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

[Yora]

I think the question of Simulation or Game can be better understood as one about rules that either create a reasonably accurate approximation of reality, or focus on being fun to play. The rules of chess no longer represent anything, they are just used because playing with these rules is fun. On the other hand a train simulator may be highly accurate, but most people can not see any fun in it.
But I think in either case, focusing on one or the other both miss the entire point of the game, as I see it.

In both cases you are playing with the rules. Either because playing with the dice is fun,or because you like how they recreate an approximation that would be close to how things would happen on reality. (Though I would suspect that in almost all casesit's both.)
However, and that's my oppionion, the point of the game is to have an adventure and as a group with the GM creating a narrative as things develop. When I run a game, I want the players to concentrate entirely on the events that are happening. I want them to think what actions of their charcters would make the greatest story. I don't want them to tweak numbers and play with the dice. Thinking about numbers distracts from the focus of the game.

And that's where I think WotC headed into the wrong direction with D&D. Because books with character options and optional rules sell well, their games rely a lot on rules. And as I see it, way too much rules. So many rules that they distract from the point of playing the game. With 3rd edition, making character builds has become a way of playing the game. Which in itself would not be something bad for people who enjoy it, but it shows how over-complex the rules have become.
And that's why the OSR crowd is not entirely fueled by nostalgia and aversion to change. There is a major difference between OSR games and d20 games, and that is the amount of rules and their complexity. I've been playing AS&SH recently, and even after over a decade of 3rd ed./PF it already feels so much more fun. The rules are there simply to give different characters diferent chances to suceed at the same time. And for that purpose, you don't need a lit of them.
The last time I've seen a playtest version, it seemed better in this regard than 3rd edition, but eith each new version it became more clear that they wanted the rules to be fun, rather than unobstrusive. And from everything I've seen about WotCs business, they will be cranking out spkatboojs from day one again.

 

[howandwhy99]

I think there should be an inverse relationship between how simulationist and involved (process sim?) the rules are for something, and how often you use those rules. I like sim rules, but they wear out their welcome fast if it's something you do a lot. For example: I think the rules for fighting should be quick and abstract, because it happens a lot and I don't want to figure out hit locations every time etc., but then the rules for alchemy or crafting or diseases or whatever should be detailed and sim-y, because you only use those rules once in a while so when you do pull them out it's nice if they have some meat to them. When you're putting together a game from a theoretical perspective this doesn't make a lot of sense (why are we spending this many pages on marginal stuff?) but it actually works really well in practice and makes the game seem big and sort of "mysterious" while still playing quick and smooth most of the time.

This is a good point. My understanding is old school D&D used nested system design to incorporate vast amounts of detail in every situation, because every game situation could potentially include something from somewhere else in the rules.

For example,

• Creature pages might include the designs need for the anatomical systems game and then the particular for each creature.
• Some stats include abstractions of the results of the operations of those anatomical systems.
• Combat uses these abstractions for quick and easy determination of hitting ability and force affecting a weapon's potential for structural damage.
• Attacks focusing on a part of the anatomy bring that system into play and consequences based upon changes to it.
• Contacting a disease isn't necessarily a combat action, but it brings what diseases are, the body again, and potentially how the disease is contacted (possibly combat rules) all into play.

Each of these game systems can be simplified for easy running and reference (the whole point of making a stat imo), but still allow for great depth and therefore allow for more pre-integrated strategies for the players.

 

[fjw70]

I just want a fun game. D&D rules have always been close enough to reality for that it has never been an issue.

 

[Libramarian]

This is a good point. My understanding is old school D&D used nested system design to incorporate vast amounts of detail in every situation, because every game situation could potentially include something from somewhere else in the rules.

For example,

• Creature pages might include the designs need for the anatomical systems game and then the particular for each creature.
• Some stats include abstractions of the results of the operations of those anatomical systems.
• Combat uses these abstractions for quick and easy determination of hitting ability and force affecting a weapon's potential for structural damage.
• Attacks focusing on a part of the anatomy bring that system into play and consequences based upon changes to it.
• Contacting a disease isn't necessarily a combat action, but it brings what diseases are, the body again, and potentially how the disease is contacted (possibly combat rules) all into play.

Each of these game systems can be simplified for easy running and reference (the whole point of making a stat imo), but still allow for great depth and therefore allow for more pre-integrated strategies for the players.

Yeah for sure, I like how old D&D lists everything in feet even though the majority of the time you're using an abstracted stat (squares, reach, monster size). It reminds you what the abstraction is an abstraction of, and once in a while you do use the number in feet.

