Heck, turning prone into dazed cannot really be said to be 'less realistic' can it?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Me too. I want spellcasters, for example, to struggle to maintain concentration as they‘re under attack. Fail your concentration save? You can take a level of exhaustion to keep it up. Of course eventually it’ll kill you . Exhaustion should be an option to let PCs push their performance for a special outcome

What about the 'death spiral' sort of issue? Is this really going to be fun enough if you actually push to use it?

I mean, Torchbearer 2 does this sort of thing, hard, but it REALLY leans into it and makes the overwhelming focus of the game avoiding venturing too deep into the 'exhaustion pit'. You MUST go in some ways just to travel and do basic stuff, but most of the game really revolves around figuring out how to engineer the proper number and frequency of camp phases in order to avoid being sucked all the way down to so many penalties on every check that you can do nothing but get that last condition (dead).

 

[Ovinomancer]

Agreed, but when I said I adjusted HP during a combat in another thread it didn’t go down well .

Different thing -- not really arguing one is more real that the other, hitpoints fixed is as made up as hitpoints unfixed, but rather what agreed and understood constraints are on that ability to make things up. So, yeah, just as arbitrary from the point of view of making it up, but not the end of the possible story as far as the game is concerned. I'd say changing monster hitpoints would certainly be against the OP definition of simulation, but could well be within a genre or trope simulation.

Personally, I don't like it, but then I have pretty strong gamist (to briefly touch on Forge jargon) proclivities.

We play this game instead of computer RPGs precisely because it’s run in our brains and not in some prescribed, and thus heavy (and necessarily constrained), simulator ruleset. The few times the designers try to prescribe an actual simulation mechanic (such as falling damage) it’s a pretty poor analog.

I'm not sure who "we" is in this sentence. There are lots of RPGs that are very complex and detailed and still get played. There are RPGs lighter in rules than 5e, but much, much tighter as well. I don't think the drive for RPGs is to rely on the GM handling all of the simulation. In 5e, certainly, that's the role of the GM. But it's not at all the role of the GM is, say, Stonetop, or Blades in the Dark. Constraint can often be a boon to creativity.

What we have in D&D is mostly an uncertainty resolution engine, which is great because that’s any easy thing for all players to agree on and there are simple things to earn that boost your chances of succeeding.

I think it's not great as an uncertainty resolution engine. The core loop of play presented isn't really that, because the only uncertainty that matters is that of the GM. If the GM isn't uncertain, no amount of player uncertainty matters. I'm still not willing to concede that GMs as creator and curator of the fiction is the best way. It's a way, there are others, and they're different in ways that make any such claim difficult outside of personal preference.

 

[Ovinomancer]

It is unfortunate that you have chosen to engage in this no true Scotsman exercise. I have already addressed the specialisation and granularity issue, and of course someone evaluates the conditions, the GM when they decide the DC. Deciding DCs based on railroady purposes like you suggest is not what the game advices the GM to do. But yes, if they did that, then that certainly would seriously harm the validity of the simulation.

But I repeat my question: tell us what you think is required for mechanic to be a simulation and give us some examples of such mechanics.

That's... well, it's not anything close to a No True Scotsman. For that to occur, you have to have a class of things, and then point at a thing that absolutely should belong in that class and say it doesn't because it's fails some purity test that's not really a descriptor of the class. The titular example is of a Scotsman not wearing a kilt being No True Scotsman. Of course he's a Scotsman -- wearing a kilt is not the definitional determiner of being a Scotsman. And that is utter lacking in any form in the post you just accused of being a No True Scotsman fallacy.

What I find helpful with the informal fallacies is to not deploy their names only, but rather to show the work of how the fallacy is occurring by pointing out the actual flaw in argument. Then, if you want to add the fallacy name, you've already shown your work.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

It is unfortunate that you have chosen to engage in this no true Scotsman exercise. I have already addressed the specialisation and granularity issue, and of course someone evaluates the conditions, the GM when they decide the DC. Deciding DCs based on railroady purposes like you suggest is not what the game advices the GM to do. But yes, if they did that, then that certainly would seriously harm the validity of the simulation.

But I repeat my question: tell us what you think is required for mechanic to be a simulation and give us some examples of such mechanics.

Well, I have no idea where the Scottsmen came from in all this, lol. I think the game surely doesn't give you any OTHER criteria to use EXCEPT railroady ones.

As for answering your question, I think in order for something to be a simulation, in any meaningful sense, it must take in all the most substantial relevant factors, and it must produce results that match with what is being simulated. There is a mapping which must exist Reality <-> Simulation in which you can say "if I run this simulation, and it produces such-and-such results, that tells me something about the reality it is mapped onto." Otherwise the term 'simulation' is literally without meaning. Every single process of any kind can be termed a 'simulation' of something! I gave the example of the wall. What is the condition of the wall? If that isn't feeding into the model of climbing the wall, then I don't see how the model can be a simulation of anything. I mean, sure, the exact subtype of limestone the wall is made of may be a factor so minor we need not consider it and we can still get meaningful results. However, if I go out with actual people and climb actual walls, the simulation needs to tell me something about what to expect, or it is not a simulation.

 

[Hussar]

/snip
But I repeat my question: tell us what you think is required for mechanic to be a simulation and give us some examples of such mechanics.

I'd point out that you're the one claiming that these are simulations. It's rather on you to show that these are actually simulations and not just making claims that you cannot back up.

------

The whole "quantum pockets" thing is really interesting to me. @Crimson Longinus has flat out stated that these are not simulations. And, he has made it pretty clear that D&D is or at least should be, about simulation.

Yet, we have quantum pockets in the PHB. The caster's Component Pouch has been standard equipment for quite a while now. A pouch that contains any and all components you need to cast any spell that doesn't have a cost attached. So, no tracking ammunition (exactly how many pinches of guano do you have for your fireballs?), and, so long as the cost is negligible, it's an unlimited resource.

