Why use D&D for a Simulationist style Game?

[The Crimson Binome]

There's a /lot/ of that in early-D&D experiences. The game was fluid, every DM ran it his own way, and we were new to the game, young, impressionable, however you want to paint it - we got an idea of what the game 'should' be, and can either question that idea at some point, or not.

Right, and since there were plenty of people who did have fun running it that way, because the system was entirely capable of doing it well, those people are plenty justified in wanting the new edition to be equally capable of that.

That's actually the major selling point of this edition.

 

[Hussar]

Right, and since there were plenty of people who did have fun running it that way, because the system was entirely capable of doing it well, those people are plenty justified in wanting the new edition to be equally capable of that.

That's actually the major selling point of this edition.

But, that's my point. No, the systems were not capable of doing it well. There are many, many other systems out there that do this well and D&D is not one of them. Generally, many of those systems got their genesis BECAUSE D&D is not one of them. The new edition is no more capable of modeling events than any other edition.

The only difference is, 4e made no secret of the fact. It was in your face that this was a game. 3e was generally silent on the issue, but, that didn't make it well suited for simulating anything.

The reason the systems were radically changed back in the day is because the system WASN'T capable of doing simulation. You had to add that in and then squint really hard to ignore the stuff that didn't really make any sense. But out of the box? Not even a little.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

The reason the systems were radically changed back in the day is because the system WASN'T capable of doing simulation. You had to add that in and then squint really hard to ignore the stuff that didn't really make any sense. But out of the box? Not even a little.

We didn't radically change anything. It was just that, out of the box, with a literal reading of everything. If you sit down and read the rules, then that was one of the common interpretations. It just was a process sim, unless you went into it with some pre-conceived notion that it wasn't.

It's also possible that you read it some other way.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Right, and since there were plenty of people who did have fun running it that way, because the system was entirely capable of doing it well, those people are plenty justified in wanting the new edition to be equally capable of that.

'Entirely capable of doing it well' /when you simply ignored any bits you felt weren't doing it well/, yes. So, sure, you could feel entitled to the same thing - and get the same thing rather easily, really. But, no, you never got it out the box with a literal reading, you (or, in your specific experience, your first DMs), modified it. Everyone did, really.

And...

That's actually the major selling point of this edition.

Yes, 5e is trying to get back to that, to encourage the DIY attitude among DMs who adopt 5e.

Whether it's a /selling/ point depends on how much people are willing to pay for permission to change the rules they buy... ;P

 

[pemerton]

It was just that, out of the box, with a literal reading of everything. If you sit down and read the rules, then that was one of the common interpretations.

since there were plenty of people who did have fun running it that way, because the system was entirely capable of doing it well, those people are plenty justified in wanting the new edition to be equally capable of that.

4e is equally capable of being run that way. It's just that the world that it gives you will be slightly different from the 3E world (eg the spoken word is more powerful, generally, in 4e than in 3E) or the AD&D world (in which people are less stop-motion in their movements than they are in the sim 3E and 4e worlds).

 

[Haffrung]

In 2001, if you had claimed that you self identified as a sim player and your go to game for that style was D&D, everyone would look at you like you had two heads.

First off, few gamers today, and even fewer back in 2001, have any idea what 'sim' or any other GNS term means. They're theoretical modelling tools talked about by handful of people on the internet. And the people who came up with the GNS theory have always had trouble defining 'simulation', and aren't exactly fans of D&D either. Which isn't surprising, as D&D, by the standards of the theorists, is an 'incoherent' game. The fact it's also the most popular game in the hobby only rubs salt in the wound.

When did D&D become the poster child for sim play?

It's not. D&D is by far the most popular RPG in the world. In its 40 year history it has been played by millions of people in all kinds of ways.

So, I ask you, why D&D? If you like sim style play where the mechanics are making a statement about the game world, then why on Earth would you choose to play D&D?

Because I've always run D&D that way and never had a problem with it.

D&D as a 'gamist' system? Then why does it have five different kinds of coins, and dozens of different kinds and sizes of gems, rather than use an abstract wealth system? Why does the equipment guide include things like carts, chickens, and backpacks, along with the weight (down to the fraction of a pound) of each item? Have you read the AD&D DMG? It includes costs per day for masons, sages, architects, and other labourers. The exact dimensions, costs, and maneuverability of all kinds of sea-going vessels. The properties of dozens of real-world herbs. Elaborate tables showing the likelihood of encountering different creatures in all terrains and climates imaginable. Detailed lists of rare spell components. Lists of historical titles from medieval Europe and the Near East. And on and on.

What do you think the purpose is for all this content except to held the DM create verisimilitude that the campaign world is a living, breathing world, deeply rooted in medieval history, that exists independently of the game.

When I was 12 years old I didn't know anything about 'sim' or GNS (which was more than 20 years away). But me and my buddies instinctively interacted with the game in the terms of the game world. We did not use metagame knowledge to gain advantage. We wanted to think only in terms of what the characters could see and do in the game world. And we wanted the mechanics of the game to support the game world, not the metagame of the game system. So we think of a character in the game world and model him on his role in the world, not his role in the party. A worshipper of Odin might use a spear, even if that's an inferior weapon to a sword. A druid has responsibility to nature and the wilderness that may come into conflict with the goals of the rest of the party. If the PCs don't know about the powers of a particular monster, then neither do the players, and acting on that knowledge is a form of cheating. For a time, we even had only the GM track PC hit points, as we found it 'unrealistic' that the PCs would have a precise awareness of how injured they were, and thinking in terms of those numbers dispelled our immersion in the game world.

