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

[Crimson Longinus]

This then defines 'simulation' as any game mechanic. Pick a game, it's simulation, we just need to haggle over the price.

Nope. The mechanic needs to represent the fictional reality for it to be a simulation. Not all mechanics do this. For example in many games odds of success do not depend on parameters of the fictional reality, and many have some purely meta mechanics.

 

[Thomas Shey]

OK, but I would argue that, if it is a sim in any meaningful sense, you could GO THROUGH IT with another person and they would have to agree that, modulus some things that might be elided or simplified, that the logic of what was produced was sound, and that the outputs are the logically consistent and expected outputs that match in some sense to real world results of carrying out the simulated activity/of the simulated system (say the economy of a town).

In theory, sure. But how often and with how many people do you want to do that? I'd suggest that barring people who are just too non-confrontational to want to get into it, you could end up doing it multiple times a session on occasion, or having to go through it with most of a group on occasion. And then find out the next time it came up you had to do it again.

I don't really think that things like skill checks to climb cliffs and the price table from the 5e PHB are going to do that. Certainly anyone who has climbing experience is likely to object to climb checks as matching with ANYTHING in reality (@Manbearcat being our go-to on this one). Likewise no one who has ever been in a retail business will agree that the market place in Fallcrest represents any touchpoint with reality at all beyond "there are goods and prices."

I guess about as far as we can go with this is that there's something of a subjective nature about it. So some people might agree that it seems kinda 'simulationistic' and other people might scoff at the notion because they're more knowledgeable about the subject in question.

That was more or less the point I made earlier, that going with the common-understanding only works if everyone is very much on the same page, and you can hit all kinds of things where that won't be true. And bad as some mechanics are at simulating what they're trying to do, they're frequently still better than a lot of people's understanding of the same thing--and even when they aren't, they aren't at least four different sets of understanding for the same subject.

This doesn't mean you can't have rules that are comically bad about a given topic (you can get me started on a lot of avowedly "realistic" injury rules some time if you want an earful), but my view is that its still likely that anyone who actually sat down, did even the most minimal research, and tried to think through a set of rules about a topic is probably better than people who have no experience with it and are basing their assumptions off what they've seen in media (which doesn't mean that can't be appropriate for some uses, but I'm trying to tease apart genre emulation from any simulation of reality, or even most counter-factual settings here).

 

[Thomas Shey]

Nope. The mechanic needs to represent the fictional reality for it to be a simulation. Not all mechanics do this. For example in many games odds of success do not depend on parameters of the fictional reality, and many have some purely meta mechanics.

Though as I've noted before, some fictional realities with high genre convention settings, those meta mechanics are, in practice, simulating the fictional reality because the fictional reality isn't just the set of rules the people in the world think it is.

 

[Hussar]

@EzekielRaiden - just wanted to note that that was extremely well written and a very clear argument. Well done you.

As far as older editions and scale and whatnot, we rarely bothered because our play spaces were never large enough. So combat was basically all resolved randomly. You had five pcs in melee with 10 orcs so each pc got two attacks. Since the orcs were identical, the only real choice was attack a fresh or wounded one. Wash, rinse repeat until the baddies were all dead.

Spacing? Fictional positioning? In DnD? Hard nope.

So, for me, I’ve never come from the position of thinking that DnD combat was ever meant as anything approaching simulation. I played other games like Villains and Vigilantes or Battletech or Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles or GURPS if I wanted that. Heck even Star Frontiers, as simple as that game was, was far further down the simulation spectrum than DnD.

It’s why I’ve always found this conversation so baffling to be honest. Until 4e came along, I’d never even heard it whispered that someone played DnD for its simulation aspects. Very strange to me.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Though as I've noted before, some fictional realities with high genre convention settings, those meta mechanics are, in practice, simulating the fictional reality because the fictional reality isn't just the set of rules the people in the world think it is.

What I mean by 'fictional reality' here is. Perhaps we need a better term, but I really meant the properties of the world, not its narrative conventions.

 

[Oofta]

Um, <checks notes>, no? Reign of Fire is a more realistic depiction of D&D dragons as D&D presents them in the fiction, than D&D game rules are. And that's fine. I'm not championing RoF as the epitome and model for all dragonkind, I'm saying D&D is so backasswards on simulating this (going with the OP definition of feeling kinda like it could happen in the real world) that RoF is doing the better job of it. That job can be terrible and still win.

I mean, you really seem stuck on getting something you can mock me for instead of dealing with what I'm saying. That's an interesting approach.

Oh, no, I started by looking at fighters affecting dragons being kinda weird stuff if we look at what a dragon is as the game presents it and even kinda squint at realism along the way. I mean, even if you're saying "I want a dragon martini, vodka, olive, only look at the vermouth, sorry, I mean realism, and give me something" then D&D dragons vs fighters is less believable than Reign of Fire. Does that solve it for you?

