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

[Chaltab]

To everyone else who has been systematically marginalized and had what they loved redefined into what they don't care fore, I'm guessing sympathy abounds. I certainly care for those who are in similar positions.

You don't like the way just this conversation is phrased? That should hopefully find us some common ground.

No, actually, I think the substance of your argument is absolutely and unequivocally preposterous. But how you're saying it sure doesn't help.

You're arguing from a premise that is untrue (that story-games are somehow trying to destroy and replace RPGs), yet you rebuff all attempts to correct it. Your logic breaks down in ways that Neonchameleon and others have been studiously pointing out, yet instead of refining your argument your argument becomes more incoherent. At the very least comparing the 'marginalization' of your preferred way of playing D&D to the actual marginalization of people is offensive and you need to stop. Even if you were correct about The Forge, it would still be offensively overwrought language.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Similarly, it is objectively true as matter of action resolution mechanics that a 2W power does more damage than a 1W power. But that need not correlate to anything real or observable in the gameworld. For instance, consider the following two events: a 2W power that does 20 hp damage and reduces an NPC from 50 to 30 hp; or a 1W power that does 2 hp damage and reduces an NPC from 1 hp to 0 hp. In the gameworld, the second event is the one that is an observable severing of a head, or disembowelling, or whatever ther mode of death takes place. Whereas the first did not even bloody the enemy, though no doubt it forced them to exert themselves in self-defence.

Because death (or unconsciousness) is observable, and because the occurrence of that phenomenon is tied to your hit points running out, and because a 2W power does more damage than a 1W power, there must be a real objective difference between the 2W power and the 1W power.

The example you give here is using different powers in different circumstances, so the qualities of the powers are hidden by outside factors. Consider, instead, a neutral case - the target has 50hp, the 2W power deals 20 damage, and the 1W power deals 15 damage.

In scenario A, the target takes 20 damage from the 2W power, to no immediate effect (not even bloodied). Later, the target takes an additional 32 damage from one or more sources, and dies.
In scenario B, the target takes 15 damage from the 1W power, to no immediate effect (not even bloodied). Later, the target takes an additional 32 damage from one or more sources, and doesn't die.

Because the 2W power deals more damage (whatever that corresponds to within the game world), it leads to the observable phenomenon of death, where the 1E power would not have led to that. It is objectively true that whatever reality was reflected by the 2W power is different from whatever reality was reflected by the 1W power at least in that the former eventually resulted in death where the latter did not. Even when those realities would otherwise appear identical to anyone watching it at the time. (And seriously, would anyone​ narrate a hit for 15/50 as any different from a hit for 20/50?)

 

[pemerton]

Because death (or unconsciousness) is observable, and because the occurrence of that phenomenon is tied to your hit points running out, and because a 2W power does more damage than a 1W power, there must be a real objective difference between the 2W power and the 1W power.

The example you give here is using different powers in different circumstances, so the qualities of the powers are hidden by outside factors.

That's my point: within the gameworld there are only those various different circumstances. It's not that the qualities of the powers are hidden by outside factors - the powers have no qualities within the gameworld.

Consider, instead, a neutral case - the target has 50hp, the 2W power deals 20 damage, and the 1W power deals 15 damage.

Within the gameworld there is no such case. Within the gameworld there is this one particular event in which person A was killed, or was bloodied, or was knocked prone, or was wrongfooted, or whatever other observable thing took place. But within the gameworld there is no way to correlate this to hit point loss, or power usage. Those are all artefacts of the metagame - the actual play of the game at the table.

You seem to be positing the inhabitants of the gameworld performing some sort of "hidden variable" experiment based around longsword swings to try and measure hit points as a real but unobservable quantity. I'm not enough of a mathematician to work out if that makes sense, given that there seem to be at least 4 hidden variables in play (the stats of each power, the power actually used, the damage result, and the target's hp total).

But even if such an experiment does make sense, the inhabitants of my gameworld are not undertaking any such experiments. In my gameworld, what is observable is the loosing of arrows, the killing of their targets, etc. The use of powers, the rolling of dice, the subtraction of hit points from tallies - none of these is part of the gameworld.

In scenario A, the target takes 20 damage from the 2W power, to no immediate effect (not even bloodied). Later, the target takes an additional 32 damage from one or more sources, and dies.
In scenario B, the target takes 15 damage from the 1W power, to no immediate effect (not even bloodied). Later, the target takes an additional 32 damage from one or more sources, and doesn't die.

In the gameworld, none of the quantities you refer to here - the loss of N hit points to a power of xW - is observable or directly measurable to the inhabitants of the gameworld.

