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

[AlViking]

Wow. Can't say anyone I've known who leans into the sim end of games would probably be going for D&D as their game of choice. Admittedly, its been many years since I knew many people who ran that way, but D&D wasn't it then, for any number of reasons (mostly that almost every mechanism in the game tends to fail the sniff test fairly frequently there, usually because of excessive (and sometimes odd) abstraction).

Well, then we may have a different requirements for sim or we just mean different things or want different experiences. Maybe "simulation" isn't the right word for you, I don't really care about these semantic arguments anymore more.

All I know is that to me the game feels real enough.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Many games, including D&D, may have Sim or Narrativist-leaning mechanics in different parts of their rules, without being fundamentally a Sim game or a Narrativist game.

Oh, sure. There have been narrative mechanics in the form of metacurrency in games that otherwise are pretty traditional representational games for a long time now. And others that split the difference (I think I'd class Savage Worlds here).

As an aside, if rules in a book are such an important part of your RPG enjoyment, what kind of gaming do you enjoy and what system provides the firm rules support you require?

I'm not entirely sure how to answer the "what kind of gaming do you enjoy" part, but there are numerous rules systems that serve my purposes in general (though I'm old and picky so sometimes I'll have problems with one or more of them in some areas, but that's usually an issue with specific design decisions rather than the thrust of the rules as a whole). Probably the two I used most over the years were RuneQuest and the Hero System (but I don't do either any more really), but of more current vintage I've found games such as Eclipse Phase, Savage Worlds, and Wicked Pacts suit me fairly well. I'm even willing to engage with a few games in the D&D-adjacent sphere (13th Age, PF2e and Shadow of the Weird Wizard) though they aren't my first choice.

 

[Hussar]

Once again, adding flavorful fluff. The fall wasn't caused by the crumbling rock, the fall was caused by a failed athletics check. The crumbling rock was just adding flair.

That's not what the narrative said though. The character fell because the rock crumbled. It's not "flair", it's the direct cause. It's no different than the cook being there because of the failed check or the random encounter poofing into the area of the PC's because of a random check.

These are are identical. The game world is being retroactively changed by the DM to fit with die rolls. Note, the die rolls themselves aren't actually informing any of the narrative. It's all being 100% added by the DM. So, not simulating anything. Just adding stuff to make the game more interesting and fun.

 

[Thomas Shey]

What games would you expect a Sim GM to go for? And what sort of GM would you say goes for any version of D&D, if it definitely isn't one who likes Sim?

I'm not sure "definitely" is accurate, because most people have some mixed desires, and there are external complications when it comes to D&D (as you of all people I know know), but back in the day it would likely have been In the Labyrinth (GURPS' fantasy predecessor), Harn, RuneQuest or Chivalry and Sorcery. These days I might expect at least some of RQ's simpler cousins in the BRP sphere (though RQ itself, GURPS and a version of C&S still exist, but the tolerance for some elements of those in the gaming populace as a whole may not be what it once was).

Edit: Just realized I missed the second question. Far as I can tell D&D has always mostly appealed to people who had kind of loosey-goosey mixed interests, but whether they express it that way or not, lean into a gamist focus. Over time it probably became mostly a (since I still think in the rgfa terms not Forgeite ones) kind of dramatis/gamist hybrid after the Dragonlance period (which honestly, was probably how it was played mostly early on, but it had a few more simulationist pretentions then). Its never really been simple (too prone to multiple moving parts where they aren't needed and at least aren't clearly desirable) but the basics of it have been easy to absorb and teach, and since it only for a brief period was serious about sticking its mechanical coherence, are easy on GMs who want to just play free and easy (though I think most of them would be better off with something simpler, but that's where the network effect puts its thumb on the scale).

 

[Hussar]

The divide then is that I don't need, nor do I want the rules the rules to describe the fiction for much of what's going on. I need the rules to tell me what happens and what the results are, I can add the descriptions for most things.

Then you don't want a simulation game. Which is fine. I get that. Lots of people don't like sim games.

But, since you're claiming to actually WANT a sim system, that's pretty much at odds with the idea of not wanting the rules to inform the fiction.

That's what I keep pushing back against. You claim to want simulation, yet, when we drill down a bit, by your own admission, you don't actually want simulation.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Well, then we may have a different requirements for sim or we just mean different things or want different experiences. Maybe "simulation" isn't the right word for you, I don't really care about these semantic arguments anymore more.

All I know is that to me the game feels real enough.

I'm not going to tell you how you should feel. I just know back when I leaned more into that, most of the people I knew who felt the same way didn't consider things like armor making you harder hit (and all or nothing), being unable to be killed by a single sword swing (even if less likely because of your defensive skill) just because you were "higher level" and had more hit points, and taking fifteen seconds or more to fire an arrow weren't going to cut it.

 

[The Firebird]

That's not what the narrative said though. The character fell because the rock crumbled. It's not "flair", it's the direct cause. It's no different than the cook being there because of the failed check or the random encounter poofing into the area of the PC's because of a random check.

These are are identical. The game world is being retroactively changed by the DM to fit with die rolls. Note, the die rolls themselves aren't actually informing any of the narrative. It's all being 100% added by the DM. So, not simulating anything. Just adding stuff to make the game more interesting and fun.

The game world isn't being changed. The crumbly rocks were there beforehand and are there afterward, as evidenced by the DC of the check. The cook, may or may not be before and either is or isn't there after. If a second player tries to sneak it, the cook's presence has been established. But the rock can still trip them up.

 

[Hussar]

I don't think "simulationism" is the best term for what people are looking for in fixed world play. People didn't like "verisimilitudinous" either. So I'll stick with fixed world. I've used it throughout and no one has complained yet

But, again, it's not even "fixed world". Not as soon as you use random encounters. Or you add details like "crumbling rocks" causing falls. The second you add a detail in response to a failed check in order to narrate why that check failed, you no longer have a "fixed world".

How about sticking to typical definitions. You like very traditional play where the DM is the sole source of information about the game world and players are to trust that the DM will do their best to narrate things in a logical manner that is consistent with the players. There's nothing wrong with that. That's basically what trad play is. We don't need new terms. It's already covered by trad play.

 

[AlViking]

Then give me a definition of simulation that explains how a simulation is a simulation while at the same not not providing any information in regards to whatever it is it is supposed to be simulating.

There's no point because its obvious to me it can be viewed as a simulation because I do. But I'm not ever going to convince you so I don't really see the point.

 

[The Firebird]

I have never found this. And I play with players who are pretty experienced, and some of whom are pretty hardcore wargamers.

The whole framing around "convincing the GM" is what is odd to me. It suggests a lack of sincerity in engagement with the shared fiction.

Having typed that previous couple of sentences, maybe it's not a lack of attention but rather a sense of choosing the optimal path to the finish line - as opposed to a sense of a character who has things they want to achieve, and so declares actions in pursuit of that, not all of which will involve abilities where the character is strong.

Yeah, this is one point of disconnect. If the players in your game are not trying to win, if the social contract underlying it says that trying to win is bad form--then yeah, that's part of why it doesn't appeal to me. In a narrative system "playing to win" clashes with the feeling of immersion. This is why I say that, for me, narrative games don't feel like games. They feel like they are about telling a story.