And D&D works perfectly well in this model I've described. Why switch to another game when we're happy with the one we've played for over 30 years?

 

[Hussar]

My problem is that you are conflating immersion with simulation. There's nothing inherently immersive about simulation. Details are just that, details. Note, while you have the exact dimensions of an ocean going vessel, your sword weights such and such coins. Encumbrance is measured in coin, where "coin" is an abstract measurement and not actually the literal weight of a coin. Yet, apparently, that's easy to ignore.

Just because something is highly detailed doesn't make it simulation. This is getting back to the idea of granularity really. Being granular doesn't make something a model either. It makes something a better model, sure, but, you can model things without that level of detail and it's still a model. Knowing the GP wage of a mason has nothing to do with simulation. How fast can that mason work? What checks do you make in AD&D to determine how well that mason builds something?

Oh, yeah, that's right, AD&D doesn't have a skill system, so, we pretty much have to free form any work that that mason actually does. The system sure as heck isn't telling us anything.

Good grief, you really think that D&D doesn't have an abstract wealth system? Really? An economic system completely divorced from any market factors? It takes 5000 gp worth of diamond dust to cast Raise Dead. How much is that? What volume? How much does it weigh? And, if I go to somewhere where diamonds are really rare and more valuable, does that change how many Raise Dead's I can cast?

Like Tony Vargas says, D&D is a good simulation only if you are willing to ignore the vast swaths of the game that are purely gamist. Which brings me back to my original question. If you really value simulation and enjoy that kind of play, why use a system that is so incredibly bad at it? Is it simply inertia? You've been using the system so long you just don't even see the changes you've made any more?

 

[Haffrung]

Like Tony Vargas says, D&D is a good simulation only if you are willing to ignore the vast swaths of the game that are purely gamist. Which brings me back to my original question. If you really value simulation and enjoy that kind of play, why use a system that is so incredibly bad at it? Is it simply inertia? You've been using the system so long you just don't even see the changes you've made any more?

D&D is sim. And gamist. And narrative. Because D&D, more than any other RPG, is about what people do at the table with it rather than the system in isolation.

Why stick with it? Because to most people who play D&D, there effectively are no other RPGs. They don't care if some other game theoretically does something better than D&D. If they have fun playing D&D, why switch to another game?

In short, system matters far less than RPG forum theorists want to believe.

 

[Tony Vargas]

D&D is sim. And gamist. And narrative. Because D&D, more than any other RPG, is about what people do at the table with it rather than the system in isolation.

Why stick with it? Because to most people who play D&D, there effectively are no other RPGs.

Really, GNS is about how people play the game. No game is G, N, or S, it's the people who play it that emphasize one or another (or don't).

D&D was the first RPG, and the only RPG with name recognition outside the hobby, making it the natural place for new players to start. That means gamers naturally adapt it to whatever mode of play they gravitate to. Classic versions of D&D were rambling, inconsistent (as the GNS theorists said, 'incoherent') systems, but, that actually made it comparatively 'easy' to focus on parts of the game that worked for you, ignore or change other parts, and play it the way you liked. 'Easy' in the sense that it was harder to try to play the game 'RAW' than to mess around with 'fixing' it.

Between being the point of entry, and inviting tinkering, Classic D&D was as close as it comes to being all games to all gamers. So, /of course/ people inclined to what would later be labeled (perhaps incoherently) as 'sim' used D&D that way and formed the opinion that it "was a sim game."

 

[Imaro]

Which brings me back to my original question. If you really value simulation and enjoy that kind of play, why use a system that is so incredibly bad at it? Is it simply inertia? You've been using the system so long you just don't even see the changes you've made any more?

Eh... Here's a pretty good summary of what I think most people would say...

D&D, by the standards of the theorists, is an 'incoherent' game...

D&D is by far the most popular RPG in the world. In its 40 year history it has been played by millions of people in all kinds of ways...

I've always run D&D that way and never had a problem with it....

Why switch to another game when we're happy with the one we've played for over 30 years?

I also think you're stuck in absolutes. I think very few gamers want a pure simulationist experience... or a pure gamist experience or even a pure narrativist experience. I think that the majority of people actually want some of each (to taste of course) in their roleplaying and thus D&D not only being the first, and the most popular but also having an "ïncoherent" design was able to scratch the itch of those who wanted a nice helping of simulationist play without being bogged down or beholden to it (Again especially when tweaked to taste) especially if it was only minor adjustments one had to make to reach the level of simulationist play you wanted in the game.
[MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]: I am curious do you feel the same way about those who were fans of 4e's nod to narrativist play? I mean there's FATE, MHR, Heroquest along with a slew of other games more suited to narrativist play much better then 4e was... so why play 4e? Honestly my theory is it's very similar to the reasons I stated above (People can derive fun in multiple ways and thus an "ïncoherent" game can often suit them better than a game that leans too heavily in one area... (even if they do favor one type of fun a little more than the others) but I'd be curious to hear your thoughts...