Why use D&D for a Simulationist style Game?

[Hussar]

Here's an example, from 3e, of a mechanic I consider to be a pretty good "modelling" mechanic.

The Jump skill. When I use the jump skill (presuming a running start), my distance is my final score in feet. The entire event is modelled by the mechanics and we know mostly what happened. The character moved at least ten feet, and then jumped X distance depending on his skill and die roll. How did he move from A to B? He jumped. Did he reach B? Well, that depends on the check. And, as an added bonus, the player can choose not to overshoot the mark if he rolls higher than the distance he wants to jump.

That's a model. That's a perfectly acceptable model of jumping. You don't have to do it this way, but, as models go, it's pretty clear.

Now, for those of you telling me that combat mechanics work as a model answer me this: The orc attacks successfully the PC for 7 points of damage. I narrate it as the PC falling backwards away from the attack, shaking in fear.

Prove me wrong. Show me how your model precludes my narration.

 

[Andor]

My only point in this thread is this: D&D is a poor choice for simulationism. Unless you're simulating a D&D world* and then it does it better than any other game system ever.

* See Order of the Stick for a radically meta take on this premise.

Thank you. That is the point I've been trying to get across this whole thread. The OP asked why you would ever treat D&D rules as sim, and the answer is because it does a great job of simming D&D, and it's fun. So I'm glad you agree.

BTW I'd rank Goblins as more Meta than OotS. While OotS will openly discuss rules and genre expectations, you never move up past the level of the characters. In goblins they've openly discussed the GMs name and the players genders.

 

[Andor]

Now, for those of you telling me that combat mechanics work as a model answer me this: The orc attacks successfully the PC for 7 points of damage. I narrate it as the PC falling backwards away from the attack, shaking in fear.

Prove me wrong. Show me how your model precludes my narration.

Because in 2e or 3e (but not 4e or 5e so constraints on narration vary by edition.) I could heal some of that damage with the medicine skill, but not all of it.

In fact in 2e without treatment it would take a week to heal that damage fully. Have you ever been so badly frightened that you could still feel it a week later?

Plus of course there are rider effects that go along with damage like poison or disease checks from a dirty blade. If the PCs go slogging through a swamp and you make the wounded save vs getting infected wounds it's hard to justify without rolling back your original narration. If after the fight the haler bandaged a wound, it's hard to justify without rolling back the narration.

You can cite Gary's HP explanation in the DMG all you want, but the fact is that Gary's intent is not the rules. Disease checks and bandages are the rules, and they break the narrative if you describe a blow which would cut a commoner in half as a frightening near miss.

Oh, actually one more way it breaks narrative, many editions actually define shaking with fear with specific in game consequences ranging from failed morale checks to the 'shaken' condition. So unless you impose that condition in spite of the rules not calling for it, your breaking another set of rules by that narration.

In any event you keep asking question, and I see no sign that you are listening to the answers so I think I'm going to bow out of this thread. Enjoy the game, in whatever way you like to play it.

 

[Imaro]

Here's an example, from 3e, of a mechanic I consider to be a pretty good "modelling" mechanic.

The Jump skill. When I use the jump skill (presuming a running start), my distance is my final score in feet. The entire event is modelled by the mechanics and we know mostly what happened. The character moved at least ten feet, and then jumped X distance depending on his skill and die roll. How did he move from A to B? He jumped. Did he reach B? Well, that depends on the check. And, as an added bonus, the player can choose not to overshoot the mark if he rolls higher than the distance he wants to jump.

That's a model. That's a perfectly acceptable model of jumping. You don't have to do it this way, but, as models go, it's pretty clear.

Now, for those of you telling me that combat mechanics work as a model answer me this: The orc attacks successfully the PC for 7 points of damage. I narrate it as the PC falling backwards away from the attack, shaking in fear.

Prove me wrong. Show me how your model precludes my narration.

What did the orc attack the PC with... did the PC take damage from the damage dice of the weapon or did he take falling damage? Is the PC suffering the fear condition? Did he move backwards on the grid or in theatre of the mind? Were those the PC's last 7 hp's? Was the PC below 0 hp's?

