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

[Micah Sweet]

So accepting simulation as defined in the OP, how do you apply that to worldbuilding? I mean you specifically....what do you do when you're crafting your setting that you feel is a simulation?

When possible, I look to historical record, or game design based on it. When that isn't realistic, I go on what makes sense to me and my players. If there's a conflict, we discuss it and work it out. I like to think we're all reasonably knowledgeable folks.

Of course, that falls into the "making stuff up" category for a lot of you, and maybe you're right. But we all at least try to maintain verisimilitude as much as is practical. That we don't always succeed or that others have a different opinion doesn't invalidate the attempt, at least to us.

 

[Micah Sweet]

5e isn't my favorite by any stretch, and I'm not running it. Right now I have a few favorite games—I'm running one of them, and long-term prepping to run another. This is pretty easy stuff.



You did say that's not helpful, but you didn't offer a reason. If I was complaining about a system as regularly as you do on these boards about 5e, and people suggested ones that seemed more like what I was interested in, I wouldn't act wounded and appalled. There are other games, there are other players. I honestly don't get being stuck with a system because you have players who don't trust you enough to try something else. That's a genuinely bad situation!

EDIT: Fixed a minor typo

You're overstating the issue. I play 5e as a player and enjoy it. Its not worth it to me to force my friends to play another game or find new players to spend my limited social time on. When I run fantasy, I prefer Level Up, as it fixes a lot of issues I have with WotC's 5e but uses the same base. I have repeatedly expressed my fondness for Level Up in this and other threads. The amount of enjoyment I would lose in trying to find people to play ACKS with me instead (and it would have to be instead) is greater than just running a game i like slightly less. I satisfy myself with reading ACKS and trying to find ways to apply elements of it to my Level Up game.

As a side note, OSR games can sometimes be more difficult to learn for a 5e player than an entirely unrelated game would be, as the differences are often smaller and thus harder to keep straight. I am currently attempting to get a game of Star Trek Adventures going for my group, which would be a new and quite different system for all of us.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Well, that can't be right. I like that argument. If I'm trying to get a game to do something and having trouble with it, I welcome suggestions of other games that do that thing better. I know other people like that, too. So, no, not literally no one.

It's fine if you have reasons to stick to D&D even if it isn't serving you well. But maybe express those instead of assuming you know what everyone likes.

If we're to have a discussion, it might be novel for you to actually engage my points instead of these last replies essentially trying to slander my person. I know, message board and all.

I have expressed my reasons. Please see above.

My apologies about the rest of your message. I was unfortunately engaging in hyperbole in regards to, "literally no one". I still strongly believe its not a helpful sentiment.

 

[Thomas Shey]

As a side note, OSR games can sometimes be more difficult to learn for a 5e player than an entirely unrelated game would be, as the differences are often smaller and thus harder to keep straight. I am currently attempting to get a game of Star Trek Adventures going for my group, which would be a new and quite different system for all of us.

Its absolutely true that its really easy conflate rules that are more similar than not; I've seen that any number of times with games with new editions over the years.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I have expressed my reasons. Please see above.

My apologies about the rest of your message. I was unfortunately engaging in hyperbole in regards to, "literally no one". I still strongly believe its not a helpful sentiment.

Is it less helpful than "This wrench is never going to make a good hammer"? Because that would be the other honest reaction I would give in many cases.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

For the life of me I can't figure out why we are re-fighting battles of Edition War II in this thread.

Nobody is 'refighting' anything. I was just pointing out how silly the whole debate about realism and simulation could get. More in regards to the idea of it being a basis of deciding anything at all about how the setting works than anything else.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Is it less helpful than "This wrench is never going to make a good hammer"? Because that would be the other honest reaction I would give in many cases.

For most people to whom that question is posed, in my experience, yes.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Yes. How well is a different matter.

No. It means the system is not currently simulating it, but there is no reason that a specific sim mechanic for a sim thing can't be implemented if that is what the group wants.

