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

[Blue]

It comes down to preferences and suspension of disbelief. Some want Superman to carry a jumbo jet via holding it by the nose and for the plane to stay whole as he carries it. Others want the physics of the situation to roughly match reality and when the whole weight of the jumbo jet is supported by two small points, Superman's hands on the fuselage, they want the skin to buckle and/or the nose to tear off the plane. Neither is wrong. It's a matter of preferences.

I feel like you are trying to make a distinction to argue against. Someone looking for a traditional superhero genre will want different from someone who wants a dark and gritty superpowered game. No one at all was trying to imply that one simple label covered everything. This feels like a wandering arguement looking for someone to start with.

If we're playing superheroes, physics be damned. If we're playing faux-medieval fantasy, I'd rather the world match reality as much as possible, chosen-one characters, destiny, and genre conventions be damned. I want emergent story from D&D. But I want genre and superhero-story emulation from a superheroes game.

Sure, super-realism fantasy is a genre, just like high fantasy, sandals and sorcery, and many dozens of others, even before modifying adjectives.

As a side note, if that's what you are looking for, D&D 5e does a really lousy job of providing that. No one is unfazed from taking a critical hit from a giant sized axe. And a dozen orcs with at least rudementary tactics are a real threat to a fighter regardless of how skilled in real life. I'd suggest a game like Riddle of Steel, an much older game but praised by people who do actual combat as rather realistic.

 

[Blue]

I want to avoid mechanics specifically designed to simulate a genre as much as possible. High Concept Sim, to jargon-up for a moment. I want to simulate the world the PCs adventure in, not necessarily the PCs as main characters in a story.

I'm really unsure how you'd do that. I can't think of a single game on the market that does.

Are you talking for personal preference or as an goal for everyone. I can see that you'd never want to play D&D or a superhero game, but I can't see saying that no one should want games unless they simulate reality.

 

[Blue]

Also, I'm not talking about a supers game, and am not sure why it was brought up. I actually relax my genre issues around supers anyway, as I'd prefer more 4 color in those games and less The Boys.

I brought it up, as a clear example of a genre where real world simulation doesn't work. Some genres are closer or farther from real world, so using one where there's not a miscommunication or misunderstanding that real world simulation can provide a playable game is a good way to get to the heart if this is your global preference, or just a preference around certain genres.

From here, seeing how you relax and go more four color for supers, it seems that real world simulation for you is just for certain genres of RPGs, not a global preference. Is that correct?

 

[dave2008]

I'm glad that works for you and your players, and I'm sorry you can't have the amount of simulation you want. For me, I just can't enjoy D&D without at least a moderate amount of process sim. I'm also the guy who, as a player, makes sure the DM is aware of the rules even if they work against me. I'm happy to lose a fight or have a PC die if that's how the dice fall.

I'm a designer by profession, hobby, and heart. I don't mind separating my design hobby (simulation based) and gaming hobby (fun / social based). It has worked well for 30 years. They only way I would want to mix them at this point if I the sim based design could be as fast and fun as a more abstract game design. Right now, I just don't find it fun to try to run a simulation based game.

A few questions:

• What do you mean by process sim?
• If you are a rules lawyer, doesn't that work against your simulation tendencies. I mean the rules are there to facilitate a game (generally) not simulate reality. Surely you've encounter the conflict between the two. I mean I can't roll a dice without seeing it!

 

[overgeeked]

I feel like you are trying to make a distinction to argue against. Someone looking for a traditional superhero genre will want different from someone who wants a dark and gritty superpowered game. No one at all was trying to imply that one simple label covered everything. This feels like a wandering arguement looking for someone to start with.

Not at all. Every time I try to run superheroes I get flooded by players who want "real-people with powers" instead of superheroes. Apparently it's a really popular subgenre that is somehow incredibly hard for some to distinguish from traditional superheroes.

As a side note, if that's what you are looking for, D&D 5e does a really lousy job of providing that.

Yeah, I'm aware.

 

[Blue]

Not at all. Every time I try to run superheroes I get flooded by players who want "real-people with powers" instead of superheroes. Apparently it's a really popular subgenre that is somehow incredibly hard for some to distinguish from traditional superheroes.

I hear you. There needs to be a lot of communication to make sure that everyone is on the same page. If you want to run game type X and the players are expecting Y it'll lead to issues until resolved (if they can be).

Yeah, I'm aware.

BTW, I wasn't joking about Riddle of Steel. The title is a Conan quote, and combat has been endorsed as a good real world simulation. I personally have been wanting to play it for years (it came out in 2002) but never got a group to go for it.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

The whole point of simulation is that they're connected. When your archmage casts Lightning Bolt at a demon, you have rules to adjudicate that thing that just happened in the fiction, that simulate what would happen. In the case of fantasy stuff, of course someone at some point made up all those things. But if you want verisimilitude, those made up things are consistently used to create a simulation of the event (lightning bolt is lightning bolt, the same demon is depicted the same way). If the elements in question resemble things in RL, I prefer that some effort be made to have it resemble something close to reality.

