D&D 5E Simulation vs Game - Where should D&D 5e aim?

[Lanefan]

I know of it but have not watched it, nor read the books.

Do the protagonists die of frequently? If so, that is a significant difference from many stories, and a significant difference I think from typical contemporary ways of running D&D (which tend to be predicated on PC's lasting).

If the protagonists don't die, but do get thwarted, then that sounds like the sort of play Burning Wheel is aimed at. In RPGing terms, the relevant technique is fail forward.

No character is safe in these books. The author is quite good, in fact, at presenting a character as a likeable protagonist for a book or two and then killing it off or having some other awful thing(s) happen to it. He's just as ruthless to the villains, who the reader also gets to know quite well before they meet their end.

Which is, in a broader sense, simply a statement that the series (or campaign, in D&D terms) is bigger than any of its characters; and that's as it should be.

Lanefan

 

[Ahnehnois]

Which is, in a broader sense, simply a statement that the series (or campaign, in D&D terms) is bigger than any of its characters; and that's as it should be.

Indeed. I think character-driven fiction has been done to death, particularly in this genre. I also think roleplaying games run much better when people accept a social contract that does not treat the in-game outcomes for their character as being of any special significance.

 

[Hussar]

But, if you look at George RR Martin, none of the characters that die do so in a random, meaningless fashion.

They all die in very high drama scenes. Which is the opposite of what you get if you simply follow sim based formula where characters die typically meaningless deaths vs random opponents.

Instead of sir George dying while protecting the king from assassins, he gets killed by nameless Orc #3 who rolls a lucky crit with a greataxe.

 

[Ahnehnois]

But, if you look at George RR Martin, none of the characters that die do so in a random, meaningless fashion.

That's a matter of opinion to be sure. They all feel pretty meaningless to me.

And we're supposed to believe that King Robert died in a hunting accident.

 

[Hussar]

That's a matter of opinion to be sure. They all feel pretty meaningless to me.

And we're supposed to believe that King Robert died in a hunting accident.

No we aren't. We know he was murdered. Heck that's known by the end of the first book.

 

[howandwhy99]

But if it depicts something, then that something must be a fiction. (Given that it's not reality.)

And I think many people would accept that D&D depicts something.

When is something definitively a depiction?

Games are about enabling game play for players. Football players aren't trying to vicariously behave like some other depicted reality. Chess lovers aren't specifically attracted to it because pieces on the board have real world counterparts. They love it because the design -the game- is awesome in and of itself.

Dungeons & Dragons is a game first too. And fans love it because of its design, not the story it may result in. Players may enjoy pretending to be an elf, but telling players that's what they were "really" doing in D&D in the 80s was a derogatory remark and everyone knew it. Pretending to be someone else wasn't role playing then and it's not the role playing that lead to the revolution of D&D.

D&D is about playing a game, not enjoying some depiction. Just like almost every story lover most game players could care less how well what they are experiencing matches up with some preconceived notion a story is supposed to be. Stories are about discovering the story the author has written (if a fiction, then always about fantasy. If a non-fiction, then a depiction of reality). Games and game play OTOH are about deciphering the patterns they are to achieve objectives within them.

Games aren't good or bad because of how well they depict something else. They are good or bad because of the quality of game play they offer.

Ironically, games that have historically been considered badly designed are ones which allow for short-circuiting of game play lending to unfair outcomes and "always win" strategies.

"The two teams struggled on the field for hours scoring point after point against each other. Evenly matched, the game inspired players to struggle to levels of excellence rarely if ever seen. Then one side yelled 'we win!' apropos to nothing and the game was over."
-contrived outcome rules in action. IOW, the outcome is in no way derived by past actions by the players.

Stories are labelled fiction and non-fiction. Those labels are irrelevant to games. Heck, a fictional game isn't a game at all as it doesn't even exist in the imagination. It's like too many storygames, a label with no referent.

 

[howandwhy99]

But, if you look at George RR Martin, none of the characters that die do so in a random, meaningless fashion.

They all die in very high drama scenes. Which is the opposite of what you get if you simply follow sim based formula where characters die typically meaningless deaths vs random opponents.

That's got nothing to do with some "sim-based formula". Players make mistakes in games. It happens. They call them Errors in baseball.

When you quit trying to decipher what's going on in a game so you can use your understanding to your advantage, then you're not trying to play well anymore.

Attempting to create a story isn't even in the same proverbial ballpark.

Neither of these activities are bad. It comes from the conflation of games with stories. With personal expression presented as an absolutist reduction of existence and deciphering of impressions from an outside source not even spoken of.

 

[innerdude]

Responding to the OP:

First, if I'm reading GNS theory correctly (and I think I have a reasonably coherent, if far from "completionist" understanding of it), in my view simulationism and gamism aren't on opposite sides of the spectrum in terms of playstyle. Gamism, as a whole, is fairly adjunct to simulationism. A highly simulationist system can still support a "gamist" agenda, assuming that the gamism as an agenda is at least mildly tempered.

