Why use D&D for a Simulationist style Game?

[ST]

If that's the level of detail at which you're juding a game as a narrativist framework, then what about the fact that, in the example campaign in the Fate Core book, the player of the wizard is given access to the spellcasting stunt without having to spend a refresh for it, because it's genre appropriate? Does that suddenly mean that Fate is somehow inferior as a narrativist vehicle?

That example seems pretty cherry-picked, considering the example campaign is made extremely simple on purpose, and absolutely everywhere else in FATE the idea of giving up refresh or an Aspect in order to cast spells is pretty much made explicit. (Plus the idea that you're told "decide these things when you make your campaign" so there is no default, just multiple options.)

e: I see this got covered earlier, yes, as was said above, it's called out as a specific deviation from the rules and so is a pretty weird "example" of a deficiency in the rules.

 

[Hussar]

[MENTION=1879]Andor[/MENTION] ... Just wanted to say great post contrasting of RQ's "sim" vs. D&D's "sim". It really does appear to be some invisible line [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] has drawn in the sand of granularity where some abstractions becomes sim vs. others being non-sim... I alluded to this in my previous post.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Granularity is not the issue. The issue is that the model required for sim play is absent in D&D mechanics.

Again, how do the simulationist mechanics of D&D preclude Final Fantasy combat? In truly sim based systems, I cannot run combat like a Final Fantasy 1 combat where the combatants line up on either side of the screen and shake each other to death with negative numbers appearing above their heads. There are a number of models out there that make such an attempt impossible.

D&D combat isn't one of them.

 

[Savage Wombat]

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Granularity is not the issue. The issue is that the model required for sim play is absent in D&D mechanics.

Again, how do the simulationist mechanics of D&D preclude Final Fantasy combat? In truly sim based systems, I cannot run combat like a Final Fantasy 1 combat where the combatants line up on either side of the screen and shake each other to death with negative numbers appearing above their heads. There are a number of models out there that make such an attempt impossible.

D&D combat isn't one of them.

Solely in the interest of getting this straightened out:

It seems to me that Final Fantasy combat is a sim. It simulates "what happens when these two parties meet" in the most ridiculously uncombatlike fashion possible - but it does simulate it. Two monsters running into each other and "fighting" by comparing their HP ("I have 105 to your 99 - I win") is still a simulation - just an overly simplistic one. Really, my pointing my fingers at you and saying "Bang, you're dead" simulates combat. Just completely without rules.

Granularity seems relevant to me here. The rules get more precise, and that's better for simulation, but just because something's a poor simulation doesn't mean it's not one at all.

 

[Greg K]

I disagree, especially when it comes to 3.x. With the OGL there were so many variants published of numerous mechanics that it was in fact trivially easy to find one to suit your playstyle. As a quick example... Want more sim style hit points then use the wounds and vitality variant found in both Unearthed Arcana for 3.5 and the Star Wars roleplaying game

True. For myself, I used the Death Save optional rule from UA to do away with negative hit points. I combined it with a mechanic from an issue of Scrollworks in which Fatigue and Exhaustion penalties set in as a character loses certain percentages of hit points. I also added the maneuver system from Book of Iron Might which does forced movement and other 4e type "rider" effects for martial combat using to hit penalties to attacks rather than encounter or daily powers. The to hit penalties reflect the difficulty of pulling of maneuvers and the importance of martial skill (BAB) without limiting to daily or encounter powers ("Heroic Luck" is reflected by the use of Action Points from UA). Furthermore, martial skill gets further reflected in another rule from Book of Iron Might in which BAB substitutes for skill ranks to resist Bluff, Tumble, etc. in combat (actually, I use this as the base for using skills in combat to Bluff, Holdout, in combat with skills adding their synergy bonus to BAB).

 

[Haffrung]

If you look at post 31 upthread you'll see pretty straightforward characterisations of the two main types of sim that GNS/Forge-ites are interested in: purist-for-system sim (RQ is the poster child) and high concept sim (CoC, Ars Magic and Pendragon are all exemplars).