I mean, the fighter isn't blocking anything the dragon does if we're even glancing at simulation. Can't block something that weighs tons and is coming like a pro-baseball fastball at your head. You have to dodge. Cool, but that supposes a level of athletic ability that surpasses anything the fighter can do outside of a fight. So, then, no. But now how to we explain what's happening in a consistent way? We don't, consistency gets ignored because dragons just do not make sense, and we narrate the fighter barely getting out of the way or even blocking (ha!) a blow or two because that tells a fun story about what the game is telling us. It has nothing to do with simulation. Reign of Fire, on the other hand, tried because they at least lampshaded the dragons as being so tough that only big guns could take them out, but the widespread devastation (they didn't go after the military, they went after crops and people and were all over the world in numbers) made sure that any good the military might do was quickly lost in global starvation. I mean, have you watched the movie?

No, because I'm not making the arguments you're saying I'm making. I hope the above is clearer.

So just double down on "ROS dragons are D&D dragons because I say so"? Very convincing.

 

[Manbearcat]

So just double down on "ROS dragons are D&D dragons because I say so"? Very convincing.

Why are you not engaging with what I'm typing.

You want receipts. I gave them to you.

Smaug was a kaiju and he was the inspiration for D&D Red Dragons.

For 8 years, Adult Dragons were the limit in AD&D from 77 to 85, ending with Master Set when Kaiju were introduced.

From '85 w/ Master Set > Immortals Set > Greybox FR > AD&D 2e > 3.x > 4e it was all Kaiju (outside of RC's concurrent release early 90s) through at least 2014. That is 29 years straight.

5e releases late 2014 and there is ample evidence, including the comparison to 4e Great Wyrms (also Gargantuan on the battle grid but clearly kaiju in dimensions - given), that kaiju still appear to be a thing in D&D 5e.

So what are we arguing over here?

This conversation should have been donezo long ago. It was DoA.

Can we just skip to the point where we all agree "yeah, it makes no sense for a Fighter to deal with these titans through martial prowess unless that same prowess extends out of combat with a supernatural athletic profile...so lets make sure that Ancient Wyrms only come in play at Epic Tier and that our Martial Heroes have sufficiently supernatural athletic prowess in and out of combat to clash with these titanic beasts in melee. That way its easily cordoned off to the Epic Tier of play where very few souls venture. Earlier Tiers of play can end with Adult Dragons that aren't Kaiju and those folks can have their 'bound by earth-physics martial heroes' doing relatively mundane things out of combat to go with their slightly more believable clashes with Adult Dragons."

Who doesn't agree with the above at this point? Its inarguable and its healthy for the game and the gaming culture.

 

[hawkeyefan]

So I want to toss out an example, some specific rules from a game, and see what people think.

The Loadout rules from Blades in the Dark. For those who don’t know, before going on a Score, each PC decides if they have a Light, Medium, or Heavy Load. This determines the number of inventory slots that they have available during the mission.

Each PC also has a list of available gear to have with them, with most items taking one inventory slot. Some larger items take two, and certain small items of negligible size and weight take zero slots. There is standard gear available to all, and then gear that is specific to each playbook (class).

The player only selects their Load before play begins, setting the number of inventory slots available to them. What specific gear they actually have is determined during play. So if they come to a locked door, a player may declare that they have burglary tools, and mark it on their Loadout.

When discussing the way this works, it’s often cited as problematic by many folks. “Quantim inventory” and other labels get used to describe it.

Surely, this is largely a gamist element… I expect most folks would agree. There probably aren’t many here who would define this as a Simulation style mechanic.

And yet… it’s designed to mimic the ability of a competent criminal to have planned appropriately, and to have what they need. In this way, it’s removing the need for the player to make these choices, and is instead portraying how the character would so so.

It’s attempting to mimic the fictional world.

So based on what people are saying here, it’s actually a simulation.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I'm 100% on your side man. I never did ToTM, except a few times when we couldn't set up a table to play on. So, we worked out something using bits and pieces of the D&D and AD&D rules sets that was workable, and frankly probably pretty close to what Gary did or at least intended when he wrote the DMG.

Well, I could make do with a chalkboard and marks if there was nothing better available, but if it dropped down to full TotM, I could make no assurance I was giving the players good info.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Nope. The mechanic needs to represent the fictional reality for it to be a simulation. Not all mechanics do this. For example in many games odds of success do not depend on parameters of the fictional reality, and many have some purely meta mechanics.

Ah, so simulation is only the games you're familiar with that do it in the way you know how, all other things are probably metagamey. Because setting arbitrary DCs (there's no wall to evaluate, it's just the GM's thinking about the wall) and rolling a die is so much more accurate to real life than, say, flipping a coin and tales you fall, heads you climb. Or, roll 2d6, on a 6- something unexpected and unwelcome happens, on a 7-9 you succeed, but there's a cost, and on a 10+ you climb the hill. If you've done something to set this up, roll 3d6 and take the best two. If you're in a pickle already and this is desperation, maybe roll 3d6 and take the worst two. Fixed stakes simulate reality as well as arbitrary stakes do, because, wait for it, both are arbitrary.