Why use D&D for a Simulationist style Game?

[Beleriphon]

You certainly could play it that way, but it isn't really necessary. I was actually thinking something closer to Slayers, though my go-to example for in-game-world acknowledgement of physical punishment is Brock from Venture Bros.

Only because he is the equivilent of two ninjas duck taped together.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Only because he is the equivilent of two ninjas duck taped together.

He's basically the epitome of the Fighter (or Barbarian) - he can kill anyone, in horrific ways, and withstand inhuman amounts of physical punishment. And it never turns into Order of the Stick style silliness, because they just play it completely straight.

 

[Hussar]

Wrong. 1e did not have them in the PHB or DMG. However, it did have Non-Weapon Proficiencies. Non-Weapon Proficiencies first appeared in the 1e supplements Oriental Adventures, The Wilderness Survival Guide, and the Dungeoneer's Survival Guide.

How many years was that after the release of 1e?

Why do we get to include that, but, we are forced to only look at the core 3 of editions we happen not to like?

 

[Hussar]

By the way, I'm still waiting for the sim crowd to explain to me how D&D combat, any edition, precludes Final Fantasy 1 style combat. After all, if it's modelling something, then how can something so completely outside of the model be included?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

The idea that HP are objective is pretty easily disproven. And note, there are a number of things that make your HP go down without actually physically injuring you. Spells like Phantasmal Killer certainly.

Setting aside the obvious counter-argument that you've heard a million times, I never actually said that HP are meat. That's completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. I just said that they're objective. However your luck/skill/toughness/etc are reflected in your ability to not be killed by swords, it is a fact of the world that doesn't change depending on who looks at it. It's simply true that your 100hp fighter or elephant can withstand that number of "hits" before dropping. You can pretend that it doesn't exist - that it's simply narrative convention, which doesn't correspond to anything - but you would be wrong.

Of course, there's always Craft's cousin, the Profession skill, which is about as far from simulation as you can get. Spend your time, make your check, make that much GP.

Actually, Profession is an even better example of pure simulation. You go to work, do stuff, and depending on how well you do it means you earn more or less money. I can't imagine a better summary of how a street performer, crafts-person, or merchant would actually go about making money.

Granted, that's an extreme overview, but it factors in both skill (the modifier) and luck (the die roll), in an extremely elegant manner. It's not perfectly accurate to the real world, of course, but that was never a condition for process-sim.

You might be able to make an argument for the craft skill. I can see that. But, that's a pretty corner case element. Or, put it another way, if I remove the craft skill from D&D, a lot less tables would see much of a difference than if I added a wounds/vitality points system to D&D or changed the HP system in any way.

If you replaced hit points with wounds/vitality, that would not make the game any more or less narrative or sim. It would still be objectively true that you can take X amount of sword "hits" before dropping, except suddenly the system is more detailed with penalties and variable healing rates or whatever.

You don't need details for something to be sim. You just need objective causality.

 

[evileeyore]

By the way, I'm still waiting for the sim crowd to explain to me how D&D combat, any edition, precludes Final Fantasy 1 style combat. After all, if it's modelling something, then how can something so completely outside of the model be included?

Hi, I'm part of the "sim crowd". D&D is terrible sim so don't drag us into this.




Oh, you wanted the "D&D is sim" crowd. Sorry can't help you there.

 

[Hussar]

You just need objective causality.

Could you expand on this? I'm not sure what you mean. And that's not snark, but, I think there might be something here that I'm really missing.

To me, the fact that one character has 100HP and an elephant has 100 HP, has absolutely no bearing on the in game fiction. None whatsoever. There is no way to tell, in game, those numbers. They exist completely outside of the reality. There is no means by which someone in game can tell how many HP something has.

The mechanics of HP and combat do not model any event. They don't tell you anything other than a combatant is alive or dead.

If I use something like a wound/vitality system, now the model informs the narrative. I know whether or not an attack has actually physically wounded the target and by how much. That's a pretty simple example of a simulation. You can certainly get more detailed than that, but, you need at least that much detail before you can actually claim you have any sort of model.

I keep coming back to this. A simulation model has to tell you how something happened. Otherwise it's not actually simulating anything. I could flip a coin and decide the outcome of a battle. Is that a simulation? Two combatants come together, I flip a coin and say X or Y wins the fight. Now, what's the difference between a coin flip and D&D combat, other than detail? It's still just a coin flip, albeit a much more complicated one.

Same goes with the Profession skills. Nothing is told about how you made that money. Who gave you that money? What did you do? All we know is you spent X time, and made Y money. That's not a simulation of anything. That's pure gamism. There's no model there. Spend time, add ranks (which can be added even though you've never actually DONE anything related to your skill) and you make more money.

Put it another way, what is a skill rank measuring? Expertise in a skill? But, how is that expertise being gained? What does having three ranks in a given skill actually mean? How long does it take to increase your skill? When I use Profession Sailor, what am I actually doing? We have no idea because there's no real model here. All I am told by the mechanics is Time In, Money Out. That's it. Note, you cannot even ever FAIL your profession check. You will automatic succeed every single time you try. You gain half your check in GP/week, full stop. That's not a model of anything. If we use the rules as a guide here, every single person in a D&D world is automatically rich. They can't ever fail. Everyone in the world makes X gp/week if we apply the rules to the broader world.

This is why I talk about how the rules really only apply to the game, and not the world. That would be absolutely nonsensical if every single profession automatically made money. A single rank in a profession would give you 1 gp/week automatically and even a 1st level commoner gets that. Every single artisan is automatically successful, presuming whatever it is they are trying to make is within their ability to make it. Every single time.

That's ridiculous.

 

[Hussar]

Hi, I'm part of the "sim crowd". D&D is terrible sim so don't drag us into this.




Oh, you wanted the "D&D is sim" crowd. Sorry can't help you there.

Hey, I love sim games. I do. I have all sorts of them sitting on my shelf and I adore them. That's why I find the "D&D is sim" thing so mind boggling. It's like watching people play golf and tell me how it's a fantastic defensive sport. Or having people tell me how their Toyota Corolla is such a fantastic rally car. Could I use one as a rally car? I suppose I could with all sorts of modifications. But, there are just so many cars on the road that really ARE fantastic rally cars, why would I want to use one that isn't?

 

[evileeyore]

Hey, I love sim games. I do. I have all sorts of them sitting on my shelf and I adore them. That's why I find the "D&D is sim" thing so mind boggling. It's like watching people play golf and tell me how it's a fantastic defensive sport. Or having people tell me how their Toyota Corolla is such a fantastic rally car. Could I use one as a rally car? I suppose I could with all sorts of modifications. But, there are just so many cars on the road that really ARE fantastic rally cars, why would I want to use one that isn't?

We are in total agreement.

D&D is good at "simulating D&D" and in most respects the genre work that is reflected in it (though for less wahooey Sword and Sandal genres I'd chose a less wahooey system).

 

[Greg K]

How many years was that after the release of 1e?

Why do we get to include that, but, we are forced to only look at the core 3 of editions we happen not to like?

The issue in question is you stating 1e *never* had non-weapon proficiencies. Don't change goal posts.