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

[The Crimson Binome]

I disagree. I notice that fictional heroes often change tactics in response to their ongoing injuries/consequences. So, while on the broader scale, the hero may win, the injuries can change how. Traditional D&D HP sort of have that, but only in one dimension and without any real narrative meat. (i.e. "Help! I'm low on HP!") That might make a PC cautious, or more likely to retreat, but it doesn't make them favor their right side, or fight defensively until their vision clears, or...any number of things like that.

I think it just falls below the resolution allowed by the abstraction. I mean, you can narrate one hit to the right arm, so the hero switches her weapon to her other hand, and the mechanics don't change at all. It's not a perfect mirror, where you take damage to the arm and so you would suffer a penalty to hit, and thus choose to cast a spell instead, because that would make for a fairly complicated system.

You do still have the change in caution, "more likely to defend and let the rest of the party deal with it," sort of thing, so it's not like your current HP have zero effect on narrative choices. It's just a simplified influence, to deal with the abstraction.

Well, that's the thing isn't it? The traditional HP system is fine-fine-fine-dead. Not only is that consistent with the mechanics, but you were the one arguing the the characters should be cognizant of the game-rules as counting as their world's physics, weren't you? If so, then the PCs are perfectly aware of their health, stamina, whatever-else-HP-represent as functioning that way. To them, all the sucking chest wounds and arrows-to-the-knee are irrelevant!...and they act it!

I was saying that, in my games, HP are mostly bruises and battering; but it's all physical-ish stuff that the PCs can see and understand.

The system isn't fine-fine-fine-dead, though; it's fine-mostlyfine-almostdead-dead. When you're about to go down from the next hit, and you're aware of that fact, you do act differently. As per the "cautious" factor mentioned above.

The condition of "going to die if I get hit again" is a meaningful condition, every bit as relevant as "-4 to hit with melee attacks" or anything like that. (In most cases, it's actually more relevant, since it leads to the "dead" condition.)

 

[Ahnehnois]

In what way was what I said contradictory?

Well, there's

See, Ahn, the reason I react so strongly and negatively to your DMing style is because I've been there. I've done it. I used to be exactly that. And it was so poisonous to the group. I learned to be a better DM by realising what a mistake this approach is.

and then

It's not about me bashing bad DM's.

Sounds like a contradiction to me.

I used to play in the style you advocate and found that it did not work for me.

Which part of that was unclear?

Nothing in this or any other information you've ever provided would indicate that you have ever run a game using the style I advocate, or that you even comprehend what I'm advocating.

Railroading isn't a question of action, for example, it's largely a question of intent, and context matters. I don't support the kind of railroading you're talking about at all, and you've conflated reasonable DMing decisions with unreasonable ones.

When a DM makes the wrong call, the problem is not that he had the authority to do it, the problem is that he was wrong. I think learning to DM is about learning to take responsibility for mistakes, not running from them.

 

[Hussar]

There's also hits, home runs, etc.; but every pitch that reaches the plate (or somewhere in the general neighbourhood) is, ultimately, either a ball or a strike*.

* - fouls, hits, etc. count as strikes in pitchers' stats. Pickoffs, balks, and other things that don't reach the plate are irrelevant.

=========================================================================
As for low-level rulers, I've often generally played it (with no rules whatsoever to back me up) that the longer a ruler has been ruling the "higher level" he-she is*, up to a certain vague point. A 20-something who just inherited a throne last month probably doesn't have much going for her, but she'll be pretty formidable once she's reigned for 15 years or so.

* - exceptions: someone who was already levelled before taking on rulership e.g. a 1e Fighter setting up her stronghold, or someone who pulls "the Keep" from a deck of many things, or an adventurer who didn't know he was heir to a throne, or even (and this has happened in my game) a reigning monarch PC who would rather adventure than sit a throne; etc.

Lan-"where's my stronghold, dammit"-efan

Just to clear up the misconception, I meant that all pitches would either be all balls, or all strikes. That's what the sentence was supposed to mean. The DM chooses the outcome, so, it doesn't matter where you throw the ball, the result is going to be exactly the same.

Reading it again, I see why it was unclear.

 

[Hussar]

Well, there's
and then
Sounds like a contradiction to me.

Nothing in this or any other information you've ever provided would indicate that you have ever run a game using the style I advocate, or that you even comprehend what I'm advocating.

Railroading isn't a question of action, for example, it's largely a question of intent, and context matters. I don't support the kind of railroading you're talking about at all, and you've conflated reasonable DMing decisions with unreasonable ones.

When a DM makes the wrong call, the problem is not that he had the authority to do it, the problem is that he was wrong. I think learning to DM is about learning to take responsibility for mistakes, not running from them.

So me sticking to my guns, preserving the setting and effectively ruling that no attempt can ever be successful to see the sage is different from your seeing the king scenario how? From where i'm sitting, it looks exactly the same. And it was a mistake for me.

Again, I'm not bashing DM's. Well, I suppose I'm bashing myself. But, it was that event and others which made me realise how much I don't enjoy your style of game. That you enjoy it is perfectly fine. More power to you. The difference though, is that you have made repeated appeals to authority to try to make it sound like you're performing the one true way of DMing and everyone who disagrees with you is doing it wrong.