Their reasons for grouping these two styles together as sim are somewhat idiosyncratic to their broader analytical concerns; on ENworld, I think most posters would see the two styles as pretty different. This thread is mostly about purist-for-system sim, which you might also call "process sim", and that is what I am focusing on in this post.

Here's what I, and most of the people I've ever played with, enjoy:

• We only like to know and control what our PCs know and control. OOC knowledge is regarded as akin to cheating. As I noted, for a time we even denied players knowledge of PC HPs, under the reasoning PCs wouldn't have such a precise knowledge of their physical condition. Players make decisions in-character, while application (and even knowledge) of the rules is left to the DM.
• Using knowledge of a monster that the player knows, but the PC doesn't, is regarded as cheating.
• We customize characters based on concepts, not on mechanical optimization. So a worshipper of Odin might use a spear instead of a sword, even though it's mechanically inferior.
• We don't go into deep PC background or scripted adventures. Story is something that's generated organically in play.
• No interest in players shaping the game world or narrative independently of PC knowledge and actions.
• Usually speak in character.
• Prefer rules light play with great latitude for DM discretion and judgement.

Okay, so tell me what GNS style we fall under?

The point of all this, in Gygax's game, is to create challenges for the players: can you optimise your load? Can you win in the minigame of your ship vs the pirates' ship? Can you optimise your expenditure on masons, sages, etc?

Not the way we play. We don't pay strict attention to encumbrance, torches, etc. The game, to us, has always been about immersing ourselves in the game setting, exploring fantastic environments (often dungeons), and getting more powerful to face more powerful challenges.

 

[Jester David]

I find it interesting that you have to actually pick two non-roleplaying games to find examples of not being able to tie the narrative to the mechanics. I mean, Battletech is pure simulationist as a board game. You are looking at a tabletop war game. That's about as rooted in sim play as it gets. It might have some wonky bits, but, it is a simulation.

That was by intent.
You need to step away from looking at roleplaying games to see more diversity and range between simulation/abstraction.

Choosing to hide behind a pillar can be done in a gamist RPG or a Narrativist one as well though. In a Gamist game, Cover gives X bonus. What that cover is, doesn't really matter, so long as you can gain cover. In a Nar game, you could claim cover and then add in the pillar (the James Bond RPG allowed you to spend Bond points on exactly this), or you could use the pillar and gain cover as needed.

You can certainly play gamist, hiding behind cover for the bonuses. But the point is in D&D, even the most gamist and abstract versions, you can make choices based on the narrative that will have some mechanical effect.
In a non-RPG, if you try to take an action not covered by the rules (such as hiding behind partial cover in a game that only differentiates between line-of-sight and non-LOS) then the cover grants no benefit. You can never gain a benefit for something not in the rules.

None of that is particularly simulationist. Sim play is not "How do we make a coherent story". Sim play isn't concerned overly with story elements. Sim play is a means to model HOW something happens in play. If your only concern is hiding behind something and gaining cover, all three styles can do that quite easily. Heck, even Battletech has cover rules. MtG, true, doesn't since it's far too abstract to be able to deal with that.

But, in what way is MtG not a simulation of two very powerful wizards duking it out? Abstract, sure, but, I've been told that that's perfectly acceptable as a simulation, we shouldn't get bogged down in granularity. Two powerful Walkers are fighting it out using their minions that they summon. The minions are limited by their natures (so consistency is maintained) and the reality of the fight is consistent for all participants - no one can add or subtract anything. How is this different from a D&D fight between two powerful wizards?

This really comes down to what "simulation" means. Is it the emulation of reality, or simply the representation of some story or concept of the game.
The later definition is pretty darn liberal as it means chess is a sim (two armies fighting) and only games like poker or backgammon would be non-sim.