Because the 2W power deals more damage (whatever that corresponds to within the game world), it leads to the observable phenomenon of death

<snip>

the former eventually resulted in death where the latter did not.

No. In your own scenario, death is the result of the subsequent attack. If the final attack was a 1 hp hit from a thrown rock, it caused more observable damage than the loss of 20 hp to the 2W attack, because the rock killed its target, but (as you note) the 2W attack didn't even bloody the target.

This is just one example that shows that damage does not correspond in any obvious way to anything within the gameworld. You can stipulate such a correspondence if you want to, of course, but no one is obliged to in order to have the gameworld be consistent.

It is objectively true that whatever reality was reflected by the 2W power is different from whatever reality was reflected by the 1W power

There need be no such reality. That there is such a reality is a premise of simulationist play, but not everyone begins their RPGing from such a premise.

 

[Lanefan]

Except that I want more comprehensive basic rules than 1e gave. 1e, IMO, suffers from some holes in the mechanics for basic actions - how far can I jump/swim is a good start. OTOH, 1e also suffers from some extremely tedious rules - Weapon vs armour, initiative rules, which need to be cleaned up.

By and large agreed. 1e as written isn't perfect, but to me it's a far better jumping-off point than anything that's come since; and there's 35+ years of experimentation out there that can be mined to find what worked and what didn't.

Lanefan

 

[Ahnehnois]

Actually, I didn't say that. I said that if there is a disagreement over the best way to mechanically frame a situation for resolution, the GM has the final say.

If a situation is framed as a skill challenge, or as a simple skill check, then it is the players' prerogative to declare an action according to the rules of the game. Which I think is [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s point about how he prefers to run and play games.

That would be another one of those meaningless distinctions. Situations are not themselves inherently framed as anything. If a player says he wants to use some particular mechanical ability, and the DM doesn't think it's appropriate, there's a disagreement. You've noted who has the final word in any such disagreement. If the player and DM are on the same page, as they often are, than the DM's word is still what is being enacted.

And this would be the fundamental difference between us. My players are entitled to all sorts of things and one of those things is that I will do my best to never impose my will on any outcome.

So I gather.

The other primary difference is that I recognize different playstyles and don't try to pretend to one true way ism by claiming something as role playing 101.

Indeed, the consequence of Rule Zero is that the DM can create any number of playstyles, rather than being bound by default expectations written in the book. The rule itself is not a playstyle, it's a rule.

 

[Balesir]

Well, I come back from running D&D for a weekend and find this thread has gone down some very odd forks (or sporks ).

One I find myself intrigued by (again) is [MENTION=3192]howandwhy99[/MENTION]'s conception of what an RPG is/should be. Alas, I find I can make little more sense of it this time around than ever before, but, a sucker for punishment, I'll keep trying.

Given everything you're writing here I don't think you have any experience with any actual game theory at all - except of course the Big Model. Why on earth would I care about immersion? What have I ever said to give you that idea?

I don't really understand this, since the Big Model is not really related to mathematical Game Theory in any way. It's more of a classification schema than a theory, actually, and like all classification schemas it begs the question regarding whether there are classifications omitted. I would be perfectly content to answer this question "yes", so let's continue on the basis that what you are trying to advocate for is entirely outside the classifications given by the Big Model, and that hence the Big Model is irrelevant to the discussion.

There is no such thing as pawn stance. That's a theory, not anything that actually occurs in games. It's meant to pervert games to always be narratives as its author intended.

I don't know whether Kevin Hardwick intended to pervert games to always be narratives or not; do you have any evidence that he did? As a point of information, the "Roleplaying Stances" were initially described in mid-1995, well before The Forge was even created, on rec.games.frp.advocacy - see here for the relevant thread.

The stances are nothing to do with the aims or structure of the game, but are descriptions or classifications of how a player is conceiving of the game at the time when they make decisions about the imagined action/attempted use of their character. The system of classification may, once again, be incomplete - but it is explicitly flexible enough to admit of additional classes, and indeed has seen at least two added since the original description. The stance "pawn", for what it's worth, pretty accurately describes me when I engage in many types of game in which I control one notional "piece" - various board games, card games and so on. If the very act of classification enrages you, however, let's again assume that we are talking about some previously unnoticed excluded classification.

Nothing the players can capably express to the DM is inadmissable just like in a situational puzzle. But it may not be in the game prior to them making the attempt to smell/feel/whatever the goblin dung. Features not in the game are put there by the players by making the attempts (also like situational puzzles).

