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

[Don Durito]

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.

No it's an example of a rule that produces an outcome that may not be consistent with a Sim approach if that outcome is not one that is consistent with the fiction of your game world.

Strangely my hidden agenda is the same as my actual agenda.

If I have a thesis for an argument I will make it.

 

[AlViking]

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.

In games that I care more about the simulation aspect of things (it varies a bit by group) there will be months if not years between leveling that reflects downtime training and practice. Just another example that the rules are just a toolbox, how they are used can make a difference in how the game is played.

On the other hand I think categorizing games as all or nothing doesn't always make sense. I happen to play racing games, everything from IRacing which is heavy-duty sim that I haven't played for a while to Forza Horizon which has cars that are indestructible which allows you to race that Porsche across unpaved ground at a 100 MPH to get to the next race. But Forza Horizon is still not an arcade style racing game where if you can hit the floating coin your speed doubles for a short period of time. FH straddles a line between the sim and arcade. I play it for the sim aspects because it has a far greater variety of cars, tracks and race types than most racing sims and the driving dynamics are decent. I put up with the arcade aspects of it.

I play FH for the sim aspects, I prefer a D&D game that has a more simulationist approach. That doesn't make either one the best sims out there and I don't care.

 

[Pedantic]

No it's an example of a rule that produces an outcome that may not be consistent with a Sim approach if that outcome is not one that is consistent with the fiction of your game world.

Strangely my hidden agenda is the same as my actual agenda.

If I have a thesis for an argument I will make it.

I've always posited this as either a system or setting failure, and never been particularly sympathetic to claims this situation can somehow live outside the rules. You can only whine about fighters jumping off cliffs if you're proposing a change; otherwise you should be preparing for cliff jumping strategies.

 

[AlViking]

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.

How many times have we seen TV or movies show someone with a gun to their head that then spins around, distracts or somehow otherwise avoids getting killed? The game simply abstracts that scene out.

 

[Eric V]

If heavy armor didn't prevent people from taking damage nobody would wear it. Try punching someone with your fist in their stomach while they're wearing a breastplate and see how much they care.

Taking damage =/= dodge better.

 

[AlViking]

Taking damage =/= dodge better.

Not taking damage == knowing how to take a hit or avoid significant damage, being able to read your attacker and anticipate the attack, a heavy dose of luck along with other techniques to turn a killing blow into a minor graze. HP are a lot of ideas thrown into one abstract bucket.

Nobody says it's a perfect solution, just that it's a tired old example of "I don't like it so it can't be a simulation".

 

[Don Durito]

How many times have we seen TV or movies show someone with a gun to their head that then spins around, distracts or somehow otherwise avoids getting killed? The game simply abstracts that scene out.

All I can think about this is, in a game in which a risk of death is a real and possible outcome, shouldn't this be such a situation in which such an outcome is possible?

I mean yes it's arguable, but if simulating that was my goal I definitely wouldn't start from here.

 

[Don Durito]

Nevermind

 

[AnotherGuy]

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.

We had a Table Decision when the players did this at our table to an NPC, that same could be applied to them.. the players agreed to it.

There are many ways one could go and one would have to consider the fiction in play, most importantly who the villain is - i.e. if the example above was a nameless hobgoblin vs an 8th-level PC then death would likely not be in the cards (at my table), but some other loss condition.

D&D has many options for those moments and one could easily select 1 or more of these depending on the scenario again.

• Make it an auto Critical
• Roll on the Lingering Injury Table
• Bleeding per Round (via Levels of Exhaustion)
• Inflict a Condition
• Character gains a Failed Death Saving Throw and begins rolling for Death Saves (while conscious or unconscious)

 

[AlViking]

All I can think about this is, in a game in which a risk of death is a real and possible outcome, shouldn't this be such a situation in which such an outcome is possible?

I mean yes it's arguable, but if simulating that was my goal I definitely wouldn't start from here.

It's a very common trope that some people are virtually immune to damage from low level antagonists. Sometimes the person that can't do any significant damage is the protagonist of the story who knows that they need to go through a training montage in order to win the day. We see it in everything from Rocky to innumerable action hero movies and TV shows.

D&D isn't emulating reality, it's emulating story and myth.