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

[Ahnehnois]

I don't think there is a scale of Simulation vs. Game. There's definitely a scale of Simulation vs. Abstraction (old-school exploration rules and 4e skill challenges are on opposite ends of that). I don't know if "Game" is one end of any scale. It's a game either way, right?

Yes, but I don't think abstraction is really the issue either. A simulation can be detailed and specific, or it can be abstract. And that's what I would argue that D&D is: an abstract simulation game.

I think the actual conflicts are more along the lines of:
*Realism vs Fantasy (are the characters flesh and blood people who get broken bones, or are they made out of flubber and able to jump off of cliffs?)
and
*Game vs Metagame (do the rules enforce a strict separation of in-game and real-world constraints, or are those ends conflated?)

 

[billd91]

I don't think there is a scale of Simulation vs. Game. There's definitely a scale of Simulation vs. Abstraction (old-school exploration rules and 4e skill challenges are on opposite ends of that). I don't know if "Game" is one end of any scale. It's a game either way, right?

In one sense, you are correct. But I think there is more than one continuum that can have simulation at one end. You can have the simulation--abstraction axis and you can have a simulation--game axis as well. In some cases, they work in parallel or at least closely together. Hit points are an abstraction of a character's ability to keep on keepin' on despite being battered in a fight, so they're an abstract representation of his health and fitness. But they serve a gamist purpose as well - determining when the character in the game needs to stop and recover or be removed from the field of play. The ability of a PF alchemist to throw only a fixed number of bombs per day despite the presence of materials for making them really doesn't sit on the simulation--abstract axis very well. What does x times/day mean? But it definitely sits on the simulation--game axis as a means of regulating the character's balance against other elements in the game at the sacrifice of a more accurate simulation of a fantasy reality.

 

[Minigiant]

Sounds like "good game design" vs "good world design"

The classic is "The average elf is just BETTER than the average human". It is fine to create a world or story that way but it break one of rules of good game design. Same with "archwizards are just better than everything else". Nothing wrong as a story, world, or certain type of game, but breaks the game design rules.

So 5e is best in the middle. Write the world and get it to work as a game. Elves and wizards have flaws. Alchemists cc an make dozens of bombs but it is expensive and it is hard to bring 1000 bombs in a dungeon.

 

[1of3]

Yes, but I don't think abstraction is really the issue either. A simulation can be detailed and specific, or it can be abstract. And that's what I would argue that D&D is: an abstract simulation game.

I think the actual conflicts are more along the lines of:
*Realism vs Fantasy (are the characters flesh and blood people who get broken bones, or are they made out of flubber and able to jump off of cliffs?)
and
*Game vs Metagame (do the rules enforce a strict separation of in-game and real-world constraints, or are those ends conflated?)

Yes. Good points. There is also a question of rules control. Is the GM in control or are the rules public. The Alchemist in the OP is public: Anyone can know and determine how many potions are available. If it were dependent on certain ingredients, not so much.

 

[Libramarian]

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.

 

[Ahnehnois]

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 interesting, but sounds like the opposite of what we've seen from D&D. The D&D rules put an enormous (relatively) amount of detail into combat, often covering very minute details, while leaving other areas very vague.

For example, if you're fighting someone, you track positioning down to the nearest 5 ft. square during each 6-second period (though if you go back to older versions those numbers may vary). However, in negotiations, you're certainly not tracking who your character is making eye contact with in each 6-second period, even though that's probably at least as important.

I suppose there are also some aspects of the game that do meet your criteria, particularly in various specialized 3e supplements that give relatively detailed rules for environment or character psychology or other niche considerations.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Mostly game. Kinda hard to simulate the use of magic in a magical world, isn't it?

 

[Aenghus]

I've got increasingly distrustful of simple dichotomies for RPGs. While these can be of some value in some or even most games, they aren't universal, and their usefulness is a relative thing.

For instance in a game prioritising humour over everything neither simulation nor game are likely to be important.

The term "simulation" begs the question "simulation of what?" You can simulate anything, and the simulation can be super accurate, highly inaccurate or anywhere in between. "Simulation" IMO tends to be associated with closer-to-normal-life settings, which I think is conflating two separate issues. While it's easier to measure the fidelity of a simulation of events we are familiar with than the events of a fantastic reality, a simulation of the latter is still a simulation.

And people genuinely disagree about real world events and measurements all the time, despite far more hard data and bandwidth to work with than players have in a game.

 

[shadow]

The term "simulation" begs the question "simulation of what?" You can simulate anything, and the simulation can be super accurate, highly inaccurate or anywhere in between.

That's true. 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. For example, if the fantasy milieu calls for wizards to be powerful then it is okay to have them a little more powerful than other characters (perhaps balanced by the DM imposing plot based restraints). On the other hand, 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.) Yes, I realize that it is a rather simplistic dichotomy, but it does illustrate two different philosophies that are prevalent when it comes to gaming.

Anyway, as for me I prefer somewhere in the 'middle'. RPGs are not impromptu theater so rules and constraints are obviously needed. I obviously don't want one class or race to be completely super powered. However, when it comes to balance, I want the constraints to make sense within the confines of the story. 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'. I mentioned the now famous example of the Pathfinder alchemist as an example because, rather than constrain the 'explosive' ability with time needed to make explosives, or the amount of bombs that could be realistically carried, there is the rather seemingly arbitrary restriction of 'explosives per day'.

 

[Elf Witch]

I want my cake and eat it too. I want a game that feels like a real living world with real characters so I am more of a simulationist style player and DM. But I recognize that it is a game and we need rules to simulate actions. So I accept we are going to have rules that are totally gamist in nature. I just don't want too many of them. I also don't want to spend weeks healing from an injury yet I don't want PCs no matter their level to fall off a building as high as the empire state building and walk away.