Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
On simulating things: what, why, and how?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 8676611" data-attributes="member: 82106"><p>OK, that's an objection, but it isn't No True Scottsman... Honestly, the problem here is that the DMG says "set the DC by the difficulty of the task", but what is "difficulty of the task?" There IS NO ACTUAL UNDERLYING WORLD, so there is no cause-and-effect structure to create said difficulty! The difficulty is thus simply a number, which itself now has to be created out of SOMETHING. Since the GM is in complete control of what the fiction is within the world, he's in complete control of the value of this difficulty that sets the DC. So the end result is exactly the same, the GM decides, based on some unstated criteria and in some unstated way, an adjective. He then calls this adjective 'difficulty' and sets a DC according to the 'rule' in the DMG. You point to the rule, without analyzing the entire logical structure, and claim it is a 'simulation', but it isn't, its just a number attached to an adjective that was set through some entirely opaque process that has nothing in particular to do with anything that might be getting 'simulated'. See what I mean?</p><p></p><p>OK, the Space combat system from Classic Traveller has elements of being a simulation. There is some actual attempt to portray weapons and tactics which are analogous to things that reasonably can be extrapolated from known physics and engineering. It is still a game (maybe not a very good one actually, and partly because it is fairly realistic) but there is at least some sort of pretty consistent stuff in there, like the further away you are from the enemy's laser turret, the less probability there is of a hit (IE the angular resolution of his aiming system is a fixed number, but the arc subtended by your vessel at a greater distance is smaller, and evasive maneuvers are proportionately more effective, etc.). It is at least an ATTEMPT to inject some kind of correspondence between realistic things that might actually exist and happen and things that represent them within the game and how they exist and happen. </p><p></p><p>Now, I agree that, in some trivial sense, falling damage in D&D 'simulates' falling, sure. However I think it is much more driven by the 'falling trope' of dramatic fiction than by an attempt to actually match with physics. Meanwhile, the Traveller space combat system actually AVOIDS the normal tropes of things like space opera where everything is blasters and N-Rays and tractor beams or whatever (queue Star Trek, you can immediately see the difference). I mean, sure you can find a few rare SF books who's space combat might be similar to Traveller's but CLEARLY the thought process started from "what would space combat actually be like?" and the rules grew out of that. Honestly, I think the author probably wasn't very knowledgeable about subjects such as sensors, control system, C3I, etc. and chances are his 'simulation' is pretty bad! Still, its an attempt. </p><p></p><p>So, as a final point. I can't say whether or not every single thing in every FRPG is or is not a simulation. Nobody can do that, its not a clear line. I really don't think the idea of simulation does much good work in these games though. I think it is MUCH more productive and useful to think about how these things work in terms of producing story logic and necessary structure in terms of orienting participants and giving them indications of what to expect and what inputs will produce what sorts of outcomes. When we build rules structures like the D&D combat system, they map onto story logic, and they orient the players, and the conventions and structure of them allows us to know what is likely to happen and what the different 'moves' we can make will do. When an RPG hews fairly closely to a logical structure that has some correspondences with things we understand in the real world "swords hurt you" then we can also go beyond the board-game-like structure of typical games and into an open-ended mode where the players can suggest moves beyond what the system/fiction already cover. The GM is then expected to respond in a way that is expected and justified, either by an appeal to 'fairness', 'playability', 'genre logic', or a very loose kind of analogizing with real world situations. I think that analogizing is so loose, and shallow, that calling it 'simulation' just doesn't do useful work. As I pointed out with Traveller space combat though, you can find SOMETHING that is a bit 'simulative in nature' here and there, and that means it is hard to be really absolutist.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="AbdulAlhazred, post: 8676611, member: 82106"] OK, that's an objection, but it isn't No True Scottsman... Honestly, the problem here is that the DMG says "set the DC by the difficulty of the task", but what is "difficulty of the task?" There IS NO ACTUAL UNDERLYING WORLD, so there is no cause-and-effect structure to create said difficulty! The difficulty is thus simply a number, which itself now has to be created out of SOMETHING. Since the GM is in complete control of what the fiction is within the world, he's in complete control of the value of this difficulty that sets the DC. So the end result is exactly the same, the GM decides, based on some unstated criteria and in some unstated way, an adjective. He then calls this adjective 'difficulty' and sets a DC according to the 'rule' in the DMG. You point to the rule, without analyzing the entire logical structure, and claim it is a 'simulation', but it isn't, its just a number attached to an adjective that was set through some entirely opaque process that has nothing in particular to do with anything that might be getting 'simulated'. See what I mean? OK, the Space combat system from Classic Traveller has elements of being a simulation. There is some actual attempt to portray weapons and tactics which are analogous to things that reasonably can be extrapolated from known physics and engineering. It is still a game (maybe not a very good one actually, and partly because it is fairly realistic) but there is at least some sort of pretty consistent stuff in there, like the further away you are from the enemy's laser turret, the less probability there is of a hit (IE the angular resolution of his aiming system is a fixed number, but the arc subtended by your vessel at a greater distance is smaller, and evasive maneuvers are proportionately more effective, etc.). It is at least an ATTEMPT to inject some kind of correspondence between realistic things that might actually exist and happen and things that represent them within the game and how they exist and happen. Now, I agree that, in some trivial sense, falling damage in D&D 'simulates' falling, sure. However I think it is much more driven by the 'falling trope' of dramatic fiction than by an attempt to actually match with physics. Meanwhile, the Traveller space combat system actually AVOIDS the normal tropes of things like space opera where everything is blasters and N-Rays and tractor beams or whatever (queue Star Trek, you can immediately see the difference). I mean, sure you can find a few rare SF books who's space combat might be similar to Traveller's but CLEARLY the thought process started from "what would space combat actually be like?" and the rules grew out of that. Honestly, I think the author probably wasn't very knowledgeable about subjects such as sensors, control system, C3I, etc. and chances are his 'simulation' is pretty bad! Still, its an attempt. So, as a final point. I can't say whether or not every single thing in every FRPG is or is not a simulation. Nobody can do that, its not a clear line. I really don't think the idea of simulation does much good work in these games though. I think it is MUCH more productive and useful to think about how these things work in terms of producing story logic and necessary structure in terms of orienting participants and giving them indications of what to expect and what inputs will produce what sorts of outcomes. When we build rules structures like the D&D combat system, they map onto story logic, and they orient the players, and the conventions and structure of them allows us to know what is likely to happen and what the different 'moves' we can make will do. When an RPG hews fairly closely to a logical structure that has some correspondences with things we understand in the real world "swords hurt you" then we can also go beyond the board-game-like structure of typical games and into an open-ended mode where the players can suggest moves beyond what the system/fiction already cover. The GM is then expected to respond in a way that is expected and justified, either by an appeal to 'fairness', 'playability', 'genre logic', or a very loose kind of analogizing with real world situations. I think that analogizing is so loose, and shallow, that calling it 'simulation' just doesn't do useful work. As I pointed out with Traveller space combat though, you can find SOMETHING that is a bit 'simulative in nature' here and there, and that means it is hard to be really absolutist. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
On simulating things: what, why, and how?
Top