OK, but what I am struggling with is how the DM knows that Goblin dung will be found if sought. You say that the DM makes no choices, so they must presumably have some way to discover unequivocally that goblins either do or do not produce dung. How do they do this? This is the big missing piece that is preventing me understanding what exactly you are advocating every time you attempt to do so. Are the discussions on this board themselves a game? Are we supposed to find out what in tarnation you are talking about by playing the game? Or is there something you are just assuming and not bothering to tell us because it's "obvious"? I just don't know. Perhaps it might be clearer if you could say - at least in example - how the DM might know that goblins either must or must not have dung associated with them in a specific game?

But it is important the DM clarifies with the player via question and answering as to the specifics of their attempts. If there were no dung in the game before, find out what it is until all specifics are settled in pre-existing game content.

I assume that the player does not know "what dung is" in the context of the game; in fact, they do not know whether such a thing exists in the game at all. So, they describe what they are looking for until it is settled what they mean by "dung". Which is when we run into trouble, since the DM has not considered the presence or absence of dung, specifically, so must rely on something that implies such existence or non-existence - my question is, what is that "something"? You might (based on previous cases) say it's a "code" the DM has set up before play, but I cannot conceive of a code that might cover all such possibilities. Is there a rule such as "any element the player looks for is present"? How does this work?

Okay, but as I understand it the DM stops making choices after the campaign begins though.

Right - this is why I am stumped as to the nature of the "code". That it can be so comprehensive as to obviate any need for choice I find very hard to comprehend - some sort of description or example might help, here.

If you want to have scent be a more important element to the game (have more to it), then categorizing them like this might help. I'd suggest tracking what the PCs know so you can relay details like that.

Why should "what you want" come into it, here? The DM is making no choices after play starts; are we talking about including scent as a feature in the code before play commences? If so, what do you do if a player tries to use scent and you have not decided to make it an important element in the code? Do they simply fail because it's not included? How does the code imply what the outcome of using scent is in cases where it wasn't chosen for inclusion as an important element in the code at game setup?

This is all very opaque, to me, because as far as I can see the inclusion (or not) of scent as an "important element" is irrelevant if the code must imply answers to all possible questions anyway. Since the code implies answers to everything, how can one element be more important than any other?

The DM has predetermined outcomes from a generated gameboard. That can easily includes goblins and dung. How all of the environment "fits together" isn't so much a relationship map (though any map might be called that) as it is a result of previous game states from the start of the gameboard. The code/rules in question for how everything occurs and operates afterwards defines those relationships every bit as much as all past and present game states.

I replaced the term "multiverse" with "gameboard" in all instances, here, to be perfectly clear that we are not talking about a fictional multiverse, since that seems to be a real bugaboo.

You say the gameboard "can easily includes goblins and dung" - but why does it? The DM is not making choices, but the gameboard "can easily" include these things?? It either does include them or it does not. The DM doesn't decide this by choice, so how does s/he decide it, if it is asked about by the players? "Previous game states" might tell you whether already established game elements (goblins, say, and a cave) interacted. Let's suppose for example that the goblins were present in the cave (in the sense of game pieces in a board location) at some previous time. But these elements and their relationship will not tell you whether goblins poo or not. What part of the code relates to that??

Oh heck yeah. Everything in the adventure modules, campaign settings, monster manuals, treasure collections, well, any published material, is designed to assist DMs to more easily run their games. Think of them like components to be added to the Dungeon! boardgame. They include more: Monsters, Treasures, and Dungeon Levels, though those terms are rather broad for D&D. And everything is rooted in mathematical game theory, so DMs can convert them to their particular code for any given campaign.

I don't understand the assertion. Nothing in the Monster Manual has anything really to do with mathematical game theory, as far as I can see. In what sense are you saying that it does?

Even if that game content is eerily similar to elves with pointy ears and wizards with gem-affixed staves. The point is: Nothing in the game isn't content that can't be perceived or interacted with without being tied into the entirety of the game board through all game time.

Gah - multiple negative confusion... Let me try to lessen the negatives to see what you are saying - please correct if I get it wrong:

"Everything in the game is content that can be perceived or interacted with only as being tied into the entirety of the game board through all game time."

In other words, game content only has meaning in the context of the game and is subject to continuity and consistency requirements in that context? As far as I know that is true of all the games known as "roleplaying games". So agreed, I suppose. I don't really see the point being made.

Thank you. And it's good to talk to someone interested.