Gamism as an agenda is more directly opposed to narrativism.

The two agendas' goals ---

"Here's a challenge, let's step on up and win!" (Gamism)

"Here's an interesting moral, ethical, or psychological dilemma, let's play out the consequences of that premise!" (Narrativism)

--- will ultimately have to implement highly divergent mechanical underpinnings.

Simulationism supports gamist drift, to varying degrees, without generally completely destroying the simulationist leanings.

Don't get me wrong, there's always going to be a "game" in an RPG. The question isn't whether "gamism" exists in an RPG, it's always THERE, whether the system wants it to be there or not. "Skilled" understanding of a game's rules can always be a means to manipulating in-game outcomes.

The question is whether a game naturally intends, supports, or implicitly accords with gamist desires as a way of appealing players' sense of "challenge" achievement and its vicarious social currency.

Narrativist games, almost by definition, tend to devalue gamism as an agenda, because "winning" a scene as a form of real-life social achievement is different from "winning" or "losing" a scene to explore the underlying moral, ethical, and psychological "matter" that make the scene "interesting" in the first place. From a narrativist perspective, "winning" or "losing" a scene is often equally interesting; this is rarely the case for gamist agendas.

But this is mostly rambling thoughts of my own. Back to the salient point, a la D&D 5e ----

The problem D&D has always had, is it doesn't really know "What it's simulating." And because it doesn't really know what it's simulating, there's no way to determine how well it's being simulated.

Part of the reason 4e was a breath of fresh air for GMs like @pemerton is it finally gave up the pretense of "simulating real-world reality," and just accepted the fact that "Yes, if we're 'simulating' anything, it's heroic fantasy genre reality."

I personally am more of a fan of systems that casually simulate "reality" as much as possible, but make clear, token exceptions to genre-appropriate elements. 3e's problem generally is that it's very unclear about that division---what should be accepted as "simulation," and what should be viewed as "What the heck, it's fantasy."

If 5e takes a stance on "simulation" at all, at least make it a clear one.

But of course, as always,

>>> The Game <<<

 

[howandwhy99]

That's a good post. Simulation games aren't 1 of 3 prongs of games. They are 1 of 2 popular kinds of storytelling games. Simulation rules enable players to game a currently depicted situation. They are mixing game constructs with our understandings of reality. Look at wargames, for example. Storygame rules are about players playing to create a story. They want rules that will result expressions valued within narrative ideology. Their story has no rules to game, so the story isn't the game unlike simulation games. Most games and gamers could care less about either of these.

 

[pemerton]

When is something definitively a depiction?

Games are about enabling game play for players. Football players aren't trying to vicariously behave like some other depicted reality.

You are correct that football has no representation aspect. RPGing manifestly does.

For instance, no part of playing football involves a participant responding to a question "What do you do now?" with a remark like "I walk down the corridor". RPGing does. Hence, in RPGing, there are depictions of things (characters, corridors, monsters) that don't actually exist.

Gygax, on p 7 of his PHB, states that "As a role player, you become Falstaff the fighter. You know how strong, intelligent, wise, healthy, dextrous and, relatively speaking, how commanding a personality you have [sic]. . . You act out the game as this character . . . You interact with your fellow role players, not as Jim and Bob and Mary who work at the office together, but as Falstaff the fighter, Angore the cleric, and Filmar, the mistress of magic!"

That's not very ambiguous. The "become" isn't literal, as the reference to "acting out" indicates. Roleplaying involves a certain sort of pretence, evaluating propositions not in relation to the real world (in which, for instance, neither Falstaff nor Angore nor Filmar exists) but in relation to an imagined state-of-affairs (which, following the usage of contemporary analytic philosophers, plus ordinary language, can be termed a fiction).

Games aren't good or bad because of how well they depict something else.

And? Did anyone assert that games are good or bad because of how well they depict something else? That's typically seen as a feature of certain representational art forms. I've never seen anyone suggest that RPGs are a representational art form.

But the play of a game might produce a depiction of something else, and some people might think it matters to the quality of the game how well that depiction turns out. For instance, the star-ship building rules in a space opera game would be liable to criticism if they didn't let you build a ship something like the Millenium Falcon or the Enterprise. (I think the original Book 2 Traveller rules are subject to criticism along such lines. The publishers seem to have agreed to some extent, because Book 5 gave us new rules.)

Ironically, games that have historically been considered badly designed are ones which allow for short-circuiting of game play

And this is apropos of what? The most frequent instance of such "short-circuiting" that I see discussed around here is the role of Save-or-Die in pre-4e D&D, especially 3E/PF.

There is no special connection between game rules intended to facilitate dramatic contrivances and the "short-circuiting" of game play. For instance, a player spending a healing surge during the course of resolution of a 4e combat is not short-circuiting game play; s/he is playing the game. That's as true at a gamist table (eg Lair Assault organised play) as it is at my table.