What I object to is the idea that if a game doesn't include or can't reasonably simulate EVERYTHING, then it can't simulate ANYTHING, or that if it includes anything that is "unrealistic" then it can't include any "realistic" elements (scare quotes are to remind folks that we are not actually talking about realism when we talk about sim elements).

Okay, I follow what you're saying. But then this is such a broad application of "simulation" that I don't know what games don't use it. And if that's the case, then I'm not really sure what your OP is asking.

So to try and help clarify....you asked about when it's good to use simulation. So let's flip that. When do you think we should not simulate things? What might be the benefit to do so as a game designer or as a GM/players?

From some posters I am getting the sense that the issue is actually a weird complaint about Martial characters getting hosed by sim elements, while casters get to bypass them, but since I despise that particular line of argument I have ignored it thus far.

Just it reiterate and clarify my position: it is okay, and even fun, to include some sim elements that humanize characters by making them subject to the same sorts of pressures and concerns that I am, even if (perhaps especially if) they also fight demons and dragons and have to dodge fireballs and poison needle traps.

Well, considering that "simulation" as you use it tends to restrict any fictional action that might be classified as "within limits of human performance" and then tends to go on a lunch break whenever "magic" shows up, I'd say that it's not really a case of other posters making this a point. I think it's a natural result of your logic. Characters who use magic are unrestricted by "simulation" in many ways that don't apply to "non-magic" characters.

Well, I'll certainly step in and argue that if a game has no mechanics related to X the game is incapable of simulating it; that does not mean the GM and other players cannot do so, whether by house rules, ad hoc rules, or simply defining results. But I wouldn't say those are the same statement.

That has interesting implications on how a game handles negotiations, let's say, or any number of other areas.

 

[hawkeyefan]

When possible, I look to historical record, or game design based on it. When that isn't realistic, I go on what makes sense to me and my players. If there's a conflict, we discuss it and work it out. I like to think we're all reasonably knowledgeable folks.

Sorry I wasn't clearer. I was asking for specific examples, if you don't mind. Not general "I look at history and I consider it" kinds of process.

Something like "I researched firearms used in WWI and then used that research to inform the rules for different types of guns available in game" or similarly specific example. Can you think of any examples like that?

Of course, that falls into the "making stuff up" category for a lot of you, and maybe you're right. But we all at least try to maintain verisimilitude as much as is practical. That we don't always succeed or that others have a different opinion doesn't invalidate the attempt, at least to us.

I don't know who a "lot of you" is referring to; I'm speaking for myself. Verisimilitude is something I can understand. I think it's likely that everyone has their own take on what is verisimilar and what is not. I don't personally think that's the same as "simulation" because I think verisimilitude is about the appearance of truth, rather than the attempt to reproduce truth.

And again, I speak only for myself, but I imagine that some of the issues that have come up in this conversation is because the use of "simulation" to describe one way of playing implies things are hewing closer to reality than other ways of playing...when in truth, they're both pretty equally far from reality, and it's a matter of preference.

 

[niklinna]

Well, my ideas on shields landed like a wet towel. What if we go a little broader, to armor? Why does armor affect to-hit instead of being a damage reducer? It doesn't seem very realistic. That's a bigger change, but there are systems that do it. Unlike hit points, which permeate the game rules, armor class seems like it could be redone. Certain things would have more effect, or less, but the goal is more simulation, yes?

So armor of different types could aborb different amounts of damage, particular weapons and spells could have an "armor piercing" quality the bypasses some of that. Or blasts and bolts and such might ignore armor unless the armor specifically offers full-body protetction, and the like.

I've actually cribbed most of that from Torg Eternity. It seems to handle armor in a more simulationy way than D&D while still being fairly simple in the rules. (Unlike other, far more central, parts of the Torg ruleset!)

Oh and for what it's worth, I totally think fantasy PCs with advanced physical training and/or strength should be able to jump ridiculously high and leap ridiculously far, whether in combat or not. Else your fighters and barbarians will at best be giving that dragon a bad pedicure.