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

[Reynard]

I disagree. They are abstract only in the sense that they aren't specified until you use them, but all uses are sim. A giant scorpion attack that scratches you and inject poison simulates that experience. A sword swing that is parried a fraction of an inch before going through your throat simulates a hit that does skill damage. And so on.

Obviously we disagree.

I don't think there is anything wrong with broadly applicable abstractions like Hit Points and Armor Class, but I think they have evolved far out of the sphere of being "simulations" of anything in particular, particularly in modern D&D (and Hit Points particularly have always failed as simulation).

ETA: wow, that sure is a lot of "particular"s. I am keeping them for posterity.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Well that's neat. I never read the 5e rules myself, but I think it's cool that they actually specifically state, in a roundabout way, that HP aren't indicative of physical injury until at least half are gone. Cool!

Except they have to be to some extent, to account for stuff like poison. Not to mentioned that if nothing hits you the entire concept of damage types becomes problematic.

 

[Micah Sweet]

And this is why HP are not a sim tool: they change what they represent from moment to moment, monster to monster, encounter to encounter. They are just a measuring tool: how close am I to going down?

As written they are not. My solution to this is that damage is slight but real most of the time, more so once half your hp is gone, in order to allow damage types to matter, and the big money comes in when you hit zero and drop. At that point, you exist in a sort of quantum state of wellness until someone checks on you. Once that happens, a roll or rolls are made to determine how injured you are, which allows for anything from a bump on the noggin through various forms of long-term injury, or even death for the unlucky or extraordinarily mangled.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I disagree. They are abstract only in the sense that they aren't specified until you use them, but all uses are sim. A giant scorpion attack that scratches you and inject poison simulates that experience. A sword swing that is parried a fraction of an inch before going through your throat simulates a hit that does skill damage. And so on.

Hit points are abstract in that way so that they CAN simulate all the different ways you could be damaged and not be constrained to Dragonball Z type hit points where everything bounces off your face until you fall unconscious.

What is "skill damage"?

 

[Reynard]

As written they are not. My solution to this is that damage is slight but real most of the time, more so once half your hp is gone, in order to allow damage types to matter, and the big money comes in when you hit zero and drop. At that point, you exist in a sort of quantum state of wellness until someone checks on you. Once that happens, a roll or rolls are made to determine how injured you are, which allows for anything from a bump on the noggin through various forms of long-term injury, or even death for the unlucky or extraordinarily mangled.

Then why do HP go up with level?

 

[Maxperson]

What is "skill damage"?

Just hit point loss that is described involving skill, rather than physical damage or getting lucky. Parrying a close call that if not parried would probably have killed you. That's a hit for damage, but the hit point loss represents skill hit points.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Then why do HP go up with level?

Just because a small amount of damage is real most of the time doesn't mean that it wouldn't be much worse if you weren't skilled at avoiding and mitigating it. As you become more experienced, your skill at such task improves, allowing you to survive life and death situations without serious injury longer than before (provided you are consciously able to defend yourself).

It's not perfect, but simulation is always a moving target.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Just hit point loss that is described involving skill, rather than physical damage or getting lucky. Parrying a close call that if not parried would probably have killed you. That's a hit for damage, but the hit point loss represents skill hit points.

Fair enough, but it still doesn't really make sense to me. The kind of attack you're talking about sounds more like a hit to fatigue to me. I prefer an actual parry move to increase one's AC, such that if it works the attack misses.

 

[Reynard]

Just because a small amount of damage is real most of the time doesn't mean that it wouldn't be much worse if you weren't skilled at avoiding and mitigating it. As you become more experienced, your skill at such task improves, allowing you to survive life and death situations without serious injury longer than before (provided you are consciously able to defend yourself).

It's not perfect, but simulation is always a moving target.

Aren't these "skill hit points" then? The very thing you are arguing against?

 

[soviet]

First Rolemaster is second in my sim game list (behind, of course, GURPS) and is definitely underappreciated. But the problem it has in terms of complexity is that due to the required tables for the combat you can not master Rolemaster to the point you can run without looking things up in the books. And there are far too many weapon attack tables to stick them on a GM screen equivalent. The level of difficulty to not have the other players not have to carry you is low - but the level of difficulty for system mastery is probably inhuman.

Having to have a book with you is not an inhuman level of required system mastery.