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

[Hussar]

But is your thought that games are inadequately simulative if their rules don't detail results for every rollable increment?

Sigh.

Again, for the umpteenth time. A game becomes simulative when it provides ANY actual information about how a result was achieved. ANY. Not every, which is the strawman that keeps getting repeated over and over again.

ANY.

Is that absolutely clear. Do I need to explain it further? A simuationist mechanic MUST PROVIDE ANY information about how the result was achieved. If the mechanic does not provide any information, then all narratives are 100% equally legitimate as far as the mechanics are concerned. Sure, the table might prefer one interpretation over another, but, that's just a table agreement. That has nothing to do with the game.

Since D&D mechanics never provide that information, I reject the idea that they are simulationist based. All we ever get are the results. Then they shovel off any actual determination onto the DM to provide a justification for that result. And the only parameters of what the DM determines is whatever the table finds acceptable.

And people can make all the claims they want about "my world runs on internal logic" all they want. I simply do not believe the claims. No DM ever runs a world on the internal logic of the world. It never happens. Because we all want to have a fun game. And as soon as that priority enters the picture, "internal logic" takes a back seat. We add factions because we want conflict. We add dungeons because we want interesting things to explore. We choose result A and not result B because we think it will be more interesting at the table. No one EVER chooses to be boring as a DM. At least, not a DM who wants to have players.

If your world actually worked on internal logic and not "make this a fun game", then most of your campaigns would be mind bogglingly boring. Because, frankly, that's how most worlds would actually work. But we don't run on "internal logic". We run on Narrativium. We want excitement. We want adventure. It's a heroic fantasy!

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Yes, provided that the real-world model must be connected enough to the real world to successfully navigate it, e.g. to know not to put one's hand into a blazing furnace.


This isn't quite right: what matters is that there are two-models and to put it simply F is "realistic" if F is realistic in either of them.

The picture is complicated by the possibility that player A's W might differ from player B's W, and likewise their W's. With regard to their W models (of real world) It's not uncommon for A to point out that objects in a vacuum fall at the same rate (assuming play is for some reason in a vacuum, or that the objects are aerodynamically undifferentiated) and the matter to be settled through consulting some point of reference. Having someone at the table who can establish that F is realistic in W' (the imagined world) is one means of settling any similar disputes regarding their W' models. Seeing as W' is privileged over W, the latter power can be decisive.

Okay.

My point was, from the beginning, that W flatly is not the real world. It is a model, and that model often differs from the real world in a variety of ways.

But two critical problems arise with how people talk and think about this stuff. First, their speech and their actions reflect a conflation between W and the real world. They believe these two things ARE the same, when they emphatically are not. Second, unlike what you've argued here, I have found consistently that people dig in their heels and resist information which reveals W to be wrong. Instead, they will adhere to it and reject that evidence as obviously false, faked, flawed, or inapplicable.

Hence why we see talk about "realism", and why people keep coming back to trying to link things to the actual, real, physical world so much. Further, it's not correct that W' is privileged over W! Far from it, in fact. Unless the content of W' is delivered in the right ways, at the right times, with sufficient justification, etc. (the restrictions are pretty severe!), it is consistently W that is privileged, not the other way around. That is specifically why people will reject certain versions of W' in discussing things, calling them "unrealistic".

 

[clearstream]

But two critical problems arise with how people talk and think about this stuff. First, their speech and their actions reflect a conflation between W and the real world. They believe these two things ARE the same, when they emphatically are not. Second, unlike what you've argued here, I have found consistently that people dig in their heels and resist information which reveals W to be wrong. Instead, they will adhere to it and reject that evidence as obviously false, faked, flawed, or inapplicable.

Hence why we see talk about "realism", and why people keep coming back to trying to link things to the actual, real, physical world so much. Further, it's not correct that W' is privileged over W! Far from it, in fact. Unless the content of W' is delivered in the right ways, at the right times, with sufficient justification, etc. (the restrictions are pretty severe!), it is consistently W that is privileged, not the other way around. That is specifically why people will reject certain versions of W' in discussing things, calling them "unrealistic".

In fiction, it's true that Holmes is a consulting detective (a fact in W'). It's not true that Holmes is a consulting detective in W (the real world). Of these conflicting facts, W' is privileged so long as we're entertaining fiction. It's not ruled out that there is a consulting detective called Sherlock Holmes in W' just because there isn't one in W.

This becomes interesting when it's asked "What else is true in W'?" Upthread I gave an example. Could Sherlock Holmes have taken passage to New Zealand or Neptune? It's never established in the fictional world of Holmes that he takes passage to either, but one seems like a more "realistic" possibility because in W in the 19th century, consulting detectives were able to take passage to New Zealand, but not Neptune. By this and an abundance of examples like it, it appears evident that W is privileged only where W' is silent.

Speculating on the problems you identify, I can think of a few explanations consistent with the idea of cognitive models. One is where player A assumes F to be an established fact in W' whilst player B does not. This would be acute where A has a slightly different imagined world in mind than B... something that is readily possible. B will foreseeably argue from W (because to them, W' is silent) while A will expect what they take to have been established in W' ought to prevail. You can see the obvious permutations.