 

[Hussar]

I'm curious if your 15-25% sim D&D takes into account the various rules options that arose in 3.x, or even stuff like the Skills & Powers/historical splats in AD&D 2e? I mentioned the optional 3.5 rules earlier because I think it's a pretty important point.

I also am curious what percentage narrativist would you say D&D is?

Finally if these optional rules can get D&D to 60% or more sim then is it still a poor choice for simulationism, especially given such factors as the size of it's fanbase, familiarity with rules, availability, etc.?

I believe this is proving my point. In order to get D&D to a point where you actually have a sim model based game, you pretty much have to eject most of the core elements of the game and replace them with other mechanics, all of which are based on the idea of the mechanics modelling events.

At that point, are you even really playing D&D anymore? Once you've rewritten HP, reworked the combat system, added in a skill system that actually models activity, rejiggered stats, reconfigured levels and what levels mean in the game, I'd argue you aren't even playing D&D anymore.

But, be that as it may, that's my point. D&D is a very poor fit for sim style games to the point where you have to go out and buy several supplements just to get it to the point where it's equal to another system. Not better, just equal. Why not start with that other system?

 

[evileeyore]

I'd love to see someone try and defend turn-based combat as a mechanic that simulates what's actually happening, which I don't think even OotS has touched on.

They've touched it. Made a number of "Suprise round" jokes about turn sequencing.

I'm curious if your 15-25% sim D&D takes into account the various rules options that arose in 3.x, or even stuff like the Skills & Powers/historical splats in AD&D 2e? I mentioned the optional 3.5 rules earlier because I think it's a pretty important point.

I don't know all the options. My group was playing GURPS and Shadowrun when the real glut of supplements came out for 3e.

I also am curious what percentage narrativist would you say D&D is?

First I define Narrativist as "Having mechanics to place the power of scene Narration in the Players hands". It's why I've been seperating "narration" (what the DM does all the time) from "narrativist" in my arguments.

OD&D, AD&D, BECMI, 3e = Basically none. The PCs have little to no narrative control outside their own characters actions, much of which may require actual skill checks. While I do understand that by GNS Theory this still means they have some Narrative control, I'm not counting it.

4e = I'm not sure. I think there were some narrative powers, but little of it exist outside combat and mostly serves the gamist side of the house. I'm willing to accept I may be wrong in labeling 4e "little to no narrativism".

5e = There is a clear Narrativist Mechanic in the Inspiration points. Not sure how much it'll play in 5e, we'll see.

GURPS = I've been remis in mentioning that GURPS has a strong Narrativist mechanic in EXP expenditure in game. It's fairly broad in the narrative powers it places in PCs hands, but it requires ST/Player negotiation and is limited by how many EXP the Player wants to spend (and GURPS awards far, far less EXP than D&D does, like 5 points per session).

It doesn't come into play often, so I tend to forget it until something extreme comes up (like impending character death).

Finally if these optional rules can get D&D to 60% or more sim then is it still a poor choice for simulationism...

If it could hit 60% sim (in my eyes) then sure, I'd be happy to call it sim.

It would need to lose levels, classes, proficiencies, and redo HP to get passed 30-40% though, so I doubt it could happen.

...especially given such factors as the size of it's fanbase, familiarity with rules, availability, etc.?

None of this matters in the least to me.

Monopoly is popular, has a vast rules familiarity and availability and it's still a [GRANDMA FILTER] economics sim. And a terrible game, but the later is purely my opinion.

I don't think 2-3 rules (hit points, initiative, and well I can't think of another offhand that's been brought up) out of all the rules in D&D are enough to ruin that for most people.

For most people? Clearly not as D&D is the "most popular" tabletop rpg on the market.

But of the top of my head: Levels, Classes, HP, turn sequencing, AC, Magic, Healing, Proficiences, and Movement rates all fall pretty deeply into "gamist/non-sim" for me.

 

[Hussar]

Because in 2e or 3e (but not 4e or 5e so constraints on narration vary by edition.) I could heal some of that damage with the medicine skill, but not all of it.