I am interested, also, and have been for some time, but I never manage to penetrate through to what you really mean. There always seems to be some essential point missing. As I mentioned above, I wonder a little if this is all simply some sort of elaborate game that you are playing with us all, deliberately missing out key information to have us baffled (but guessing at what it might be).

[MENTION=386]LostSoul[/MENTION], I forgot to include an example. Otherwise it may appear players know when they are and when they aren't adding content. Like discerning odds, cooperation/competition, focus on goals, accomplishment, and everything else in the game, the magic of engaging with the game includes not knowing if you made it all up, some, or none of it. (Though I think it's more complicated than that. Always both, might be a better answer.)

So players should not know whether a game element they look for was something you previously considered or is something that you are invoking the code to deduce the properties of? I can see that, at least - no reason they should know, really.

So the example,

P: "My PC whittles out a spork with his knife from a piece of stick."
DM (knowing the PC, cutting, the knife, and sticks are all in the game): "What do you mean spork?"
P: "Here, let me draw you a picture" / "a cross between a spoon and fork" / "Here, catch"

Wait - how do you know that "whittling" is a possibility? D&D rules, for example, only characterise knives by their ability to hit various targets and the damage they do. How do you deduce "whittling" from this? Is an inanimate object defined partly by its hit points? If the character successfully "hits" the branch for just enough damage to reduce it to the correct hit points for a spork, do they successfully make a spork? That can't be it, because the spork was not predefined in the game. So, again, I'm baffled as to what code can imply "whittling" and thus allow player-described "sporks".

Yes, the DM is free to basically confirm that they both probably know what a spork is. DMs don't have to play dumb. It's to clarify the altering of game content. Technically the spork's still a carved stuck, but the geometric shape of a spork is going to allow different actions with it than your standard broken tree branch will.

The bit I'm missing is not how DM and player both know what a spork is - it's how it is deduced that a character playing piece with a knife playing piece and a broken branch playing piece may "whittle" to create a spork. It's not a game element that has been introduced, here, so much as a new rule, as far as I can see. So this mysterious "code" must be some sort of engine for manufacturing rules. Can you describe or illustrate via example how it does that?

Do we need to know this stuff before most any campaign? The base design the DM operates from, yes.

I assume this "base design" is the same as the "code"??

But sporks probably don't have anything to do with any of the predetermined roles provided for (at least not any D&D classes I know of). But players might include them when defining the campaign world before beginning the game. Or they might want a custom class that does someone use them later in the campaign, but when starting over with a new PC.

All determined before play, I assume?

Of course games aren't "shared fiction". They are designs, patterns, which could be treated as enigmas in and of themselves. Like playing Chess against yourself thereby improving your understanding of Chess. Closing one's eyes and learning the pattern in imagination makes it no less actual as our imaginations actually exist.

If I close my eyes and imagine a chessboard that I have seen I don't have a fiction; I have a memory. But if I then imagine that I move a piece on that board, I have a fiction. The line between memory and fiction is wafer thin, but if you tried to claim one as the other in a court of law I cannot imagine that it would go well. Our imaginations can conjure images of objects that we remember - that we have experience of - or that are described to us, but when we make those objects do things that they have not, in fact, done, it's a fiction. When the objects do not exist in the real world to begin with, this is doubly so.

But in the end it doesn't matter, the GM actually has these elements drawn out behind the screen. (I certainly couldn't hold all of them in mind at once). When the player adds some, the designs are created as well with appropriate features tracked in the game. Think atoms into molecules. The shapes are probably already covered. So too wood and other stuff, right? The new item is statted by the player even though they never told what those stats are (even after a game is over). Though you could say they might feel them in action over and over during play.

With the game elements, once defined, it's clear. What isn't clear is the transitions. How does the DM know that characters can whittle wood? How does the DM know that goblins poo? If neither of these actions has been previously set up in the game as capabilities of the game pieces I don't see how this works with a "code" that is not a fiction.

A chess queen can "take" another piece by moving into its space, but the player cannot decide ad hoc that the queen whittles a knight beside her into the shape and capabilities of a bishop. To have rules that covered such actions, you would need some model of the "queen" piece that described her capabilities not as a list or precedence ordering, but by analogy with something the players of the game have experience of (so that they know its capabilities without a specific listing of them all). Characterisation by analogy seems to me to lead us directly to a fiction - but you explicitly say that this is not what you are talking about. Do you see why I am so baffled?

Chess doesn't have any game rule I know of for adding pieces to play (that weren't already in play at start), true.

More to the point, it has no rules for adding things that have not to date been defined by the rules; id est, it does not have rules for creating new rules.