 

[Libramarian]

Couple more thoughts on this topic:

A simulationist rule adds more detail and texture to the shared imaginary space but does not directly create an interesting decision for the players. Boardgamers call rules like this "chrome".

Simulationist rules, although they don't directly lead to an interesting decision for the players, do sometimes add additional interest to a decision prompted by gamist rules. More than you might think. E.g. a simulationist rule might be that dwarves and humans move at different rates. Most of the time this is just going to be "chrome": it's not going to affect the decisions of the players. But once in a while it will actually add an interesting wrinkle to a combat scenario. It's important to watch out for these interactions when you're cutting out simulationist rules in the name of game "elegance".

I kinda think that simulationist rules have taken a lot of the blame for the 15 minutes of fun in 4 hours phenomenon, when the real problem is simulationist GMing. If you have a focused gamist GM, you can have a lot of fun with a big, messy ruleset. That's my approach with 1e AD&D. On the other hand a simulationist GM can take the wind out of the sails of even the most gamist ruleset. You can imagine a ref who keeps interrupting a chess match to force the players to roleplay their battle cries and stops them from making moves with pieces using out-of-piece knowledge.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I kinda think that simulationist rules have taken a lot of the blame for the 15 minutes of fun in 4 hours phenomenon, when the real problem is simulationist GMing.

Interesting. I certainly think that getting a sense of how much stuff you can skip is one of the harder parts of being a DM. (Quite a lot is the answer).

 

[howandwhy99]

Yeah for sure, I like how old D&D lists everything in feet even though the majority of the time you're using an abstracted stat (squares, reach, monster size). It reminds you what the abstraction is an abstraction of, and once in a while you do use the number in feet.

These kind of systems make it easy to generate game content as well as determine consequences for long chains of causality during play. The trick is, the consequences of actions must reach a certain threshold to be significant and carry over somewhere else. That way fatigue doesn't affect hit points, but damage causing fatigue would might cause both.

This may sound like a horribly difficult game to DM if you're familiar with 3e and major system consequences like Ability Damage. Did every single stat need to be recalculated when that happened? IME, a nested system cascades outward and comes to a stop like an avalanche or wave. It stays with big granules for any particular system allowing deeper ones to cover more specific actions. Like anything the details an be ignored and held off on being determined only as needed by what players focus on in the game.

 

[3catcircus]

How simulationist do you want to get?

Are we talking Exalted or Vampire levels of abstraction or going so far in the opposite direction that you hit Phoenix Command or Millenium's End levels simulationism?

For me, not having hit locations and having abstract "100% capable until you hit 0 hp" is ridiculous. A sliding scale of "light, moderate, serious, critical" wounds by location with various penalties and chances of bleeding out or going in to shock makes sense. We have Cure spells with the same sliding scale. We have combat effects like bleed. We have in Ultimate Combat the called shot system (and many different systems throughout the ages going back to the earliest editions of D&D).

It would be very very simple to do this. I favor having hp solely based upon physical attributes and not increasing with level or HD and then having multiples of that be the trip point for wound levels. Of course, you could just take standard hp and divide. 1 hp of damage = slight wounds, 25% = moderate, etc. and have those be trip point for wound levels.

Having every PC or NPC have the same "roll a d20" when those who have more experience ought to not just be more successful by having higher bonuses, but ought to have a greater amount of chances at being successful by rolling a pool of d20s makes sense. In the real world, most people who are very experienced are less likely to totally screw up an action - so even if they aren't successful the first time, they'll quickly adjust and be successful. Why shouldn't this also work in D&D? You want to schmooze your way past the guard? Why should your success hinge on a single d20 roll on Bluff or Diplomacy if you happen to have put 10 ranks into the skill vs. someone who has no ranks and is solely relying upon a high Charisma? Shouldn't someone who has devoted more ranks in a skill get more chances to be successful at any single task than someone who hasn't?

Now - do I want to flip through 15 look up tables to figure out if my sword swing sliced through the ACL instead of the MCL? No. Do I want to turn the Alchemy skill into a semester-long ORganic Chemistry class? Nope.

 

[pemerton]

It is a little problematic to simply use the word simulation. (Hence my use of quotation marks around the word simulation.) I suppose it's a 'simulation' of the reality found in legends and fantasy fiction. Or perhaps a better way to put it would be an emphasis on telling a good story without too much emphasis on precise mechanical balance.

<snip>

we would have balance achieved through mechanical balance whether or not it makes sense in terms of the setting or the story. (For example, 4e's encounter powers dictated that certain powers could only be used once per encounter but provided no rationale as to why that may be.)

<snip>

One of the beefs I had with some of the rules of Pathfinder and D&D 4e (and also some elements of 3.5) was that some of the rules seemed very 'metagamey'.

