Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Oofta" data-source="post: 8677849" data-attributes="member: 6801845">Right.&nbsp; D&amp;D is set in a fictional proposed realm&nbsp; I don't see a conflict.&nbsp; They also specifically mention video game simulations, many of which are complete fiction. So I think the word still applies.&nbsp; Feel free to differ.If you're building a simulation of a grocery store, you don't care why a shopper picks up Captain Crunch over Wheaties.&nbsp; You just know that they do, probably have some sort of randomization based on past behavior and sales figures.&nbsp; You may have some fallbacks such as what cereal they will buy if their favorite is out.&nbsp; You can also increase sales percentages based on where the cereal is located (endcaps are a big sales boost) and so on.&nbsp; But end of the day simulations don't care why something happens, they just care about the impact it has on the grocery store and overall sales.Why would they be?&nbsp; We aren't attempting to simulate training for the Olympics.&nbsp; Being really, really good at fighting doesn't mean you suddenly know how to pole vault.&nbsp; You have a bit of an edge if it's something you have training in because your proficiency bonus goes up.&nbsp; Your long jump increases if you've been pumping iron and are stronger.But you're also talking specific game mechanic implementation, which I think is a bit of a red herring.&nbsp; The game simplifies a lot of things, I never said it was a particularly good simulation in all aspects.But the posts that I see arguing against simulation is that it's not real world or the simulation doesn't tell us why something happens.&nbsp; I'm saying I don't think it matters, you can simulate things that are only proposed.&nbsp; We don't care why something happens, we just care that events happen and what is the reaction to those events.&nbsp; It doesn't matter why grocery shopper #4053 buys as many groceries as they do, it just matters how we can efficiently restock the shelves and whether or not it's going to cause a backlog at the cash register.D&amp;D does vastly, vastly simplify complex things.&nbsp; Many simulations do.&nbsp; I don't think the level of granularity in how we get to an event, what matters is that the system (the PCs) respond to it.The OP to me, was asking how &quot;realistic&quot; you want D&amp;D to be, how much do you want to mimic reality.&nbsp; In reality you probably want to avoid fights as much as possible, in some games a long rest/full recovery taking an hour is still too long because the group wants constant action.&nbsp; Some DMs will tell you that no, your wizard with the scribe background doesn't have a scrap of paper unless it's written on their character sheet.&nbsp; It's that spectrum that I think most people care about but it gets sidetracked by discussions of what words mean.&nbsp; There will never be a truly objective definition of what a reasonable level of simulation is.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Oofta, post: 8677849, member: 6801845"] Right. D&D is set in a fictional [I]proposed[/I] realm I don't see a conflict. They also specifically mention video game simulations, many of which are complete fiction. So I think the word still applies. Feel free to differ. If you're building a simulation of a grocery store, you don't care why a shopper picks up Captain Crunch over Wheaties. You just know that they do, probably have some sort of randomization based on past behavior and sales figures. You may have some fallbacks such as what cereal they will buy if their favorite is out. You can also increase sales percentages based on where the cereal is located (endcaps are a big sales boost) and so on. But end of the day simulations don't care [I]why[/I] something happens, they just care about the impact it has on the grocery store and overall sales. Why would they be? We aren't attempting to simulate training for the Olympics. Being really, really good at fighting doesn't mean you suddenly know how to pole vault. You have a bit of an edge if it's something you have training in because your proficiency bonus goes up. Your long jump increases if you've been pumping iron and are stronger. But you're also talking specific game mechanic implementation, which I think is a bit of a red herring. The game simplifies a lot of things, I never said it was a particularly [I]good[/I] simulation in all aspects. But the posts that I see arguing against simulation is that it's not real world or the simulation doesn't tell us why something happens. I'm saying I don't think it matters, you can simulate things that are only proposed. We don't care why something happens, we just care that events happen and what is the reaction to those events. It doesn't matter why grocery shopper #4053 buys as many groceries as they do, it just matters how we can efficiently restock the shelves and whether or not it's going to cause a backlog at the cash register. D&D does vastly, vastly simplify complex things. Many simulations do. I don't think the level of granularity in how we get to an event, what matters is that the system (the PCs) respond to it. The OP to me, was asking how "realistic" you want D&D to be, how much do you want to mimic reality. In reality you probably want to avoid fights as much as possible, in some games a long rest/full recovery taking an hour is still too long because the group wants constant action. Some DMs will tell you that no, your wizard with the scribe background doesn't have a scrap of paper unless it's written on their character sheet. It's that spectrum that I think most people care about but it gets sidetracked by discussions of what words mean. There will never be a truly objective definition of what a reasonable level of simulation is. [/QUOTE]

Verification