Another explanation is where W' has until now adhered closely to a genre (this relates to the "accessibility" quality I mentioned upthread.) Holmes is a consulting detective, but not an elf. And no dragons appear in Holmes' Europe. Player A might develop expectations along the lines of an expected genre, making them resistant to propositions that some F is "realistic" in W' because those propositions would not be "realistic" in other possible worlds fitting the genre, which they assumed W' to be a member of. Again, I think you will see the permutations.

So where W' is silent or where it is assumed to match other worlds but turns out not to, one would predict disagreements about what to count as realistic. I suppose that'd be most noticeable at the moment an F that formerly was not established in W' became established.

 

[AlViking]

If you're doubling the dice every 10 feet over 20, it goes up a lot farther than 210d6 by 200 feet. 20=2d6, 30=4d6(normally 3d6), 40=8d6, 50=17d6..........100=512d6 and on. Or maybe I don't understand what you mean by doubling the dice after 20 feet.

Oops, typo. Add 1d6 every 20 feet, not double. I thought about doubling at first and then remember the parable of doubling that one grain of rice for a year as payment.

 

[Eric V]

Dodge is an explicit action in 5e. It's not affected by armor.

...
Right.

 

[AlViking]

Do you think that situation is likely to occur in an actual game run by a GM?

There is no peasant railgun in my game. For that matter, the 2024 DMG talks about that - the rules are meant to describe the laws of physics in the D&D world.

Which is true for other simulations as well, many are quite narrow and only work for a specific area.

 

[AlViking]

That is an impressive list of strawmen and complete mis statements of the problems. No wonder you feel attacked if you actually believe any of the above is what is being argued.

It's a strawman to say that you believe that a game doesn't simulate falling off a cliff because it doesn't tell you why the character fell off a cliff? Really? The list isn't only about you.

 

[AlViking]

Way up I was asked about a system that would explain how a character fell. Well, a very simple system would be:

Fail by x or less: character missteps and falls.
Fail by x+1 or more: character falls due to environment factors.

Poof. Instant simulation mechanics. Heck, you could bake that into most skills and expand it a bit and you’d have a pretty robust sim mechanic where the system would give some direction and information.

This sort of thing is seen all the time in actual sim games like Warhammer Fantasy.

So an arbitrary rule you made up somehow makes it a simulation? Good grief.

 

[clearstream]

Again, for the umpteenth time. A game becomes simulative when it provides ANY actual information about how a result was achieved. ANY. Not every, which is the strawman that keeps getting repeated over and over again.

(Emphasis mine.) Do you mean that the game system must not only produce results consistent with the imagined world, but must do so in a way that explains how that result was achieved in that world? Given that the results are often achieved by rolling dice it is hard to see how that will work.

Is it better to understand that your worry is to have results that seem explicable within the world, including where that world is magical or super-heroic? A version of Edwards' "internal cause is king"? Wouldn't that come down to the results fitting the world?

Is that absolutely clear. Do I need to explain it further? A simuationist mechanic MUST PROVIDE ANY information about how the result was achieved. If the mechanic does not provide any information, then all narratives are 100% equally legitimate as far as the mechanics are concerned. Sure, the table might prefer one interpretation over another, but, that's just a table agreement. That has nothing to do with the game.

Table agreements have nothing to do with the game?

Since D&D mechanics never provide that information, I reject the idea that they are simulationist based. All we ever get are the results. Then they shovel off any actual determination onto the DM to provide a justification for that result. And the only parameters of what the DM determines is whatever the table finds acceptable.

One standard for a model is that it produces results consistent with its subjects. Seeing as it's dice rolls, mathematics, and player speech and gesture around the table, I'm doubtful that any game can claim to produce results in the way that they are supposed to be produced in the world. Is it that you want detail output all the way along the process so that you can tie each process step to something you think is happening in the world, rather than only the process results? This seems like a novel requirement for simulation... can you write out some example mechanics?

And people can make all the claims they want about "my world runs on internal logic" all they want. I simply do not believe the claims. No DM ever runs a world on the internal logic of the world. It never happens. Because we all want to have a fun game. And as soon as that priority enters the picture, "internal logic" takes a back seat. We add factions because we want conflict. We add dungeons because we want interesting things to explore. We choose result A and not result B because we think it will be more interesting at the table. No one EVER chooses to be boring as a DM. At least, not a DM who wants to have players.

(Emphasis mine.) The argument here seems to rest on whether I agree with two premises. It appears I must have in mind some set of definitions for what counts as fun. And I must believe it inevitable that fun, so defined, will be prioritised over anything else. I think that begs the question, it seems to conclude that X will be boring by excluding X from not being boring.

If your world actually worked on internal logic and not "make this a fun game", then most of your campaigns would be mind bogglingly boring. Because, frankly, that's how most worlds would actually work. But we don't run on "internal logic". We run on Narrativium. We want excitement. We want adventure. It's a heroic fantasy!

Taking a step back, is it right to say that you are skeptical of simulationism altogether? Essentially, you think it is impossible to achieve in RPG?

 

[clearstream]

...
Right.

Good, we're clear that it is not the case that "Wearing heavy armor makes you dodge better." At least, not in D&D.