In my view this is too simplistic. Perhaps you are generalising particular experiences you have had, without considering that others have different experiences.

For instance, one feature of 4e that I have noticed over several years of playing it is that it produces adventures closer to "the reality found in legends and fantasy fiction" than I get from more traditional fantasy RPG rulesets, and this is for at least two reasons: (1) it does a better job of enabling high-level "mundane" PCs like fighters and rangers to be mechanically comparable in their effectiveness to magic-users; (2) it produces more dramatic pacing during ingame moments of crisis (especially but not only combat) than do those other more traditional RPGs. "Metagamey" abilities like martial encounter powers are utterly central to both (1) and (2).

In my view it is hard for a highly simulationist RPG to achieve the pacing, in play, that is typical of legends and fantasy fiction. (I don't disagree with [MENTION=6688858]Libramarian[/MENTION] that this is an issue that has GMing dimensions. But I think some rulesets can foster those GMing approaches more than others.) And once you allow, for instances, that magic-users are going to be more mechanically effective than other character types it becomes hard to achieve the feel of such fiction in play.

PC balance is a good example of a game vs sim issue. If you're making a LotR game, do you try to simulate the setting of the books with PCs of wildly disparate power levels, or do you try to make it a fun (for some) game by making all PCs of roughly equivalent power?

<snip>

In my previous LotR example I'd go all the way sim: Gandalf is an angel, Sam is a serf, and the game is still a blast.

But if you run a D&D game in which (say) the hobbits are 0-level or 1st level characters; Boromir, Gimli and Legolas (say) 6th level; Aragorn 10th level; and Gandalf a 12th level cleric; than you probably won't generate a play experience anything like the books without massive GM intervention and hand-waving of resolution. It will end up more like those jokes about flying on an eagle to drop the ring into Mount Doom.

Gandalf may be an angel, but if we try to imagine a play experience that resembles the books than it is clear that, in play, much of the time Gandalf's player's abilities are limited to modest buffing of allies via encouraging words (like a 3E bard or a 4e leader), and also an ability to declare the successful completion of off-screen missions like finding the Scroll of Isildur or meeting up with the Ents (Burning Wheel has mechanics a bit like this with Circles and Wises; d20 Conan uses Fate Points for this sort of thing; off the top of my head the only D&D example I can think of is the rogue's Read Languages ability, which Gygax in his DMG explains corresponds to the character's "off-screen" familiarity with that language).

Conversely, while Sam may be a serf, Sam's player has some sort of ability that allows him/her to bring about the consequence that the orcs in Cirith Ungol think he is an elf-lord. And Frodo's play has some sort of ability that allows him/her to "kill" all the orcs in Cirith Ungol by making them fight over his mithril shirt (part of the cost of using that ability is obviously having to scratch the shirt of his/her equipment list!).

There are various ways to achieve this sort of result in RPG design. Marvel Heroic RP illustrates some. I gather so does Buffy. And 4e does as well, in some ways at least. If you won't use any of those metagame oriented techniques, your game might be process-simulation in its resolution sensibilities, but I don't think it will do a very good job of simulating the fiction of LotR.

I want the players to concentrate entirely on the events that are happening. I want them to think what actions of their charcters would make the greatest story. I don't want them to tweak numbers and play with the dice. Thinking about numbers distracts from the focus of the game.

In my view, and experience, it is not true that thinking about numbers distracts from the fiction if it pushes the players into the same emotional and cognitive space as their PCs. For instance, if the point of the fiction is that the PCs are in a tight situation, then I want the rules to make the players feel that they are in a tight situation. Certain ways of designing the numbers, and then having the players think about the numbers, can certainly achieve that result.

 

[Halivar]

Simulationism fails pretty hard, IMO, because natural outcomes do not arise organically out of incomplete simulations. A 300 page PHB is NOT going to provide a complete enough simulation to avoid the absurd or nonsensical outcomes arising from the compounding levels of imprecision in the rules.

Now, that's my problem in general with simulationism. When you're talking about D&D, we can skip straight to the fact that D&D is not simulationist, and never has been. In 3rd Edition, we took a blatantly non-simulation game and adorned it with some trappings of simulationism (consistent universal mechanics! Now it's a simulation!) and started using the word "verisimilitude" as if it had anything to do with D&D.

If I can get stabbed 7 times with a sword, fall 100 feet into a pit, or eat a 10d6 fireball and keep swinging my sword like nothing happens, you are not simulating an internally consistent game world; you are simulating a D&D game.

I don't care about internal processes; simulating physics is less important than correctly modelling outcomes, which can be done just fine in a narrativist or gamist system.