D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

[FrogReaver]

If the GM rolls a random encounter, and decides to use some Orcs, and furthermore decides that they are sneaking up on the PCs to ambush them, then - as far as resolution is concerned - there is no "before combat began". The GM decides the Orcs are stealthy, makes the roll, refers to the PC passive perception ratings, and then proceeds accordingly.

Let’s focus on this aspect. How is the GM deciding the orcs are sneaking? Presumably he accounts from the already existing fiction that there is suitable terrain and lighting to do so, that the orcs have spotted the PCs (that is the PCs weren’t trying to be stealthy or if they were that they weren’t doing it very well). Those are the fictional details the stealth roll would be based on. In no way does this lead to the dm inventing terrain to justify hidden/surprising orcs after the stealth roll which is what you stated that brought on this whole tangent. That part is incorrect. That the stealth roll happens before combat and whether it even occurs is contextual to the rest of the fiction is what makes him not have to do that.

 

[Hussar]

This is exactly what I mean when I say the conflation of "simulationism" and "accurately simulating reality" muddies things. I think it is a failure of language. "Verisimilitudinism" or something is probably a more accurate term than "simulationism".

Anyway, the desire to have a fictional world with verisimilitude, where the players feel like they are acting in a real place and that world is responding to them in an authentic way, does not require that you use no abstractions or that abstractions are a bad thing. Nor do abstractions necessarily get in the way of verisimilitude. In some ways they heighten it.

You're not quite getting my point.

It's not that it has to simulate reality. It's that a simulation has to simulate something. Anything. For something to be "Verisimiltudinous", the system has to actually inform the narrative. And in D&D, it never does. The system in no way tells you what happens. Combat is the easiest example, but, anything else works as well - skill checks, saving throws, anything. Nothing in the system actually informs the narrative.

If you fail a climb check, what happens? If you are at the bottom of the climb, then nothing happens. You simply do not move. Why did you fail the check? What caused the failure? Who knows? The system tells you nothing. Conversely, if you succeed at the climb check, the system again does nothing to actually inform the narrative. Maybe you found foot and hand holds. Maybe you scrambled up. Maybe fairies came and lifted you higher. Maybe you succeeded by the lightness of your heart. Who knows? Any narrative you choose is equally valid as far as the system goes.

I have no problems with the idea that your players want to feel like they are acting in a real place. I get it. I honestly do. But, I do not understand why you would choose D&D for this. Or why you would think that D&D is providing this in any way, shape or form. D&D, at no point, informs the narrative. Because it is not, again in any form, a simulation of anything.

IOW, your players would feel like they are acting in a real place regardless of system since D&D isn't doing any lifting here at all.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I don't understand your point here.

How can one say one is putting simulation as the primary process, when one explicitly invites or includes components that are contradictory to it?

It's like saying that every superhero game ever is a perfect simulation game--it's just simulating a world where all of the head-scratching genre conventions of superhero comics are as natural as breathing.

I believe that I have been consistent in contending that while a game's design will support doing some things over others, what game is played is only settled in play.

That would be why I recognized both what the design itself is, and what people are using it for.

That means a person could take any RPG and see if they can do something identifiable as simulationism with it. Not caring about X won't necessarily procure Y, so the implication you draw seems wrong to me. They will have to care about some aspects of the imagined world.

My point was that this definition makes "simulation" cover functionally everything. That is, all one needs to do is just say "well I don't care about that" any time anything might be noted which could be a problem for calling it "simulation". Since it's functionally impossible to truly not care about anything at all in the world--otherwise, why would you even play?--then the standard can be met by literally every game everywhere, no matter what. Any possible argument, no matter how strong, that a particular thing is clearly not compatible with simulation is instantly dismissed by "oh, well I don't care about that."

 

[Hussar]

It's there due to a successful roll. The DM successfully rolled the chance that a wandering monster would appear.

You don't see a difference between the DM and the players? Because to me that's a significant difference. Only one of them involves the encounter being there or not there depending on what the PCs do.

Yup. The lockpicking example.

In the random encounter, it doesn't matter what the PC's do, where they are or any actions they are taking. It's 6 PM and the DM has decided (through the die roll) that an encounter will occur. Nothing the PC's could do could change that.

