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

[Hussar]

However, by claiming it's a property of the ruleset people avoid having to negotiate that creative vision, and so can blame the rules (instead of themselves) as a ready-made scapegoat if the game outcomes and experiences are less than satisfactory.

And just to add to an already excellent post, you can also claim that when outcomes and experiences ARE satisfactory, it's because the rules support "simulation", without actually needing to explain what the system is actually doing to simulate the events in the game.

It's a really neat argument to be honest. Completely self referential without any need for evidence and largely bullet proof so long as you always insist that the stuff you like is simulation and the stuff you don't like isn't.

 

[Reynard]

Oh, sure, reasonable is it?

"We want simulation in the game"

"Ok, how would you define simulation?"

"Well, simulation is the stuff I like and anything I don't like isn't simulation."

You seem to have confused me with someone who is taking a hard stance as to whether any particular version of the game was a perfect simulation machine. I certainly did not do that. My argument is that simulation is possible within a certain set of boundaries and, importantly, if you don't try and get too specific. You and a couple others are the ones coming at the discussion with an axe to grind and a personal definition of simulation apparently designed just so you can argue about it.

So, by all means, continue to beat that strawman. I just wish you'd do it in a way that didn't prohibit other folks from having a friendly discussion on the subject.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

What I mean when I want simulation in a game is that I want the rules to somewhat consistently represent the objective fictional reality. This representation may be more or less accurate, it may be detailed or it may be more abstract. But the underlying logic still holds.

D&D certainly isn't terribly strongly simulationistic game, and it is kind on the outer edge of my comfort zone in this regard (and moving further away considering some new design trends) and I would wish it to be a tad more simulationistic. Still I don't need or want games to be mindbogglingly tedious attempts to accurately model reality with unnecessarily complex mechanics. Broad strokes simulation is what I want.

But basically I want mechanics to mostly be traceable to the parts of the world they're representing in some consistent manner. This allows the players to engage with the setting and mechanics from unified in-character perspective, and makes easier for the GM to ad hoc assign consistently appropriate mechanics for things that may appear in the fiction. And yes, I know some people's brain approach this differently, and that's fine, but this is what is most natural to me.

 

[kenada]

Not change what you like, no. But you either play with an ever shrinking population who shares your preferences or embrace the fantasy superhero game people seem to want. Because trying to get the new game or new players to accept the older style is all but impossible. I’ve been banging my head against that wall for years.

But why? 5e doean’t do a lot of things I want, or it does them in ways I don’t like. I want things like encumbrance to matter (even if it requires an abstraction like a slot-based inventory). I’d go mad trying to play with or run for people who wanted something totally different out of the game. Surely it makes more sense to find a reliable group of the former people than it does to hope for the best with the latter?

 

[Manbearcat]

But why? 5e doean’t do a lot of things I want, or it does them in ways I don’t like. I want things like encumbrance to matter (even if it requires an abstraction like a slot-based inventory). I’d go mad trying to play with or run for people who wanted something totally different out of the game. Surely it makes more sense to find a reliable group of the former people than it does to hope for the best with the latter?

Yeah. The gloom and doom really doesn’t fit.

There are so many ways to play now and so many people willing to play all manner of games now.

The easiest thing to do is just offer to run games for folks and see what happens. In my experience, odds are rather good that running games for strangers virtually will turn into rewarding play experiences and turn those once-strangers into friends!

 

[Mannahnin]

Simulation is just the latest buzz word for badwrongfun. It's like Video-gamey or Samey or any of the hundred other easy shorthand words people want to trot out to try to justify ramming their preferences down every one else's throats.

I don't think this is true. It really seems uncharitable to the OP.

I think the kind of "simulation" the OP is talking about is the kind we see in fiction- the world generally works like the real world where not otherwise specified.

A flying dragon with the dimensions specified in D&D is inherently absurd, as several posters have eloquently demonstrated. But if we are playing D&D we accept it as "otherwise specified". If the Monster Manual tells us it weighs 4,000lbs, we can still use real-world knowledge and/or game stats for, e.g., a cart, based on reality to make "simulationist" decisions about how and whether we can transport the body if we kill it. Maybe we don't have a vehicle big enough, and just wind up taking the head and talons, say, for trophies. As far as I can tell the OP is talking primarily about "simulation" in this sense. Using reality to inform decision making and problem solving in-game where possible and appropriate. Obviously "appropriate" varies from person to person, but the OP hasn't claimed otherwise as far as I can see.

Maybe I'm confused.

I'm really confused about who you're angry at.

 

[Grendel_Khan]

Not change what you like, no. But you either play with an ever shrinking population who shares your preferences or embrace the fantasy superhero game people seem to want. Because trying to get the new game or new players to accept the older style is all but impossible. I’ve been banging my head against that wall for years.

Unless you're a professional DM, I don't really see why this is an issue. I'm in the middle of running a two-year Shadowrun 5 campaign, and before then I ran Traveller (Mongoose) for years. And I'm a player in a 2d20 campaign that started as 5e, until we all agreed another system would be better for what we're interested in. 5e is not the only choice out there. Can you really not find players who'd be down to play basically whatever you're most excited about?

 

[Deset Gled]

Simulation is just the latest buzz word for badwrongfun. It's like Video-gamey or Samey or any of the hundred other easy shorthand words people want to trot out to try to justify ramming their preferences down every one else's throats.

This is basically the feeling I get whenever someone talks about "no simulation". There's absolutely a simulation aspect to RPGs. Even chess, an abstract logic game, has a simulation aspect to it. Trying to claim there can be none, as an absolute, just means the person posting it has calibrated their jargon to make binary statements that boil down to "what I like is category A, what you like is category B".

 

[Micah Sweet]

I don't think this is true. It really seems uncharitable to the OP.

I think the kind of "simulation" the OP is talking about is the kind we see in fiction- the world generally works like the real world where not otherwise specified.

A flying dragon with the dimensions specified in D&D is inherently absurd, as several posters have eloquently demonstrated. But if we are playing D&D we accept it as "otherwise specified". If the Monster Manual tells us it weighs 4,000lbs, we can still use real-world knowledge and/or game stats for, e.g., a cart, based on reality to make "simulationist" decisions about how and whether we can transport the body if we kill it. Maybe we don't have a vehicle big enough, and just wind up taking the head and talons, say, for trophies. As far as I can tell the OP is talking primarily about "simulation" in this sense. Using reality to inform decision making and problem solving in-game where possible and appropriate. Obviously "appropriate" varies from person to person, but the OP hasn't claimed otherwise as far as I can see.

Maybe I'm confused.

I'm really confused about who you're angry at.

That is the kind of simulation I mean, and if that hasn't been clear before, please take it as my stance now. I was surprised to hear from some folks that this is apparently impossible, that I should play another game or get with the program, and that expressing my desire for these things is actually passive-aggressive at best and evil gatekeeping behavior at worst. We all like different things, and if something you like moves in a direction you don't care for, I think you're allowed to express your disappointment without being labeled as the enemy.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Unless you're a professional DM, I don't really see why this is an issue. I'm in the middle of running a two-year Shadowrun 5 campaign, and before then I ran Traveller (Mongoose) for years. And I'm a player in a 2d20 campaign that started as 5e, until we all agreed another system would be better for what we're interested in. 5e is not the only choice out there. Can you really not find players who'd be down to play basically whatever you're most excited about?

You're right, of course. It is possible. But never underestimate how many 5e players have no interest in learning any other system. There is a gulf between 5e fans and RPG fans.