In fact in 2e without treatment it would take a week to heal that damage fully. Have you ever been so badly frightened that you could still feel it a week later?

PTSD? I imagine having some knife wielding monster trying to carve out my spleen might leave some emotional scars.

Plus of course there are rider effects that go along with damage like poison or disease checks from a dirty blade. If the PCs go slogging through a swamp and you make the wounded save vs getting infected wounds it's hard to justify without rolling back your original narration. If after the fight the haler bandaged a wound, it's hard to justify without rolling back the narration.

Interesting you mention bandaging the wound. What skill would that be? Could the healer not simply give the wounded PC a good talking to, make him feel better? What wound? Where is this wound? What kind of wound is it?

You can cite Gary's HP explanation in the DMG all you want, but the fact is that Gary's intent is not the rules. Disease checks and bandages are the rules, and they break the narrative if you describe a blow which would cut a commoner in half as a frightening near miss.

Oh, actually one more way it breaks narrative, many editions actually define shaking with fear with specific in game consequences ranging from failed morale checks to the 'shaken' condition. So unless you impose that condition in spite of the rules not calling for it, your breaking another set of rules by that narration.

In any event you keep asking question, and I see no sign that you are listening to the answers so I think I'm going to bow out of this thread. Enjoy the game, in whatever way you like to play it.

Fear only results in the shaken condition or a failed morale check? Really? How do you explain dying from fear spells then? Phantasmal Killer lets me kill you with fear. Even standard illusions can render you unconscious through fear.

"A blow that would kill a commoner" is being described as a minor scratch in your version though. How is that consistent? Oh, right, HP are also turning serious wounds into minor ones. Only, sometimes they aren't. Sometimes HP are just gobs of meat. Only, thing is, we never really know which is which.

 

[Hussar]

What did the orc attack the PC with... did the PC take damage from the damage dice of the weapon or did he take falling damage? Is the PC suffering the fear condition? Did he move backwards on the grid or in theatre of the mind? Were those the PC's last 7 hp's? Was the PC below 0 hp's?

What difference do any of these questions make, other than the one where the attack kills the PC? We've already said that the combat mechanics will tell you alive from dead, but nothing else.

I'm sorry, but, what's the difference between weapon damage dice and falling damage dice? It's all just ablating HP. There's no "falling damage" type. The different damage types in 3e and 4e are a nod towards simulation, I suppose, but, largely, they're gamist elements so that you can play rock/paper/scissors with various damage reductions. Barring damage reduction, there is absolutely no difference between a slashing weapon that does d8 damage and a piercing or bludgeoning weapon that does d8 damage. They are all identical. All of them reduce the target's HP by the same amount.

So, again, show me how I am precluded from this narration? Andor gave a pretty decent shot at it with the healing rates. But, even then, I can come up with narration that fits. It's certainly as believable as any other narration. Just because you happen not to like it, doesn't really invalidate it. Part of the damage is the PC twisting his ankle as he falls back, part of it is mental.

Or, maybe, I describe the 7 HP loss as a complete miss. All the attack did was ablate his God Protection. Again, you cannot refute these narrations using the mechanics. The healer talks to the PC and makes him feel better, utters a prayer over him, and he regains a d4 ((I misremember how first aid worked in 2e)) HP. In a D&D world, why would the Heal skill not include invocations to gods? After all, I'm being told that HP are real in the game world. They are a measurable, quantifiable element. We know that gods restore HP. So, again, why would the Heal skill not include that as well? Why does the Heal skill automatically mean Saint John's First Aid?

 

[Tony Vargas]

In fact in 2e without treatment it would take a week to heal that damage fully. Have you ever been so badly frightened that you could still feel it a week later?

I haven't. But it certainly happens to people. Not just for a week but for /years/. Psychological trauma.

By the same token, if you're stabbed you might fully recover in a few weeks - or, you might have a lasting impairment for years due to a nerve being severed or scar tissue restricting freedom of movement or whatever.