They aren't. They are through their attempts manipulating it into existence in a previously dung-less world.

Wait - what world? We are not talking about the real world (since it has not been dung-less for a long time!), and there is no fictional world because games do not involve fictions. What does that leave? Exclude both real and fictional worlds and logic seems to demand that there is nothing left?

And, if the game were previously dung-less, how do we give the dung we apparently now have attributes? How do we know how it relates to the other game elements? What does this "code" look like that implies everything that "dung" is in the game without any pre-existing reference?

Take my assurance for the fact that they do. Mathematical designs realized on ball courts, cards, boards, spork maps, and with whatever game relevant strategies enabled within.

Card and board games can obviously be understood using mathematics. Ball games are a rather different case. Despite [MENTION=177]Umbran[/MENTION]'s assertions, we (can) have no absolute evidence that the real world follows a fixed set of rules. We have models of the world that seem to fit the observed behaviour as far as we can discern, for sure, but it is one of the greatest strengths of the scientific method that these are not - and cannot be - claimed as absolute truth. If some observation of the real world demonstrably does not fit with scientific theory, then it is not the real world that is wrong... This makes scientific theories substantively different from "rules".

 

[Aenghus]

No, that was never the issue. The issue was that you had decided a priori that Diplomacy cannot possibly succeed in a situation where it was reasonable that it could. You, by fiat, rejected the possibility that the PC could influence the reactions of an NPC in order for the PC to get what he or she wanted.

And you did so to gain a specific result - ie. denial of access to the king.

That, right there, is DM fiat.

...The rules say I should be able to do this and what I'm doing is fairly reasonable, but, because the DM wants a different outcome, I cannot do it.

For me in this disagreement and those like it the devil is in the details.

If the PCs are low level nothings smelling of manure, my default is they don't get a diplomacy check, they'll be turned away at the gates.

If they are obviously rich high level PCs, my default is they get the diplomacy check (or may automatically succeed depending on their approach).

This is of course modified by preestablished history and context, and most importantly by the actions of the players.

A game which always keeps PCs poor and miserable can default to the former, a game starting with powerful, high status PCs the latter.

Either way I will interleave context and reasoning in any ruling, as players need this, especially if they are unhappy with the ruling.

I would tend to say that a ruling that is arbitrary, unilateral and ignores relevant context is a bad ruling. Who knows about examples stated baldly without context, there are so many relevant factors that it's impossible to say without making dangerous assumptions.

 

[Ahnehnois]

[MENTION=2656]Aenghus[/MENTION]
Well said. Context does matter, and a sensible DM is going to recognize these sorts of factors when making rulings. Thus:

I would tend to say that a ruling that is arbitrary, unilateral and ignores relevant context is a bad ruling.

Probably true. It is, however, your mistake to make as a DM.

 

[Neonchameleon]

By and large agreed. 1e as written isn't perfect, but to me it's a far better jumping-off point than anything that's come since; and there's 35+ years of experimentation out there that can be mined to find what worked and what didn't.

Out of curiosity why do you think 1e is a good jumping off point? Or a good model to emulate? The Rules Cyclopaedia, yes. But 1e is bulky enough that as far as I know no one ever plays it using all the rules as written - and has a nasty habit of squirreling away rules on obscure pages of the DMG so almost no one actually knows what the rules as written are. It's also awkward and inconsistent with such artifacts as Percentile Strength.

The first rule for the basis for a game should, in my opinion, be that the rules should be simple enough, clear enough, and unambiguous enough that the game works. We're talking Red Box not AD&D. And then there should be a chapter talking about house rules on top of this.

So why 1e? I just don't understand the love for it.

 

[Umbran]

To everyone else who has been systematically marginalized and had what they loved redefined into what they don't care fore, I'm guessing sympathy abounds. I certainly care for those who are in similar positions.

howandwhy99, you seem to miss the point.

There are people in the world with real problems. Things, in fact, that we have board rules against talking about, because they are so important to real life that we become too impassioned about them to hold civil conversations.

We are talking about pretending to be elves. If you insinuate that how you felt because some game company and some fans dealt with your niche leisure hobby game is somehow comparable to those real problems, you're engaging in at least a hefty dose of hyperbole, if not an outright major failure of perspective.

I see this, a lot of getting personal, and several bits of what look like pretty solid sophistry going on in this thread. It looks very much like folks are engaged in trying to win, or push personal agendas, rather than in exchanging ideas. If this thread continues to provide a ground for entrenchment, and produces more headaches than it does food for thought, we will simply close it down.