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

[Faolyn]

Not my game. Or any I've ever played.

Not what? You've never played in a game that's had the threats prepared ahead of time? Or you've never played in a game that's had any improvisation in it?

 

[Pedantic]

I agree with this. This is probably true for all agendas, but particularly for sim play, you want your system truths and your setting truths to align.

If your setting truth is that a readied crossbow can one-shot kill even a high-level character, than you need resolution rules that make that true in the system.

If your system truth is that a high-level character is under no particular threat from a readied crossbow, then you need to make it a setting truth that both players and characters would be aware of that truth.

Depending on the players to make wobbly decisions to try and uphold two contradictory truths (the setting and the system) is just asking for unfun play.

I really miss the cottage industry around extrapolating setting from system. Once upon a time I thought that was where design was going, that we'd settle on proposing settings to reify systems and making systemic changes to produce new settings. I figured a big D&D update paired with a refactoring of the 3rd party environment in the OGL/D20 license ecosystem would take us there, and then 4th edition happened.

 

[TwoSix]

It seems apparent to me this is just reframing the whole, ‘if it’s simulation it must be perfect argument’ into different words.

I think there's a difference between "the simulation is abstracted" and "this simulation is providing results contrary to what I would expect".

If you expect a narrative that a crossbow is still dangerous to a mid-to-high level character, and your damage and health rules say the opposite, that's not the simulation being too abstract, that's the simulation being wrong.

I understand someone with sim priorities accepting abstraction; I have trouble expecting someone with sim priorities to accept the sim rules providing results in opposition to what's expected.

 

[Eric V]

Virtually all simulation uses abstractions whether we're talking about games or simulating business models. How do you think simulations work?

But in the game world, if I want to be harder to hit, I put on heavy armor. The reason people don't like damage on a miss, is because, to them, it was a miss. And you missed me because I am wearing 40+pounds of steel.

This is a discrete part of the rules system, and is not simulating anything I am aware of.

 

[TwoSix]

I really miss the cottage industry around extrapolating setting from system. Once upon a time I thought that was where design was going, that we'd settle on proposing settings to reify systems and making systemic changes to produce new settings. I figured a big D&D update paired with a refactoring of the 3rd party system in the OGL/D20 license ecosystem would take us there, and then 4th edition happened.

Personally, I still do this; whatever system I use I extrapolate to be true within the setting. When I run high-level D&D, everyone is aware that high-level characters are tougher and can endure multiple attacks with mundane weapons with a shrug. My entire setting cosmology for my 5e games is built around it.

 

[AlViking]

But in the game world, if I want to be harder to hit, I put on heavy armor. The reason people don't like damage on a miss, is because, to them, it was a miss. And you missed me because I am wearing 40+pounds of steel.

This is a discrete part of the rules system, and is not simulating anything I am aware of.

It's simulating the fact that you attack someone but your weapon bounces off their armor doing no damage. A miss doesn't necessarily mean that you make no contact with your target it just means the attack did not find a chink in their armor.

edit - the TV shows and movies that show armor having about as much protective value as aluminum foil is one of the dumbest things ever. If you stab someone wearing a high quality breastplate in the chest with a sword the worst that's going to happen is that there might be a minor scratch on the breastplate.

 

[AnotherGuy]

John Wick really is a perfect example of how high hit points function without the vague luck/skill explanation. You just get hit a lot and don't die.

True. That is probably why I'm not a fan of John Wick's fall (end of 3# and in 4) and the falling damage system within D&D.

 

[FrozenNorth]

Can we try to find an example arguing against simulation that doesn't involve hit points? Just as a change of pace?

Levelling, and specifically how high level characters can take on multiple low level characters at no risk.

Levelling, and specifically, the quick pace through which a character can reach relatively high levels.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I really miss the cottage industry around extrapolating setting from system. Once upon a time I thought that was where design was going, that we'd settle on proposing settings to reify systems and making systemic changes to produce new settings. I figured a big D&D update paired with a refactoring of the 3rd party environment in the OGL/D20 license ecosystem would take us there, and then 4th edition happened.

There was a game that tried to setting-align its structure with D&D assumptions; it was called Earthdawn.

 

[Pedantic]

There was a game that tried to setting-align its structure with D&D assumptions; it was called Earthdawn.

Oh I've read it. I imagine I'd have been a big fan if the timing worked out.