What Does "Simulation" Mean To You? [+]

[TwoSix]

I don't know what it's simulating, though. The GM could make up whatever they like, and it would count.

A simulation has some sort of correctness condition, in that either it produces the right outcomes (like a free kriegsspiel referee, based on their expertise) or that it models a process in some fashion.

But what do we call it if a Dunning-Kruger effect GM thinks they're simulating because they're an "expert", but is actually just making things up? Do we categorize by intent or result?

 

[Reynard]

But what do we call it if a Dunning-Kruger effect GM thinks they're simulating because they're an "expert", but is actually just making things up? Do we categorize by intent or result?

Oh my, if we could count the times so called "medieval experts" made bad rulings or argued with the GM...

 

[TwoSix]

Oh my, if we could count the times so called "medieval experts" made bad rulings or argued with the GM...

"That's not how a katana works, Steve! I've been to Japan!"

 

[Maxperson]

Or maybe I've been the forever GM most of my life hearing horror stories like this about the abuse players have had to endure at other tables. I've sat in on other tables or been in campaigns that sometimes lasted years, but I never had a DM as bad as the one described. If our profession was licensed, his should be revoked.

I have a simple rule. Always try to be the GM I'd want as a player. Not a lot of players out there I imagine want their GM to change the rules of the game in response to an action declaration that results in the death of a PC. I know I wouldn't. That seems to me like logic that applies pretty broadly.

Are you imagining that DMs wait until the players have their PCs do something suicidal and then say, "Gotcha! Your character is going to die now. Muahahahahaha!"? Because in my experience the DMs, including myself, inform the players in advance and if the players then make the decision to do it anyway, it's no one else's fault. They were fully informed in advance.

 

[Maxperson]

Doesn't he say the opposite? I'm thinking of an article, Realism and Game Logic, from Dragon #16. Quoting from a secondhand source:



That said I've seen that article cited as proof Gygax didn't like simulationism, but he had a way of taking strong stances that make isolated quotes unrepresentative. Certainly he is more interested in simulationist combat than modern d&d.

Gygax said in the 1e DMG that so long as it doesn't make the game unfun, the highest levels of simulation should be strived for.

 

[Micah Sweet]

"That's not how a katana works, Steve! I've been to Japan!"

Who's wrong in this sentence: Steve or the person talking to him? I can't tell.

 

[Reynard]

Who's wrong in this sentence: Steve or the person talking to him? I can't tell.

If it is about a katana, they likely both are.

 

[TwoSix]

Who's wrong in this sentence: Steve or the person talking to him? I can't tell.

If the katana isn't doing at least 2d20 damage, they're both wrong.

 

[FrogReaver]

Simulation is a term for techniques in a Ttrpg which generate fictional content with limited consideration for gameplay or narrative (and other) implications and that primarily focuses on treating the generation of fictional content as as if it were independent of such real-world influences. This is often accomplished by simple rules procedures and probabilistic modeling with dice as the decider for precisely what fiction is generated, but while commonly the case, a dm making all the decisions about what fiction to generate under the notion of ‘independent of real world influences’ above would also be one method to achieve simulation.

 

[Celebrim]

Are you imagining that DMs wait until the players have their PCs do something suicidal and then say, "Gotcha! Your character is going to die now. Muahahahahaha!"? Because in my experience the DMs, including myself, inform the players in advance and if the players then make the decision to do it anyway, it's no one else's fault. They were fully informed in advance.

Good for you, but I am saying based on stories that I've heard that DMs do play "Gotcha! Muahahahahaha!" and do not inform players in advance. No, I don't think this player was fully informed in advance.

In general, not knowing everything about the outcome as a player is to be expected. The consequences of an action are not necessarily obvious to the player. He's usually operating with limited knowledge of the situation. If the player doesn't know the 100' deep spiked pit trap is there, then the GM is not obligated to tell the player walking forward is potentially suicidal. But on the other hand, I've also heard stories of "the floor is lava" where the player was standing within 5' of illusionary lava without feeling any heat or taking any damage, walked forward and the DM was like, "You've stepped on lava! That's instant death no saving throw! MUAHAHAHA!"

The situation here is the player has a metagame expectation based on his knowledge of the rules and it seems like the GM has not informed the player that under his rules, falls of an arbitrary height set by the GM are always instantly lethal. It seems highly unlikely that the player made the decision to break free from the grapple with the dragon knowing ahead of time that doing so would be instantly lethal, but rather expected that the fall was less dangerous than the dragon.

In my game, sure, I stop and explain the rules for falling and explain to them that while the fall isn't instantly lethal and I will dice for it, the average damage of a fall of that height is around 93, but that there is about a 1 in 6 chance that they take over 230 damage and that they will be making DC 15 Fortitude saves to avoid traumatic injury about 5 times in 6. In this game, I doubt such information freely flowed with a "Are you sure you understand the rules?" check.