I don't understand this entire line of discussion. Lets look at the definition of the word 'simulation':

noun
1: the act or process of simulating
2: a sham object : counterfeit
3 a: the imitative representation of the functioning of one system or process by means of the functioning of another, ex: a computer simulation of an industrial process
b: examination of a problem often not subject to direct experimentation by means of a simulating device
I think 1 is of little use to us, as it seems to be effectively the same as 3. 2 likewise isn't terribly relevant here. Both of the senses of 3 seem pretty much what we're talking about here. So, when we simulate something we must thus have some conditions that hold:

a) The thing we are simulating must exist! OK, I'm willing to be less rigid on this point, we just have to be able to agree on its properties, so we can know what to represent when we simulate it.

b) There must be some meaningful process (functioning) of the thing being simulated. Clearly we would have to agree on what that functioning is and its salient characteristics.

Neither requisite a, nor b exist for a D&D dragon, ogre, or spell. They hardly even exist for a D&D fighter, though at least we can perhaps get SOME level of agreement on what a fighter is a simulation of. The point is, we cannot possible simulate, or have a simulation of, a dragon, ogre, or spell. No such thing is possible, and no RPG can ipso facto possibly be doing such simulating. It simply fails at the level of logical impossibility.

So, can we characterize this thing that an RPG, at least a fantasy one, is doing? I mean, we could more deeply consider the question WRT ALL POSSIBLE RPGs, as certainly a game which intended to portray jungle fighting in Guadalcanal in WWII has at least the bare logical prerequisites to potentially be a simulation. FRPGs and TBH basically about 99.9% of all RPGs ever written, nope!

 

[Reynard]

I don't understand this entire line of discussion. Lets look at the definition of the word 'simulation':

noun
1: the act or process of simulating
2: a sham object : counterfeit
3 a: the imitative representation of the functioning of one system or process by means of the functioning of another, ex: a computer simulation of an industrial process
b: examination of a problem often not subject to direct experimentation by means of a simulating device
I think 1 is of little use to us, as it seems to be effectively the same as 3. 2 likewise isn't terribly relevant here. Both of the senses of 3 seem pretty much what we're talking about here. So, when we simulate something we must thus have some conditions that hold:

a) The thing we are simulating must exist! OK, I'm willing to be less rigid on this point, we just have to be able to agree on its properties, so we can know what to represent when we simulate it.

b) There must be some meaningful process (functioning) of the thing being simulated. Clearly we would have to agree on what that functioning is and its salient characteristics.

Neither requisite a, nor b exist for a D&D dragon, ogre, or spell. They hardly even exist for a D&D fighter, though at least we can perhaps get SOME level of agreement on what a fighter is a simulation of. The point is, we cannot possible simulate, or have a simulation of, a dragon, ogre, or spell. No such thing is possible, and no RPG can ipso facto possibly be doing such simulating. It simply fails at the level of logical impossibility.

So, can we characterize this thing that an RPG, at least a fantasy one, is doing? I mean, we could more deeply consider the question WRT ALL POSSIBLE RPGs, as certainly a game which intended to portray jungle fighting in Guadalcanal in WWII has at least the bare logical prerequisites to potentially be a simulation. FRPGs and TBH basically about 99.9% of all RPGs ever written, nope!

I can't tell if you are honestly confused or trying to be cute.

The point of simulation is that when a rule causes a result it does so because that is what would happen in the world based on the agreed upon reality of that world. As opposed to causing a result because it makes for the best narrative, or because it makes for the most fun play (importantly both of those regardless of the reality of the world; sim results can and often do result in good story and/or fun, but as a side effect).

The realism of the world as it relates to the real world is only important insofar as the person seeking sim declares it so. I, for example, like it to feel "real" enough to be familiar and relatable, but not necessarily mundane. In my youth I was a US Army infantryman. I know what it feels like to travel for miles through the swamps of Georgia and sleep with the bugs and snakes, and get woken up in the middle of the night by a raid (at least during training). So I personally desire sim that is that stuff plus more, and I can imagine the "more" as dragons instead of tanks and orcs instead of Blue Team.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I brought it up, as a clear example of a genre where real world simulation doesn't work. Some genres are closer or farther from real world, so using one where there's not a miscommunication or misunderstanding that real world simulation can provide a playable game is a good way to get to the heart if this is your global preference, or just a preference around certain genres.

From here, seeing how you relax and go more four color for supers, it seems that real world simulation for you is just for certain genres of RPGs, not a global preference. Is that correct?

It is.

 

[LadyElect]

a) The thing we are simulating must exist! OK, I'm willing to be less rigid on this point, we just have to be able to agree on its properties, so we can know what to represent when we simulate it.

I’d imagine those taking the opposite stance are considering the stat blocks/attributes “its properties,” invented though they may be.

b) There must be some meaningful process (functioning) of the thing being simulated. Clearly we would have to agree on what that functioning is and its salient characteristics.

And, similarly, seeing the relevant rulebooks as that meaningful process.

Sure, it was all designed at some point and is, of course, fantastical rather than necessarily bound by real world constraints. But when individual elements are designed within (almost) any game they must eventually collide to determine the result. So one might even simply see any amount of play as some move toward simulation. And the more definition you add, the further that dial turns.

Those designs and rules may be subject to modification and most often don’t have any real, historical basis (even when they capriciously attempt to emulate it), but the agreed upon framework at any given point suffices as that process.