But, no, I don't see any difference between the DM deciding that an encounter will occur because of an arbitrary die roll and the DM deciding an encounter will occur because of a different totally arbitrary die roll. They are identical. It's not like the Players choose to add the Cook to the kitchen. The only difference is which completely arbitrary die roll the DM chooses to use.

 

[Hussar]

Take something like Warhammer Fantasy. It's a pretty deeply trad game. At least earlier editions of it are. I'm unfamiliar with later editions to be honest.

But, in Warhammer Fantasy, the narrative is actually driven by the mechanics. If I attack something, the system tells me not only whether I hit the target, but, also where I hit the target and if I hit the target hard enough to actually hurt it. So, if I roll a successful attack, the system is going to tell me that I hit the bad guy in the arm and my damage was significant enough to cross the damage threshold and deal harm to the target. Which, I can then narrate pretty well.

That's what a simulation should do. No. I'm going to go further than that. That's the entire POINT of playing a simulation game. For the mechanics to actually inform the players what is happening in the game world. It doesn't have to be realistic, or even remotely real world. After all, similar mechanics cover the magic system, telling me that if I do X, then Y will occur, with Z results.

The magic system in D&D isn't horrible here. It's actually pretty clear. You cast Fireball and a honking big ball of flame explodes at Y range. Great. Cool. Of course, what it means that the baddy saved from the spell isn't really spelled out (sorry for the pun), but, it's not too much of a stretch. But, outside of the magic system? D&D doesn't inform the narrative at all. At best it gives you end results and leaves any narration entirely in the hands of the players.

That's not a simulation of anything. Nor is it verisimiltudinous either. When the system does not provide any information about how you got from A to B, then it is not the system that is helping your narration.

 

[clearstream]

How can one say one is putting simulation as the primary process, when one explicitly invites or includes components that are contradictory to it?

Play tolerates contradictions.

It's like saying that every superhero game ever is a perfect simulation game--it's just simulating a world where all of the head-scratching genre conventions of superhero comics are as natural as breathing.

Upthread I pointed out an "unfixable problem" in relation to Sorensen's manifesto " which is that a group could engineer into setting whatever features they wanted to appear in play; and then say that setting has primacy." That implies that anything that seemed non-diegetic could be made diegetic by authoring it into the world itself. If that involves changing the world on account of that element, then one will have given that element precedence and not the world.

Setting the unfixable problem aside, why shouldn't an imagined world of superheroes, given precedence, addressed as if independently real, and altered in play only diegetically be counted simulationism?

My point was that this definition makes "simulation" cover functionally everything. That is, all one needs to do is just say "well I don't care about that" any time anything might be noted which could be a problem for calling it "simulation". Since it's functionally impossible to truly not care about anything at all in the world--otherwise, why would you even play?--then the standard can be met by literally every game everywhere, no matter what. Any possible argument, no matter how strong, that a particular thing is clearly not compatible with simulation is instantly dismissed by "oh, well I don't care about that."

What's your level of optimism around defining simulationism or really any mode of play, by content?

 

[Gimby]

No issue with player rolls or dm rolls. I think I’ve been very clear about that.

It's not quite player rolls or dm rolls - it's attacker rolls or defender rolls. The example in the 3e UA is player rolls, but it's extensible.

And here I thought we were talking about miss for half damage. That’s a different fictional outcome than miss for no damage.

Miss has a semantic meaning. That is important. If Miss ceases to mean Miss then you’ve rendered the meaning that word is imparting to the simulation meaningless as well. It’s about more than just the mechanical structure.

Note: 2024 d&d has damage on a miss in the game already with the graze weapon mastery.

We are talking about miss for half damage, I agree. I use the 3e UA rules to convert saves into attacks vs defences. I cast a fireball at a creature, it could be a PC or an NPC. There is no change to the fiction input. There is no change to the fiction output. The only difference is that now the die leaves the hand of the attacker rather than the defender. I roll poorly and miss their defence. They take half damage. They have taken damage on a miss, resulting purely from the administrative re-organising of who rolls.

I am playing standard 3.5. I use a sword to attack a human NPC with a Dex of 10 who is wearing Full Plate. Their Touch AC is 10. Their AC is 18. I roll between 10 and 18. I have hit their touch AC (so in fiction, I have struck them, this might be narrated with the ringing of steel on steel or similar) but I have missed their full AC (so mechanically and in fiction, I have not impaired them). By the plain meaning of the word and the fiction, I have hit them, just not in a way that impairs them. In the mechanics, I have missed them.