See, something you have to realise is that I've DM's a heck of a lot longer than you have. I started at least a decade, and I think a bit more than that, before you did. And I've had first hand experience in seeing the evolution of D&D through the DMG's. In the AD&D 1e DMG, the DM is presumed to have a LOT more authority over the game. Heck, the advice says that players shouldn't even know the rules, only the DM. Plus, in many situations, there were no rules at all, so the DM simply had to come up with some method to resolve an action.

Take something as simple as jumping. In 1e, you have no rules for how far you can jump. They don't exist. So, if you tried to jump, the DM made a ruling and you were strongly advised to abide by it. Which meant that at one table, it might be a straight Str check. At another, it might be a save vs paralysation, at a third, the DM flat out rules that you can't jump because of your armour.

In 2e, this changes. You have Non Weapon Proficiencies. If I have the Jump proficiency, I have a pretty good idea how far I can jump. It's right there in the rules. However, there are no rules for how far a non-proficient person can jump. So, the DM steps in again and makes up rules on the spot. The DM still has a great deal of authority here, but it is somewhat eroded.

Then you get 3e. Everyone at the table knows exactly how far you jump. There's no question. All that authority that the DM used to have is now wrapped up in the rules. Sure, the DM can change the rules, but, now it's pretty obvious when he does so and it's pretty obvious why. IMO, most DM's would simply use the rules and not get too fussed about making changes. You score X, you jump X feet. So long as my bonus=Distance-1, I don't even have to check to know I cleared the distance. It's automatic.

So, we have a much further erosion of DM authority.

4e takes things even a step further than that. Now, you have things like Skill Challenges, where the DM is advised to let the players choose whatever skills the player thinks is appropriate although the DM can still say no. However the onus on the DM is to say yes so long as the player can justify his actions in a reasonable manner. DM's are advised to "Say Yes" as often as possible.

Which, in my opinion is a good way to run a game. For me anyway. Not for everyone for sure, but, it's a great way to run a game for me. I like it as a DM and as a player.

So, to sum up this rather rambling thought, Ahn, you can keep quoting bits from the 3e DMG all you like. The 3e DMG is not the be all and end all of Dungeons and Dragons. It's not how I run my games and hasn't been for a long time.

 

[Ahnehnois]

So me sticking to my guns, preserving the setting and effectively ruling that no attempt can ever be successful to see the sage is different from your seeing the king scenario how? From where i'm sitting, it looks exactly the same. And it was a mistake for me.

Again, context matters. The difference from what I can tell, is that my king was being reasonable, whereas your sage was being unreasonable. Kings are generally busy, insulated, and paranoid people with many highly trained and very conservative servants, whereas sages are not. The sage apparently had an objective in-world reason to be talking to the players, whereas the king does not.

However, with a valid explanation-"the sage is off in some other kingdom consulting someone more powerful than you about this cosmic event", "the sage has been captured by a doomsday cult and no one knows where he is"-something like that, then maybe it would be different. The underlying reasonableness of the action matters. Sticking to your guns is not wise if you are being nonsensical.

Again, I'm not bashing DM's. Well, I suppose I'm bashing myself.

Perhaps inappropriately.

To go back to the baseball idea, there are times when umpires do make a call that is both completely wrong and determines the outcome of a game. It's not common, but it does happen. However, the existence of Don Dinkenger does not invalidate the notion of umpiring. Some sports officials take it very hard on themselves when they do think they've made a mistake, and indeed the thing to tell them is to go back out and keep doing their job, not dwell on it.

I could come up with plenty of examples of games that went off the rules because the players threw the rulebook at the DM (in some cases me) to do something unreasonable, and then it was later discovered that someone had missed the one key line of text that made them wrong. Or simply because there was an error in judgement that becomes apparent in retrospect.

***

For one simple one, I recall a player gleefully pulling out the Psionics Handbook, declaring that since spells and powers were often equivalent, he should be able to convert spells to powers. I said yes; I'm a nice guy, right? Then he took the Maximize feat and converted Fireball to a power, and decided to start running around torching people at a level. After all, with powers, there's no limitation with regards to spell levels, so you don't need to be level 12 to maximize a fireball right? The character ran rampant for a little while. Moreover, when his known enemies starting stacking up on fire resistance, he cried foul, despite the fact that he was obviously well known for his exploits and they had every reasonable chance to prepare.

Of course, in actuality, there is a clause written to stop metapsionic abuse (called the metacap), but the player missed that one (so he said, anyway), and I only caught it much later. And damaging spells don't convert straight to powers for a reason; because of the damage math and cost (though this point is debatable). And of course, when you light up enough people, your enemies are going to start adapting to you, and the PC had plenty of enemies and no plan B if his ludicrous fire damage failed. But here I am worrying about saying yes to the player and being a nice guy, rather than making objective and sensible decisions. The other players are being marginalized, the game is going off the rails. This was the first of several characters from one player that pushed up to and beyond the limits of the rules and were intended to be mechanically subtle, but to break the game. This is a player who needed to hear the word "no".

