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

[Ovinomancer]

Right. Like is the guy fighting the dragon just a normal person, who can just do that because they're the main character and thus have insane plot armour, or are they actually a mythic hero, who literally is not the same than a normal person from our modern world. The former is more of an emulation, the latter a simulation. The fighter's high combat stats actually simulate them being a superhuman badass.

They do? Normal human range strength. Improved martial capability of only +20% (+2 to +6 proficiency increase). Damage remains static (maybe some feat boosts). Can jump just as far and climb just as fast as any other human with same STR. Tires only slightly more slowly (again, save proficiency bonus from +2 to +6). What changes to superhuman?

 

[overgeeked]

Not really? Lances, arrows and swords aren't fireballs.

Sure, fighting magic with magic makes sense, but then we're outside the bounds of simulation, as @AbdulAlhazred and @Manbearcat have pointed out. There's no longer any common reference point in reality for us to refer to and say we're simulating.

It's one of those arguments that looks about right as long as you don't think about it for very long. It really depends on the spell. We do have lightning in the real world. We can make incredibly accurate models of what would happen if lightning struck a particular creature or object. We do have fiery explosions in the real world. We can make incredibly accurate models of what would happen if a big ball of fire were to erupt in a particular place.

The vast majority of spells produce physical results. Many/most of those roughly correspond to things that exist in the real world. Lightning, fire, food, light, etc. It's only really the esoteric stuff that we don't have a match for. Astral projection, planar travel, etc. But most spells are some form of "I hit that thing with Y damage type at a distance." That's not a huge break in simulation.

I personally DO like to try to simulate SOME parts of reality. Again, I've often played in games where, presented with a load of treasure weighing X, or a dragon corpse weighing Y, that needs to be extricated from some place and transported back to town, we plan out those logistics with reference to real world measures and objects and wagon capacities and so forth. And that can be a fun game (assuming people in the group don't find it tiresome and boring), and feel grounded. And my impression is/was that this is the same kind of thing you're talking about.

But the other guys do have a point that some stuff in D&D just defies attempts to connect it to reality, and on that stuff, we have to acknowledge that we're no longer simulating reality, we're doing genre emulation, I guess.

Sure. But so what? As mentioned above, don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Just because not every single thing isn't perfectly modeled in reality doesn't mean we should throw up our hands and not bother. Especially if the attempt is something we enjoy.

The tricky bit, I think, is to kind of consciously figure out where our boundary lines are, and make sure we're on the same page with our group about them. Because if the DM's ideas conflict with the players' about what's realistic and what we're glossing over or writing off as magical, we get clashing expectations and loss of fun.

Exactly. As long as expectations are roughly set (you can't cover everything that might ever happen), you should be good. If something comes up in play, talk about it.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Verbiage seems to be a recurring problem, and I think that particular bit of verbiage ("high concept simulation") just might be a specific contributor here. There's a difference between simulation and emulation, and verisimilitude is yet another thing, with consistency contributing heavily to all three.

I think the idea is that HCS is simulating the GENRE, so it is a simulation of the genre expectations of participants in the game. So, for instance 5e's dragons are HCS, they match the expectations for a big bad fantastical flying lizard monster that can breath fire, etc. I mean, we could use words other than 'simulation' and maybe they would be better chosen, but OTOH the gist of this thread wouldn't be changed by that! Well, maybe it would, as I wouldn't be arguing with @Reynard about what defines a simulation if he was using a different term. I just don't think that is likely, as the term's use LONG predates the GNS use of it (problematic or not).

 

[Mannahnin]

Right. Like is the guy fighting the dragon just a normal person, who can just do that because they're the main character and thus have insane plot armour, or are they actually a mythic hero, who literally is not the same than a normal person from our modern world. The former is more of an emulation, the latter a simulation. The fighter's high combat stats actually simulate them being a superhuman badass.

Yeah, I'm MOSTLY with you on this, except for the definitional question on the word simulation, here.

AA and MBC have pointed out/opined that to simulate something, you need to be able to point at the real thing that you're simulating, so you have that concrete reference point and can gauge "how well have I simulated this thing"? But if there's no real thing to point at, can you really make a fake (simulated) version of it?

I think this is one of the longstanding confusions from the GNS model, right? Does "simulation" cover simulation of reality and real things only, or does it include simulation of fictive concepts? Or is it clearer if we call the latter "genre emulation" or some other term, to keep them distinct?

 

[Mannahnin]

Not really? Lances, arrows and swords aren't fireballs.

Sure, fighting magic with magic makes sense, but then we're outside the bounds of simulation, as @AbdulAlhazred and @Manbearcat have pointed out. There's no longer any common reference point in reality for us to refer to and say we're simulating.

It's one of those arguments that looks about right as long as you don't think about it for very long. It really depends on the spell. We do have lightning in the real world. We can make incredibly accurate models of what would happen if lightning struck a particular creature or object. We do have fiery explosions in the real world. We can make incredibly accurate models of what would happen if a big ball of fire were to erupt in a particular place.

The vast majority of spells produce physical results. Many/most of those roughly correspond to things that exist in the real world. Lightning, fire, food, light, etc. It's only really the esoteric stuff that we don't have a match for. Astral projection, planar travel, etc. But most spells are some form of "I hit that thing with Y damage type at a distance." That's not a huge break in simulation.

I don't think I can grant that. Let's bear in mind that neither fireballs or lightning bolts actually resemble real world explosions or lightning.

Fireballs don't include concussive force and all the other physical components of an explosion. So what real-world thing do they actually look like?