I'm not saying that damage on a miss is a good idea, or that it should be in any particular game. I fully accept that rolling the die may be preferable for many reasons and you may prefer the current split of defences.

The point was that much like the difference between roll-under and roll-over mechanics (or descending or ascending AC), damage on a miss is (given the correct setup of probabilities) identical in the fictional input and the mechanical and fictional outputs. At least in 3/5e you can convert AC to a save or saves to AC-like defences with no change to the game, it's just that some people, for whatever reason, prefer a split

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Play tolerates contradictions.

So simulation is whatever we declare it to be. The principle of explosion destroys all conclusions by making literally everything true.

Upthread I pointed out an "unfixable problem" in relation to Sorensen's manifesto " which is that a group could engineer into setting whatever features they wanted to appear in play; and then say that setting has primacy." That implies that anything that seemed non-diegetic could be made diegetic by authoring it into the world itself. If that involves changing the world on account of that element, then one will have given that element precedence and not the world.

But what actually makes that thing that thing? Authoring new fiction IS ALWAYS "changing the world". That's what authoring new stuff is. So by your very definition, all one need do is have the GM exercise their unlimited authority in order to author whatever fiction they desire. Thus, every game is necessarily a simulation; the world has primacy, and the world is simply whatever the GM has declared it is today.

It's Humpty Dumpty's dictionary, just in worldbuilding form. " ‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’ " When a GM declares their game is simulationist, it is. After all, they have absolute power to author whatever they want, whenever they want, and by definition that's simply what the world is!

Setting the unfixable problem aside, why shouldn't an imagined world of superheroes, given precedence, addressed as if independently real, and altered in play only diegetically be counted simulationism?

It's not in the superpowers. It's in the world conventions. Things like villains and heroes alike respecting secret identities. Physics that contorts on command, so super strength can lift skyscrapers in whole chunks, not crumbling the concrete beneath the hero's hands. Humans that magically don't have their spine shatter when a flying hero zips past in a blur too fast to see, saving them from a grisly end on the pavement below. Grappling hooks (or webshooters, or whatever else) that always have a convenient grapple-point, wherever the superhero might be, to zip away. Gross and near-constant violations of the conservation of matter and energy. Etc., etc., etc.

What's your level of optimism around defining simulationism or really any mode of play, by content?

Well, it was pretty high before participating in this thread.

I had expected simulationism to involve things like:

• There is a world, and it operates exclusively by consistent, physics-like rules
• Those rules are never mere reified genre conventions nor thematic/dramatic considerations
• Even where magic is involved, it is (as TVTropes would put it) "Magic A is Magic A", meaning, the magic is just bonus physics
• Extrapolation is done in, to at least some extent, a procedural and iterative way whenever possible
• To paraphrase from that manifesto linked like 40 pages back but which got a lot of positive attention from "sim" fans, all game mechanics are always wrong, but we build them so most of the time, they are usefully wrong
• Concessions made simply for a better experience of play (e.g., to balance contrasting options so that nearly all choices are almost purely qualitative, functionally not quantitative) do not occur, period
• Other than creating what content is in the world to be revealed, the GM simply must not consider thematic or dramatic concerns (e.g. pacing, rising/falling action, the intrusion of complication, etc.)
• Other than creating their characters and having (very limited) control over their backstory, the players generally should not (note, not "must not" as with the GM) think in terms of story, unless one or more characters are trying to tell a story through their deeds
• The world has what one might call "inertia" for its contents: things don't change unless acted upon by forces in the world
• While the GM has an overwhelmingly powerful degree of control over what such forces there are, how strong they are, and where/when they apply, there is (apparently) something of a "gentleman's agreement" situation that such power should only be used in ways that are as close to perfectly realistic and consistent as possible

I could list out contrasting points for all three of my other "game-(design-)purposes", albeit perhaps with slightly less granularity.

 

[AlViking]

I think the question, what if the game you were playing did have a burglary skill. Would there be issues around that skill?

With the skill itself? I think its a bit broader than how D&D handles things, and it depends on the game. In theory no.

But that's one of the differences in games, D&D can be quite granular in it's approach its more about emulating specific actions not broad narrative goals. Burglary could cover a half dozen D&D skills. The skill was mentioned in this post

But a burglary check clearly does involve other people - all the people who are in, or might be in, the place being burgled.

