Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Pamphylian" data-source="post: 9749370" data-attributes="member: 7053769">And the Joys of At Least Occasional "Simulationism"There's an approach to rule-making that shows up in a few places in D&D 5e (and heroic fantasy cousins like Pathfinder) that I find a bit strange. It is that of the subsystem that contains the seeds of its own trivialization, which I’ll clunkily call a self-defeating rule. I’ll say up front that I find this approach bothersome -  but my hope is not for this to be just a thread of complaints, but instead to provoke some rules design discussion!Example 1): Rules and abilities surrounding light/darkness. I am sure complaints about Darkvision from DMs are so common as to be extremely tedious, but the design here is maybe the archetypal example of what I am talking about so I will venture forth and boldly risk tedium nonetheless.D&D has rules around not being able to see things in the dark, not being able to see and do things as well in dim light, as any game where spelunking is a possibility should. However, Darkvision, an ability that trivializes natural darkness (I know it has some limitations, but ime they are pretty situational), is easily available to players at first level at little cost.If a prospective DM is planning a game where natural darkness is to be a challenge, the game-theoretically rational response of the players is to stock up on PCs with Darkvision right out of the gate. And of course, at least if you are a DM of my limited logistical ability, a party with mostly Darkvision having PCs is basically in practice a party with all Darkvision-having PCs. And to ensure that any possibility of darkness being a factor in the game is truly dead, the Light cantrip provides unlimited production of light at basically no cost at first level as well. The ineffectuality of darkness is overdetermined.This seems like a lot of mechanics to have about something (darkness) that, because of the nature of those mechanics, will never be an issue unless players intentionally gimp themselves. Perhaps even a waste of text! I, the hypothetical DM wishing to have darkness, that primal source of fear and suspense and a looming character in much myth, fiction, and real life experience, as a tool in my toolbox of obstacles, now need to find a way to gracefully nerf darkvision, cantrips, and any other relevant abilities in a balanced way, without annoying my players too much with a sheet of house rules.Now, I certainly won’t begrudge those who find dealing with torches etc. to be a hassle, and I won’t try to convince you otherwise (well, maybe a little bit). But it seems it would be easier for this DM, and also people who don’t ever want to deal with the hassle of light sources, if the rules simply bypassed darkvision and said “darkness rules are outside the scope of this book, most people just handwave them, and if pressed say the light is coming from weird sconces or the same place the music is, if you want to implement something good luck.”So, why design it this way? I suppose, to preserve historical vestiges in an era where the original design intents are not in vogue. But might it not be sounder design to say: “here is an optional subsystem/set of abilities dealing with darkness that is balanced and will maintain darkness as a challenge at low levels, feel free to handwave it away if you wish however.” This keeps it a viable tool in the DMs toolbox, but doesn’t impose on those who prefer another style of game.Example 2): FoodA character’s need for food is in a similar situation. There are rules for what happens if you don’t eat enough: You can go 3 + CON modifier days without food before suffering a point of exhaustion, but eating a ration will reset the no food day count to zero. So, you can essentially eat once every 4 days (at minimum) without suffering a mechanical penalty. This is a bit generous - but then you layer on Goodberry, the Outlander background, the RAW ease of foraging, etc, food will never really be a consideration unless players gimp themselves or by extraordinary contrivance by the DM. Like darkness, the food rules essentially handwave food considerations by the book, except that the DM who wishes even an occasional survival challenge must go in and try to play game designer whack-a-mole with a bunch of abilities and rules.Examples 3+) Other StuffThere are other, maybe more important,  but more complicated and subtle versions of this design trend, that would take too long to examine in detail without overburdening an already verbose post! The economy as written, with its costs or lackthereof, is such that after a few levels, money will probably never be a consideration, either as an obstacle or tool. Time, as compared to some earlier editions, is often of little consequence at a level higher than that of the encounter, due to the durations of healing and the presence/absence of various time-related mechanics. Again, these are factors that could be handwaved for those whose campaign focuses they did not fit, but are useful to have coherent rules for, for those that want them.Why Bother with Tedious Logistics, This is a Heroic Fantasy Game, Not a Survival/Simulation GameTo which I say, I too am not an accounting obsessive, and where they are not interesting, I don’t sweat logistical details too much. However, I will offer a brief defense of these “simulationist” things, from a “gamist” perspective (forgive my possible abuse of these terms, I am rpg theory illiterate). The DM is there to provide interesting challenges, choices, and obstacles to the players, and adjudicate outcomes. Everyone benefits from the DM having a toolbox full of fun tools to do this. Things like darkness and the need to eat are instantly understandable challenges, with concrete experiential and fictional weight to draw from. They don’t need to always be there, especially as characters progress, but they are situationally useful to have, otherwise we must immediately jump to more fantastical, less readily understood challenges. These are good too, but why abandon something with as much deeply primal power as, for example, darkness, surely a feature of much heroic fantasy as I understand the term.It’s no surprise that many 5e players find worrying about torches and rations to be tedious accounting, as there is basically no chance of either ever really mattering. However, if they are mostly trivially accounted for, but occasionally Super Important for survival, ime they can be a lot of fun.When there is a good “simulationist” backbone to a set of rpg rules, that can be used as needed, the DM for whom enjoying a fun game is the most important goal has a little familiar that can provide relatable challenges appropriate to most in-game situations. While I prioritize the fun of the game above all, part of the fun of rpgs is that players and the DM can think in terms of the game world and make judgements about choices and risks based partially on how they think the world works. A bit of detailed simulationism makes this much more feasible.In ConclusionI suppose this is all to say that I question the self-defeating rule as an element of rpg design, and think there are much better alternatives available (to, among others, future D&D edition writers!). But I am also interested in other opinions on this, how others approach such game elements, your best in-game wilderness survival stories, brutal critiques, etc….</blockquote>

Verification