Lightning Bolt spells are even farther removed from what an actual lightning strike looks like or how electricity acts.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I disagree it's conceivable. Like, at all. Because the fiction of those dragons is the same in both -- Reign of Fire is 'what happens if D&D dragons are released on the real world." Massive, impossibly fast, impossibly armored, strong, acrobatic flying beasts that breathe fire!

I mean, realistically speaking, it took considerable effort to crack open a fully armored knight. There armor was impressive, and hard to breach, requiring specific techniques and tools to do so (the evolution of battlefield weapons clearly shows this, with anti-knight weapons being picks and long knives used to get into the cracks after you grounded the opponent). Swords were one of the worst weapons to use against a knight.

Dragons are even more impressively armored than the best knights, but the same hand weapons are conceived to be able to harm them.

Late era breastplates are effectively bulletproof. A dragon's armor is significantly improved over this. Reign of Fire actually did a pretty good job of realistic extrapolation.

I mean the knights could harm other knights with their weapons... Look, you're first inventing fiction in which dragons are ludicrously more resilient than any other animals, then you're posing that a film in which they can defeat tanks and fighter jets is realistic, and then complaining that it is unrealistic that knights could defeat these things can take down a modern military. All this is completely circular. If we instead don't assume that dragons are absurdly resilient, and that they can be harmed with normal weapons like all other animals, the issue really doesn't exist (or at least is way less blatant.)

Sure, but that's not how it is, is it?

Next edition perhaps? I said I agreed with you that D&D is inconsistent in how it models the fictional reality and I wish it could be improved.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

For shields I am not sure exactly what I would do but their importance in historical ancient warfare can't really be overstated. Granted, the kind of small team tactical fighting we do in D&D wasn't really a thing in a historical context, so it's probably not worth upending the whole combat system unless we are going to start fighting with shield walls.

As to magic, I think my favorite form in all fantasy RPGing that would be worth importing is Earthdawn's system.

I would expect that a LOT of the actual fighting that historical/semi-historical warriors engaged in was actually pretty small-scale. I think shields were pretty darn significant there too! I mean, I would surely rather have a shield (and a helmet) vs a chain byrnie in almost any situation, realistically. I don't know of a system that has ever really done them justice. I think part of the reason for this is that people want to emulate the fantasy trope of heroes going around in their full gear. In the real world nobody wandered around in armor, it just wasn't a thing. You put it on when you were intending to fight, and took it off again when you were done. Perhaps some types might have been worn when in dangerous territory or on campaign, but nobody ever went around fully decked out! OTOH you can pick up a shield and equip it in a matter of seconds.

 

[kenada]

Yup. Exactly.

But its unclear to me what is happening in these conversation exchanges.

1) D&D Fighter closes to melee with the dragon (a prerequisite to deploy their atttacks).

2) D&D Fighter deploys their attack(s).

3) D&D Dragon deploys their melee suite of attacks onto D&D Fighter.

4) D&D Fighter somehow survives.

5) Rinse and repeat until D&D Fighter somehow slays the D&D dragon.


I'm not "cancelling anyone's opinion" and I'm not calling people's play badwrongfun (but I sure as hell have had that called against me aplenty in the past!). What I'm curious about is (and I would love if you would answer this @Micah Sweet ), given the above 1-5 and the bolded/italicized in particular, what is happening in the shared imagined space to make this true if not D&D Epic Fighter's athletic profile reveals supernatural explosivity (omnidirectional speed, strength, agility), endurance, coordination, proprioception, and processing speed/efficiency?

I don’t see how the fighter can do it without some kind of supernatural support. Either their party is doing something (not saying it’s magic, but it’s magic), or the fighter themself is supernatural. That’s a kind of sim, but I don’t think it’s the kind the OP has in mind. It’s what one should expect from high or epic fantasy rather being like how things actually work (if you squinted).

 

[Ovinomancer]

Yeah, I'm MOSTLY with you on this, except for the definitional question on the word simulation, here.

AA and MBC have pointed out/opined that to simulate something, you need to be able to point at the real thing that you're simulating, so you have that concrete reference point and can gauge "how well have I simulated this thing"? But if there's no real thing to point at, can you really make a fake (simulated) version of it?

I think this is one of the longstanding confusions from the GNS model, right? Does "simulation" cover simulation of reality and real things only, or does it include simulation of fictive concepts? Or is it clearer if we call the latter "genre emulation" or some other term, to keep them distinct?

Largely, yes, because GNS was borne in a specific context and set of discussions that had evolved to use terms in specific ways. Coming at that cold, without that context, is confusing. Terrible naming conventions for general appeal, perfectly cromulent for where the discussion actually occurred. The alternative terms tend to work better, with simulation being "Right to Dream." That covers this much better, in that the argument is really for the ability to immerse in the fiction in a specific way -- to 'dream'. And gamism's alternative "Step on Up" also captures the concept better. "Story Now" still sucks, though. "Story" is still a context specific term.

 

[Mannahnin]

I would expect that a LOT of the actual fighting that historical/semi-historical warriors engaged in was actually pretty small-scale. I think shields were pretty darn significant there too! I mean, I would surely rather have a shield (and a helmet) vs a chain byrnie in almost any situation, realistically. I don't know of a system that has ever really done them justice. I think part of the reason for this is that people want to emulate the fantasy trope of heroes going around in their full gear. In the real world nobody wandered around in armor, it just wasn't a thing. You put it on when you were intending to fight, and took it off again when you were done. Perhaps some types might have been worn when in dangerous territory or on campaign, but nobody ever went around fully decked out! OTOH you can pick up a shield and equip it in a matter of seconds.

This brings back a vivid memory of a night attack in a LARP during my college days, just having time to don my helmet and shield before leaving the tent, and getting whacked in the head (thankfully on the helm) by an attacker out of the darkness almost immediately upon emerging. I was glad to have that helmet!