The difference between narrative of most games and RPGs is that in the former it's just an overlay. MtG would work just as well if you replaced all the fluff with science fiction terms and the summoned monsters with warping in fleets. There's no connection between the mechanics and the gameplay. Dissociative mechanics some would say. But also, nothing in the narrative can ever have any affect on the game.
Which is the catch. The narrative in an RPG can influence the mechanics. Not just in the creation of new rules but in situational events. Despite the story of two dueling wizards, you cannot do something like walk up to your rival wizard and just kick them in the bollocks. If there is a wizard duel in D&D you are not limited by the rules and can do just that, or target the ground beneath the wizard's feat dropping them down, or distract the wizard by revealing you slept with her husband last night, or make an offering of peace and work out your grievances without magical combat.

Because the narrative can affect the game, all RPGs are inherently much more sim than other games.

Hussar is correct here. You can't identify a game, or an episode of play, as "simulationist" or "gamist" based on a recount of the fiction.

So from the fact that a player can declare as an action "I hide behind the pillar" or "I try to bring the roof down on the dragon by toppling the pillar" tells us nothing about whether the game is, or is being played as, simulationist, gamist or narrativist.

What makes 4e a non-sim game is the fact that when a player declares such an action the GM will ascertain the DC from a DC-by-level chart, and then narrate in the appropriate fictional details; and if the attempt to push over the pillar succeeds, will determine the consequences for the dragon from a damage-by-level chart, and similarly narrate in the matching fiction al details.

Whereas what makes RQ or RM a purist-for-system sim game is the fact that the GM will ascertain the DC by first establishing the nature of the pillar in the fiction, and then reading a DC off an appropriate chart; and if the attempt to push over the pillar succeeds, the damage dealt will be determined by reference to some general principles governing the injuries inflicted by falling heavy objects.

AD&D handles pillar-pushing via STR checks or bend bars rolls. These are closer to the 4e than RQ/RM style of resolution; the chance of success is appropriate to the character (based on stat, whereas in 4e level is more important). 3E, on the other hand, handles this closer to RQ/RM, as it at least purports to set a DC based on the fiction. What differentiates 3E from RQ/RM, in my view at least, is that at a certain point the DCs and associated numbers (eg natural armour bonuses for high-CR creatures) become completely disconnected from any conception of what they correspond to in the fiction. So we have locks with DCs of 20, 30 and 40 but no real sense of what these varying difficulties correspond to in the fiction. This is why I don't regard even the skill system in 3E as genuinely satisfying purist-for-system design constraints.

This ignores my first point about apples to apples. Which was the more important part of my first post.
The quote the OP references compares D&D to chess, while the OP compares D&D to GURPs. The two samplings are so different that the results of the comparison are useless.

You go right to a comparison between RPGs, picking the most abstract version of D&D to compare with more sim games. Which is a very narrow sampling. And yes, D&D will seem less sim than many other RPGs while being more sim than other select RPGs.
But when you compare D&D to other types of game it is incredibly sim.

Really, D&D is somewhere in the middle in terms of sim. And often has the flexibility to play it more sim or more abstract depending on the DM.

 

[pemerton]

Iit's a houserule that is specifically called out as going

Yeah called out specifically as a houserule Amanda's group is using that goes against the normal rules. In other words it's the group creating an imbalance not the rules...

That example seems pretty cherry-picked, considering the example campaign is made extremely simple on purpose, and absolutely everywhere else in FATE the idea of giving up refresh or an Aspect in order to cast spells is pretty much made explicit. (Plus the idea that you're told "decide these things when you make your campaign" so there is no default, just multiple options.)

e: I see this got covered earlier, yes, as was said above, it's called out as a specific deviation from the rules and so is a pretty weird "example" of a deficiency in the rules.

ST, you've misunderstood my point. It is Imaro, not me, who is saying that any game in which player resources are not perfectly balanced is an inferior narrativist vehicle.

I don't agree. I don't think perfect balance of player resources is essential for a sound narrativist vehicle, as long as each player has sufficient resources to make a meaningful contribution. And I regard the example in the Fate book as consist with my view. If the Fate designers thought that an imbalance of resources of the sort they describe undermined the game, do you think they would have included it as an example? Of course they wouldn't have. By presenting the example, they are endorsing it as a completely viable way to play the game.