But, no one seems too bothered by that. But, we suggest that our professional adventurers simply have "slots" for equipment to be filled as needed, and suddenly that's a bridge too far and completely not simulation. It always seems very strange to me that the things that people claim shouldn't be part of the game are already part of the game and have been since 5e was released.

--------

To go back to the original question. What makes something a simulation? I'd say at the very basic level, granularity. Enough granularity and you get a simulation.

Take a picture of a very expensive sports car. Hypercar. Beautiful piece of machinery. But, I think everyone agrees at this point, there's no simulation.

Now, take two pictures of this car, one in pristine condition, and the other a burning wreck. Ok, still not a simulation, but, at least our brains can start to fill in a story, but, barring any other information, all we know is that the car was destroyed.

Now, take three pictures. One of the car in pristine condition, add a picture of Mr. Richard Hammond in the middle and then a picture of the care as a burning wreck. There's a simulation. We can track A to B to C and understand pretty clearly what happened. ((For those who are not Top Gear/Grand Tour fans, Richard Hammond is a presenter on the car show that has repeatedly crashed many very, VERY expensive cars, including a beautiful Rimac hypercar a few years ago.)

Ok, so this is a bit tongue in cheek, but, it does get the point across. In order to have a simulation, you need a certain level of granularity. Pages back, I had a picture of a stick figure at the bottom of a hill, a cloud then the stick figure at the top. That's what D&D is. As soon as you engage mechanics, pretty much any mechanics, in D&D, you get this fuzzed out cloud where all the mechanics do is present you with a resolution. You have no idea how you arrived at that resolution - you just have a picture of a burning car.

So, ot answer the question of what is needed, well, granularity is generally needed. Although, sometimes, you can end run around granularity - such as the quantum backpack solutions. It's simply assumed that you put that tool in your backpack and retrieve it as needed. Now, since your backpack can only hold so much, you can't pull just anything out and once you've decided that you have items A, B and C, you cannot have item D. It actually does rather nicely simulate being well prepared for doing whatever it is you are going to do while maintaining enough limitations to avoid breaking the simulation.

See, the whole thing about simulation is that so long as you never contradict previously established facts, you can get away with a lot of things. But, you do have to establish some sort of baseline though. The backpack has useful items because you prepared before you left home. Your character lost HP but wasn't hit because your shield blocked the attack. I mentioned earlier about black boxes. Well, if you make the black boxes small enough, it becomes more like a moving picture - a series of still where any one taken out of context would be meaningless, but, strung together, inform a coherent and comprehensible narrative.

 

[pemerton]

if you don't think this is simulation, (and same question for everyone really) what you think would be simulation then?

For me, a simulation of climbing would at a minimum rank climbers, and then rank gradients/climbs, and then we'd know who can do which ones.

By default, there would be no random chance of climbing something above your ranking. @Manbearcat can clarify whether that's too coarse-grained - but to me it seems more accurate, at a certain level of abstraction, than the possibility of someone who is not very good at climbing getting lucky and succeeding at a difficult climb.

When climbing "wild" surfaces - eg cliffs - there is always going to be a chance of bad luck (say, a wind gust or random gear failure). So a simulation would set some suitable chance for this, and for consequences (ranging from increasing the difficulty of the climb, through to "it's a long way down!").

That's a pretty coarse-grained simulation, but it seems like it might cover the basics. I think something like this model could be extended to a variety of athletic feats (eg running, cycling, swimming, jumping). What it won't handle is competitions between relative peers - who wins the race, jumps the farthest, etc - which involve people pushing themselves and eking out an extra bit of performance. I think the history of RPGs shows that this is quite hard to simulate: simple opposed die rolls might be as effective as anything else.

 

[pemerton]

There's no reason to believe a D&D dragon would not be easily killed with modern military equipment. In fact, we have stats for a rifle in the DMG, a single bullet from a rifle causes 2d8 damage. Given a platoon of soldiers with fully automatic weapons, and it would not take that long to take out the dragon based on the rules of the game which informs us what dragons are in D&D.

I don't think that you can show that D&D is a simulation by showing that its rules produce results that are consistent with its rules!

The question is, what are those rules simulating? What are they a model of?

I fully accept that D&D is simulating action movie logic.

But what does this mean? Upthread, it was suggested that a simulation means the rules dictate an outcome without regard to what would be the most fun or the best story. But action movie logic is entirely about fun and story! So here you seem to be mixing oil and water.

If I were to do the heist scene in D&D, I would be giving people opportunities to learn what things they would need and how they would prepare. I might even just tell that their PC would know they need X based on knowledge gathered. For me that would be more simulationist.

I will tell people things if I think their PC would know them.

The simulation here seems to consist in the GM narrating fiction to the players. What is that simulating? Not the PCs' cognitive processes, presumably!

I hear the term "quantum equipment" often on this topic. But that's not what it is, really. It's just a matter of WHEN a fictional element is established. In the fictional world, of course you had the Holy Hand Grenade all along. How did you know to bring it? Well the dice will help us determine that, but there must be a reason because there it is.

Compare this to the process of a Knowledge check of some sort in D&D. The DM introduces some new element....the Rabbit of Caerbannog. The player of the Ranger says "Do I know anything about that?" and the DM calls for a roll. Success! He knows about it's big pointy teeth and its meanstreak that's a mile wide.

When did he learn this? Just then in that scene? Of course not. He learned it earlier in his life as a ranger, and we as the audience just learned of that.

Is this different than the gear? Do you think of this as a simulation or something else? Are we simulating the learning of esoteric information in any way? Is this not "quantum knowledge"?

This is a point I have made many times!