Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Oofta" data-source="post: 8677580" data-attributes="member: 6801845">Since I've been mentioned several times (and it's not late at night and I've had some caffeine <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/2615.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":coffee:" title="Coffee    :coffee:"  data-smilie="26"data-shortname=":coffee:" />) I thought I would clarify my thoughts.  Short version?  Simulation models a flow of possible events.  In D&D it's modeling the reaction of PCs to events in a fantastical world.I think any system that broadly gives the impression of mimicking the environment, world, events we're trying to to evoke can be considered a simulation. A technical definition of simulation can be found <a href="https://www.twi-global.com/technical-knowledge/faqs/faq-what-is-simulation#:~:text=Simulations%20can%20be%20used%20to,conditions%20and%20courses%20of%20action." target="_blank">here </a>"A simulation is a model that mimics the operation of an existing or proposed system, providing evidence for decision-making by being able to test different scenarios or process changes." Another relevant sentence "Any system or process that has a flow of events can be simulated."  Many of the things raised as reasons why D&D is not a simulation is never mentioned in any of the general definitions I can find.  There's no mention of the various subsystems telling us why those subsystems acted in the way they did, it's all about what we are simulating reacting to those subsystems.Now, obviously the article I found after 30 seconds of googling is about simulating the real world but the key to me is that you're just mimicking something, a flow of events.  So  I consider the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallout_(video_game)" target="_blank">Fallout games </a>a simulation of a fictional post-apocalyptic world based on an alternative 50's vision of the future.  That doesn't mean I believe radiation can make magical mutants or that the power armor they use is realistic, it doesn't need to be.  If you use the VATS system, it becomes obvious that every time you shoot at someone the game is rolling percentile dice in the background to see if you hit.  It doesn't "justify" why you hit, it just rolls the digital dice.  Much like when an attempt to climb is made we role the polyhedral random number generator.The flow of events is what we are simulating.  It's how our PCs interact with and respond to a fictional magical world.  When I play D&D I'm not running a rock climbing simulation.  I'm simulating the attempts of the PC to overcome obstacles which may include climbing a wall they cannot automatically climb.  The results of that attempt to climb and what happens to the PC on success or failure is what matters.  If Bob can't tell that Sue is lying but Alex could have, it's just simulating the fact that in this specific instance Bob wasn't paying enough attention or is not very good at reading people.  Whether the people at the table add fluff to justify why Bob wasn't paying enough attention is just decorative narration, it doesn't change the outcome.  The game's simulationist aspect is not altered by the fact that we also add narration.As far as dragons, the fiction for dragons in D&D is limited to the rules of the game.  Dragon lore varies so widely there has to be some baseline.  Some dragons are small crocodile sized that St George slew, others are basically gods that can consume stars.  I use D&D's baseline as established in the MM. That means that at a maximum they have an AC only slightly better than a PC in plate with a shield.  That AC can be matched (or exceeded) by magical enhancements a PC would normally have at high levels.  Even an ancient red dragon only has a little over double the HP of a 20th level barbarian (assuming 18 con).  Hard to kill?  Absolutely.  It's why a lone PC would probably be literal toast.  Impossible to kill?  No, not according to the fiction established by the rules of the game*. Are high level PCs in D&D supremely good at what they do?  Even exceeding normal (real world) human capabilities?  Sure.  That's part of what we're simulating, a world where the best of the best can indeed face down dragons.  At times it's a very crude simulation, one that has many simplifications and limitations because it's a TTRPG. In any case, that's my definition, backed up by definitions of what simulation means outside of the gaming world. P.S. If you want to have a discussion that's fine.  If you want to tell me I'm wrong because of some definition of simulation you've established I probably won't respond.  If you can find some non-game-theory definition of simulation reference that contradicts what I've said, I'll take a look when I have time.  I'm not being dismissive of other people's opinions, I just don't see the point of saying "you're wrong" vs "no, you are".*Although in my games I rarely use high level dragons because unless there are unusual circumstances I would use tactics that would likely kill off one or more PCs.  They're more than just a static pile of HP, but that's a different discussion.</blockquote>

Verification