To me, this is far more typical than the DM overreaching.

Then you get 3e. Everyone at the table knows exactly how far you jump. There's no question. All that authority that the DM used to have is now wrapped up in the rules. Sure, the DM can change the rules, but, now it's pretty obvious when he does so and it's pretty obvious why. IMO, most DM's would simply use the rules and not get too fussed about making changes. You score X, you jump X feet. So long as my bonus=Distance-1, I don't even have to check to know I cleared the distance. It's automatic.

True, but what 3e brings is in this regard is simply increased clarity. Remember the good ol' circumstance bonus (and encouraged liberal use thereof).

The DM is still perfectly free to determine that some jumps are easier or harder than others (and of course, is still determining the layout of the area to begin with and thus what the jump distance is). It's just much clearer what's happening because he isn't making things up on the spot, he's using an established framework.

It's the difference between improvising off a theme and improvising from nothing.

So, we have a much further erosion of DM authority.

Some people see it that way, I was never one of them. 4e is another story.

So, to sum up this rather rambling thought, Ahn, you can keep quoting bits from the 3e DMG all you like. The 3e DMG is not the be all and end all of Dungeons and Dragons. It's not how I run my games and hasn't been for a long time.

It is, however, how the game itself was written, which is what's relevant here.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

It is, however, how the game itself was written, which is what's relevant here.

No, not at all. It's not even how 3E was written. What you're quoting is the opinion of a handful of authors who were involved with 3E DMG specifically.

Other DMGs offer different and quite varying advice some of which conflicts directly with what you're suggesting is "How D&D is".

Also check out this thread's tag: D&D Next (5E). Not 3E.

 

[Ahnehnois]

No, not at all. It's not even how 3E was written. What you're quoting is the opinion of a handful of authors who were involved with 3E DMG specifically.

Other DMGs offer different and quite varying advice some of which conflicts directly with what you're suggesting is "How D&D is".

Also check out this thread's tag: D&D Next (5E). Not 3E.

All of that is true.

However, the multi-thread string of examples refers to a 3e-specific discussion that started some time ago in another thread. Since we're also talking about the Diplomacy skill specifically, it's really only referencing 3e. In that other thread, some people with more knowledge than me of other editions pulled out examples to say that it was how they were written as well. That is; attempting to talk one's way past guards is entirely likely to fail no matter what the edition and no matter what the players do.

I am not aware of any basis in any version of D&D for any form of "player fiat" that would override that (4e may or may not; I don't know). There are many iterations of D&D and I do not make an exhaustive claim over every possible officially released text on the subject.

We don't yet know how 5e will be written, so to the extent that we're at all referencing the OP, we're talking about precedent for how things should be in principle. Of course, we're not supposed to post exact text from the playtests anyway so even whatever their draft of the DM text is we can't really dissect (and I don't have).

 

[3catcircus]

Right, and I'd totally be on board with this, in most circumstances. It just makes sense, intuitively.

What I was saying, though, is that Hit Points as D&D uses them are accurately represented in fiction. In all of the stories, unlike in real life, the heroes have plot importance which guarantees they never fail at an important task because of their wounds. They may make it sound like it's terribly inconvenient to have a broken rib and an arrow sticking from the torso, but it doesn't actually increase their chance of failure - it doesn't imply a penalty.

I'm sure someone else may have already addressed this, but here goes:

But the difference is that in a story (whether in a novel or a movie), the author/screenwriter has 100% control over the plot - all he or she has to do is write a plot where the protagonist continues to fight. In D&D, the little matter of mathematics gets in the way of plot unless the DM reels in the amount of damage.

In a novel, there is no arbitrary counter that continues ticking away when the hero takes damage. How much and for how long is up to the author. In D&D, your PC may be chugging along doing a bunch of things and get into combat and end up with 10 hp left at the end of it - there is no broken rib or arrow sticking out of him. Even if there were, there is no penalty to the PCs capabilities. Let's say he gets into another fight because the player foolishly decided to press on instead of drinking a healing potion and the DM rolls an especially good damage roll and hits him for 12. That's it. There is no leeway. The PC drops. Only if the DM fudges the roll does the PC get through the fight. Compare that to a movie or novel - the author decides that the hero will encounter a second opponent. There is no die roll. There is no mathematical randomness. The author decides to just automagically make it so the hero doesn't fail.

The only case I could potentially think of where there is some randomness (and rather, it is the illusion of randomness because the author has already written it and it is only the reader or viewer that crystallizes it) is, for example, something like the beheading of ned stark. Most people don't see that coming. But, that is still different than D&D because players will see it coming.

So - I guess the real question is - if we want to introduce simulation, do we simulate real-life, or the hollywood portrayal of real-life?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

So - I guess the real question is - if we want to introduce simulation, do we simulate real-life, or the hollywood portrayal of real-life?

Hollywood, definitely. Most people only know combat from what they've seen in movies, novels, and video games. Using that as a basis, reality would strike many as being too unrealistic.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Hollywood, definitely. Most people only know combat from what they've seen in movies, novels, and video games. Using that as a basis, reality would strike many as being too unrealistic.

Real life strikes many as unrealistic.