There's a /lot/ of things D&D hps don't remotely model well or accurately. In fact, apart from plot armor, it's safe to say hps model /nothing/ accurately (probably part of Hussar's point, though I don't exactly agree with it).

But you can't say 7hps of damage model a stab wound any better than a psuedo-hit that affects morale, fatigue, divine favor or other non-physical rationalizations that EGG outlined in the 1e DMG in 1979.

Plus of course there are rider effects that go along with damage like poison or disease checks from a dirty blade.

Again asked and answered (by EGG) in 1979: a successful poison save represented a psuedo-hit with no actual wound to become envenomed.

You can cite Gary's HP explanation in the DMG all you want, but the fact is that Gary's intent is not the rules. Disease checks and bandages are the rules, and they break the narrative if you describe a blow which would cut a commoner in half as a frightening near miss.

He wrote the rules, and there was no clear line between rules and commentary on rules in 1e AD&D. If the mechanics didn't match his intent as stated in the DMG, in your judgement, 35 years later, maybe he didn't write them well enough /for you/ (it was still the early days of the hobby, afterall). But it was also his intent that those using the rules (DMs, that is) wouldn't let them get in the way of the greater game, but use them as a starting point. So if the rules 'broke your narrative,' you'd've just tweaked them or created a less fragile or more flexible narrative. EGG's treatise on hps was apparently in response to people taking some sort of all-meat view of hps, then asserting that gaining hps with level was somehow 'impossible.' So he offered a more flexible explanation than all-meat.

Oh, actually one more way it breaks narrative, many editions actually define shaking with fear with specific in game consequences ranging from failed morale checks to the 'shaken' condition. So unless you impose that condition in spite of the rules not calling for it, your breaking another set of rules by that narration.

That /is/ an inconsistency - not that D&D rules haven't often been inconsistent.

 

[Imaro]

What difference do any of these questions make, other than the one where the attack kills the PC? We've already said that the combat mechanics will tell you alive from dead, but nothing else.

Yet just below this you admit certain editions tell you type of damage (regardless of your own personal views on why) so again you're wrong the game gives us more information than nothing... and that was my point.

I'm sorry, but, what's the difference between weapon damage dice and falling damage dice? It's all just ablating HP. There's no "falling damage" type. The different damage types in 3e and 4e are a nod towards simulation, I suppose, but, largely, they're gamist elements so that you can play rock/paper/scissors with various damage reductions. Barring damage reduction, there is absolutely no difference between a slashing weapon that does d8 damage and a piercing or bludgeoning weapon that does d8 damage. They are all identical. All of them reduce the target's HP by the same amount.

Lol, so except for the differences... there are no differences. Again it seems like you have some imaginary line you've created where some differences matter and others don't for purposes of proving your point... either there are differences (which means your assertion that we know nothing except whether someone is dead or alive is false) or there are no differences in which case you are correct. But you don't get to dismiss the differences because they don't support your assertion...

So, again, show me how I am precluded from this narration? Andor gave a pretty decent shot at it with the healing rates. But, even then, I can come up with narration that fits. It's certainly as believable as any other narration. Just because you happen not to like it, doesn't really invalidate it. Part of the damage is the PC twisting his ankle as he falls back, part of it is mental.

You can describe something however you want... I can call a cat a dog but that doesn't make it true. Mechanically your character didn't take falling damage and suffered no fear condition... it was pretty easy, the only reason I asked those questions was to show we actually do have more information than dead or alive...

Or, maybe, I describe the 7 HP loss as a complete miss. All the attack did was ablate his God Protection. Again, you cannot refute these narrations using the mechanics. The healer talks to the PC and makes him feel better, utters a prayer over him, and he regains a d4 ((I misremember how first aid worked in 2e)) HP. In a D&D world, why would the Heal skill not include invocations to gods? After all, I'm being told that HP are real in the game world. They are a measurable, quantifiable element. We know that gods restore HP. So, again, why would the Heal skill not include that as well? Why does the Heal skill automatically mean Saint John's First Aid?

Because the heal skill can be used by the faithless with the same result...