As I posted upthread, if your RPG system can't distinguish between a skilled burglar and a skilled locksmith, that's a limitation of your system. But it doesn't generalise to all RPGing.

Pemerton is obviously describing a different game where a burglary skill would cover what would be multiple actions while also being quite specific for a breaking and entry. It might make sense in a game focused on a more specific genre and probably a narrative style of game.

D&D isn't that game it's an adventure game where picking a lock may have nothing at all to do with burglary, it's a very restricted action. Picking a lock may be part of a burglary but it's only going to be one step along the way, other skills and other characters are likely to have just as much or more impact on how the scenario unfolds. A burglary skill to me sounds like something used in a game that focuses on the story, not the adventure.

A burglary roll rolls up a lot of things into a bundle and implies a whole different approach from D&D. It's also not a "limitation" in any sense because a game that would include it is just trying to do something different. Whether or not D&D could consolidate it's skill list is a different issue, but a burglary skill would put the game in a whole different category. Perhaps in the game where burglary was a skill unlike D&D fail forward would be core to the rules of the game.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

It's not quite player rolls or dm rolls - it's attacker rolls or defender rolls. The example in the 3e UA is player rolls, but it's extensible.


We are talking about miss for half damage, I agree. I use the 3e UA rules to convert saves into attacks vs defences. I cast a fireball at a creature, it could be a PC or an NPC. There is no change to the fiction input. There is no change to the fiction output. The only difference is that now the die leaves the hand of the attacker rather than the defender. I roll poorly and miss their defence. They take half damage. They have taken damage on a miss, resulting purely from the administrative re-organising of who rolls.

I am playing standard 3.5. I use a sword to attack a human NPC with a Dex of 10 who is wearing Full Plate. Their Touch AC is 10. Their AC is 18. I roll between 10 and 18. I have hit their touch AC (so in fiction, I have struck them, this might be narrated with the ringing of steel on steel or similar) but I have missed their full AC (so mechanically and in fiction, I have not impaired them). By the plain meaning of the word and the fiction, I have hit them, just not in a way that impairs them. In the mechanics, I have missed them.

I'm not saying that damage on a miss is a good idea, or that it should be in any particular game. I fully accept that rolling the die may be preferable for many reasons and you may prefer the current split of defences.

The point was that much like the difference between roll-under and roll-over mechanics (or descending or ascending AC), damage on a miss is (given the correct setup of probabilities) identical in the fictional input and the mechanical and fictional outputs. At least in 3/5e you can convert AC to a save or saves to AC-like defences with no change to the game, it's just that some people, for whatever reason, prefer a split

This would seem to setup a conflict in the manifesto presented earlier.

That is, that manifesto claimed that mechanics are never more important than what is in the world itself.

But giving a mechanic a label like "miss" (or "hit" or various other things) is in the mechanics, not in the world. It's purely the label we assigned to a mechanic we're using to simplify the world enough to be workable. The world is whatever it is; the mechanics assign labels. Surely, then, we should ignore the fact that the label is "miss" or "hit" if the mechanics are always 100% secondary to the world.

Rolling an attack roll isn't a physical thing in the world. "Hitting" or "Missing" on an attack roll also isn't a physical thing in the world. Hence, the label assigned to the mechanic shouldn't be relevant to our determination. Only what makes sense within the world should be relevant.

But, as shown in both this thread and many, many, many other threads, that's entirely the opposite of true. Instead, the fact that the mechanic is called a "miss" or a "hit" is what is primary. The world needs to reflect the label attached to the mechanic. If it fails to reflect the label attached to the mechanic, then the world is wrong and the mechanical label is right.

How can that be? How can we have this situation where a dozen-ish folks in this thread are vociferously in favor of "the world is ALWAYS primary, mechanics are ALWAYS an abstraction and thus always at least somewhat wrong", and yet so many of those exact same people are also vociferously opposed to this, and instead expect--even demand--that the world MUST reflect what the mechanics said, not the other way around?

Edit: Totally unrelated to the thread, but did anyone else have an issue for about half an hour there where you just couldn't open 99% of threads? I tried on every device, both logged in and not logged in, and just couldn't open almost all threads. The only ones I could open were pretty old, but even then some of those didn't work.