Which, to my mind, refutes the contention that 4e must be an inferior narrativist vehicle because the distribution of resources across players/PCs is not always perfectly symmetrical.

 

[Andor]

Reread the skills in question. There is absolutely no failure condition in either Craft or Profession. You always succeed. The only variable in Craft is time. In Profession, you absolutely cannot fail a Profession check. You gain your skill check/2 in gp per week when using this skill. That's the only random element in this skill.

Craft (Int)

Like Knowledge, Perform, and Profession, Craft is actually a number of separate skills. You could have several Craft skills, each with its own ranks, each purchased as a separate skill.

A Craft skill is specifically focused on creating something. If nothing is created by the endeavor, it probably falls under the heading of a Profession skill.
Check

You can practice your trade and make a decent living, earning about half your check result in gold pieces per week of dedicated work. You know how to use the tools of your trade, how to perform the craft’s daily tasks, how to supervise untrained helpers, and how to handle common problems. (Untrained laborers and assistants earn an average of 1 silver piece per day.)

The basic function of the Craft skill, however, is to allow you to make an item of the appropriate type. The DC depends on the complexity of the item to be created. The DC, your check results, and the price of the item determine how long it takes to make a particular item. The item’s finished price also determines the cost of raw materials.

In some cases, the fabricate spell can be used to achieve the results of a Craft check with no actual check involved. However, you must make an appropriate Craft check when using the spell to make articles requiring a high degree of craftsmanship.

A successful Craft check related to woodworking in conjunction with the casting of the ironwood spell enables you to make wooden items that have the strength of steel.

When casting the spell minor creation, you must succeed on an appropriate Craft check to make a complex item.

All crafts require artisan’s tools to give the best chance of success. If improvised tools are used, the check is made with a -2 circumstance penalty. On the other hand, masterwork artisan’s tools provide a +2 circumstance bonus on the check.

To determine how much time and money it takes to make an item, follow these steps.

Find the item’s price. Put the price in silver pieces (1 gp = 10 sp).
Find the DC from the table below.
Pay one-third of the item’s price for the cost of raw materials.
Make an appropriate Craft check representing one week’s work. If the check succeeds, multiply your check result by the DC. If the result × the DC equals the price of the item in sp, then you have completed the item. (If the result × the DC equals double or triple the price of the item in silver pieces, then you’ve completed the task in one-half or one-third of the time. Other multiples of the DC reduce the time in the same manner.) If the result × the DC doesn’t equal the price, then it represents the progress you’ve made this week. Record the result and make a new Craft check for the next week. Each week, you make more progress until your total reaches the price of the item in silver pieces.

If you fail a check by 4 or less, you make no progress this week.

If you fail by 5 or more, you ruin half the raw materials and have to pay half the original raw material cost again.
Progress by the Day

You can make checks by the day instead of by the week. In this case your progress (check result × DC) is in copper pieces instead of silver pieces.

So instead of your claimed impossibility for failure what we instead see is a skill system which represents a craft check as an ongoing process with incremental process and a nuanced failure system which allows for both stalled progress and a ruining of materials. It also explicitly allows you to dial the granularity in or out.

I suppose it's true that you cannot technically fail in the sense that trying again becomes impossible. You can however continue to ruin materials until you run out of money. Kind of like how it works in the real world. I mean, what real world craft check can result in permanent failure where you can't try again no matter how much you spend? Gem cutting I suppose, with a singular stone like the Star of Africe or the Hope diamond? Which is actually covered by the "Ruin the raw materials" rule.

