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

[TwoSix]

The class system can fit into a sim agenda, particularly if the classes have enough options available to represent many different ways to accomplish one's goals. In my view, class features feed into the fiction all or nearly all the time, and if they don't a little adjustment can make that happen.

One of my favorite things in the world is watching stories critically with an eye towards translating the narrative, setting and character into game terms. I can look at a character kicking butt with a variety of weapons and a distinct, training-based style and say to myself, "that's a fighter". I can see a character casting a spell and speculate how magic works in that setting. Heck, I can see a character getting hit by a monster and thrown across the room and try to figure out the combat system. More importantly I want to do those things.

IMO, all of that is sim.

I would generally say the system "feeding into the fiction" doesn't make for a sim element. The system trying to capture and model a pre-existing fiction is much more of a sim process.

WFRP's career system, to me, is much more of a sim element than D&D's class system.

 

[TwoSix]

I have sim ways around all those things (to my satisfaction), but fair enough. I know there are non-Sim things other than hit points that can be pointed to. I'm just very tired of beating the hit point horse.

It can't have many left by this point.

It's difficult to ignore HPs in D&D because so many of the resolution systems are explicitly tied into using ablation of HP as their primary resource.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I have to think about this a bit more, but it strikes me that play focused on elevating one aspect of these five over the others (while not neglecting the other four) makes for a fairly interesting taxonomy.

Character - neotrad/OC play.
System - Gamism, character op/powergaming play.
Setting - Sandbox play, algorithm driven "living world" play.
Situation - Adventure path play.
Color - Horror games, thespian-oriented play, focus on immersion/"being there".

That's a neat idea, and IMO probably a better way to organize play such that it can be discussed with less acrimony.

 

[DinoInDisguise]

That poster doesn't seem to have noticed the metagame possibility in Traveller's damage rules.

Or you could address me about my post. And not hold people who like an overarching point as responsible for explaining my lack of nuance.

The post in question was a repudiation of the idea that “in-character thespianism” was ever the singular or even dominant focus of the hobby. It was made in direct response to the post making that very claim. Even if you interpret Traveller differently, that doesn't change my argument, it actually reinforces it. It does so by reinforcing the idea that there was a significant number of different styles and play patterns even back in the 80s and 90s.

I chose the brevity of glossing over nuance in an individual system to avoid a 10,000 word thesis. That brevity should not be for others to explain. It shouldn't be used in some odd game of performative expertise, where we patrol largely unrelated posts for infractions so we can say "But wait a moment" to people who simply agree with an unrelated point.

Not every post people react to is something they agree with in totality. Nor should someone have to explain every nuance in every post they've liked. Instead we should have some grace, and address people's words directly.

Edit: I think with that, I'm going to bow out here. I don't appreciate having my words used as a cudgel against other Enworlders.

 

[AlViking]

The difference is important. Hit points are just abstraction. Falling a 100ft and being able to stand up and dance a jig is a fictional game outcome.

It doesn't matter what rules got you there. If it's a game artifact and not a reflection of what the reality is supposed to be in the setting it seems you have a problem with Sim.

In D&D it might be escalating hit points that make a character completely indifferent to a crossbow pointed at your face - in Warhammer it may be that you are a Dwarf with a ridiculously high Toughness. It doesn't necessarily matter how you got there, if you are trying to simulate a world (or genre) where people should be afraid of crossbows aimed at them you have a problem.

In my game I don't cap damage from falling for sim reasons. In addition, I have no issue with the idea that some people can take a lot more damage than the normal individual. If I got into a boxing ring with Mike Tyson (or some MMA champion, I don't follow either) I guarantee that even if I landed any blows they wouldn't even feel it. Meanwhile it would likely take only one punch to take me out. D&D and other games may take it to an extreme, but they're trying to replicate a trope such as Conan the Barbarian wading through a small horde of commoners. A lot of fiction depicts the hero taking out endless low level unnamed NPCs with nary a scratch. That's what's being emulated, abstracted and put into rules. Not liking the implementation of the rule doesn't change anything.

But this is another example of the "All or nothing" approach. If someone can find anything that doesn't match their definition of a simulation, it can't possibly be viewed as a simulation.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I just made a long post about this.

But I'm not a poster who talks about a "sim" group vs "sim haters".

Did you? It was a very long post full of quotes from someone whose opinions actively make me angry, so I admit I skimmed it. Sorry.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The difference is important. Hit points are just abstraction. Falling a 100ft and being able to stand up and dance a jig is a fictional game outcome.

It doesn't matter what rules got you there. If it's a game artifact and not a reflection of what the reality is supposed to be in the setting it seems you have a problem with Sim.

In D&D it might be escalating hit points that make a character completely indifferent to a crossbow pointed at your face - in Warhammer it may be that you are a Dwarf with a ridiculously high Toughness. It doesn't necessarily matter how you got there, if you are trying to simulate a world (or genre) where people should be afraid of crossbows aimed at them you have a problem.

To be fair, if there's a diagetic reason the character doesn't fear crossbows then it absolutely is a sim agenda.

For other uses, I think adjusting the rules for "gun to your head" situations can help. I've been working on stuff.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I would generally say the system "feeding into the fiction" doesn't make for a sim element. The system trying to capture and model a pre-existing fiction is much more of a sim process.

WFRP's career system, to me, is much more of a sim element than D&D's class system.

I am fond of the career system. And the level of abstraction in the class system isn't ideal for sim, but in actual play with human beings sometimes compromises are made. It doesn't mean you can't treat it as sim, because it is in fact simulating something. It's just perhaps not the most accurate way to simulate that thing.

 

[Don Durito]

To be fair, if there's a diagetic reason the character doesn't fear crossbows then it absolutely is a sim agenda.

For other uses, I think adjusting the rules for "gun to your head" situations can help. I've been working on stuff.

Well yes clearly.

See again Earthdawn.

I've been in this situation though (a long time ago) with D&D The NPC had a crossbow pointed at the PC. The player decided they didn't care. The GM was pissed of at what he considered metagaming by the player who couldn't know the crossbow wouldn't kill him. He ruled that the crossbow would in fact kill the PC and asked the player if they wanted to reconsider their action.

I think you can imagine how that went.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Well yes clearly.

See again Earthdawn.

I've been in this situation though (a long time ago) with D&D The NPC had a crossbow pointed at the PC. The player decided they didn't care. The GM was pissed of at what he considered metagaming by the player who couldn't know the crossbow wouldn't kill him. He ruled that the crossbow would in fact kill the PC and asked the player if they wanted to reconsider their action.

I think you can imagine how that went.

Yeah, you never want to make a ruling like that in the moment. Just take the hit as the GM and move on.