Out of curiosity I just tried to google RQs craft system. I found this:

> ... which is a nice segue into my point. Presumably, communities
> without large scale access to Repair or Form/Set spells use mundane
> techniques to repair weapons. Presumably, also, these skills are
> covered under Craft. Does anyone have any ideas for a RQ3 (or
> modifiable to fit RQ3) Crafting system? My best try so far pretty much
> just rips off D&D3e wholesale, but it's so inelegant. I'm sure someone
> has had much better ideas than this.
> --
Never really thought of it. Pretty much allowed someone in party to fix
weapons or armour with successful craft role ioif they had previous
experience as Crafter: Armourer or Smith. However I have also at times
pointed out things like materials availibility etc. Just use a rule of
thumb for how well the repair went, depending on damage to the weapon or
armour. Kind of if you fumble, you damage it worse, if you succeed its
fixed (if it were broken in two or such), but only specials can restore AP
in a weapon. Hmm, its worth actually sighting up some proper house rules
for this.

You keep stating what isn't sim. Would you like to describe what sim is?

 

[Imaro]

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Granularity is not the issue. The issue is that the model required for sim play is absent in D&D mechanics.

What exactly is that "model"? All I've seen so far is a comparison of granularity. Without a definition of the model you are speaking to, how does anyone but you determine whether D&D meets the requirements or not?

 

[pemerton]

It seems to me that Final Fantasy combat is a sim. It simulates "what happens when these two parties meet" in the most ridiculously uncombatlike fashion possible

<snip>

my pointing my fingers at you and saying "Bang, you're dead" simulates combat. Just completely without rules.

For my part, this doesn't help me grapple with the current discussion because it makes all RPGs count as sim: after all, all RPGing involves procedures for taking declarations about character actions within the fiction ("My guy fires his gun at you") to outcomes within the fiction ("The gun shot hits; you're dead").

But the post in the OP, to which [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] was responding, made a stronger claim than this. The post also said that in an RPG, the procedures for moving from action declaration to action resolution and outcomes tell us what the fiction is like. It is that additional constraint that makes a game sim, in Hussar's sense. And Hussar's point is that many procedures in D&D do not satisfy this constraint.

Hit point attrition via attack and damage rolls, for instance, is a procedure for going from action declaration ("My guy attacks your guy with his sword") to action resolution ("Whack, your guy is dead!"), but in the course of doing that they don't tell us what the fiction is like. For instance, when the combat is still ongoing, and my guy has lost 10 hp and has 15 hp left and your guy has lost 20 hp and has 3 hp left, the mechanics don't tell us what the fiction is like. They don't tell us how many cuts your guy has on his body. Or how serious those cuts are. They don't tell us whether my guy is bleeding or not. They don't tell us whether the fight looks more like The Princess Bride or Basil Rathbone vs Errol Flynn (which I gather was Gygax's inspiration) or looks more like a Tarantino movie (which is how many players and GMs on these boards seem to narrate things).

That's the sense in which D&D combat is not a sim system.

This ignores my first point about apples to apples. Which was the more important part of my first post.
The quote the OP references compares D&D to chess, while the OP compares D&D to GURPs. The two samplings are so different that the results of the comparison are useless.

<snip>

But when you compare D&D to other types of game it is incredibly sim.

My response to this is similar to my response to Savage Wombat, and to Kamikaze Midget further upthread.

The way in which D&D is sim compared to chess is nothing more than the way in which it is an RPG rather than a board game. By those standards, Prince Valiant or Marvel Heroic RP or Nicotine Girls is also a sim game. But we all know they're radically non-sim RPGs.

The quote the OP references makes particular claims about the relationship between RPG mechanics and RPG fiction, that I've unpacked earlier in this post. It is those claims that are the focus of the discussion over whether or not D&D is sim. There are RPGs for which those claims are true: Rolemaster, Runequest, Classic Traveller, Chivalry & orcery, etc. But D&D is not one of them.

That's not a criticism of D&D. [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] is eminently capable of explaining what his motivations are for starting and participating in this thread. Mine are to make the point that you can be an RPG, and a very fine RPG, without satisfying the relationship between procedures of action resolution, and content of fiction, that the quote referenced in the OP asserts must obtain if a game is to be an RPG.