Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Why use D&D for a Simulationist style Game?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6354748" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>This paragraph reveals it's own inconsistency.</p><p></p><p>As you say, when I am playing a game it is <em>numers on the character sheet</em> that determine whether or not the fiction contains element A ("My guy is alive") or element B ("My guy is dead, killed by an orc"). The character sheet doesn't exist in the game. A number of the things written on the character sheet - eg player name - don't exist, nor represent anything, in the game.</p><p></p><p>It is a <em>further decision</em> which is not mandated by the game rules, and which at least one edition of the rules - Gygax's AD&D - eschews, to decide that the hit point tally on the character sheet represents some ingame property of a character. It's your prerogative to make that decision in your game. I can tell you that in my game that decision has not been taken; and I think likewise at [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s table.</p><p></p><p>This isn't true either, without introducing additional premises which I don't accept.</p><p></p><p>Here is a true counterfactual: <em>if</em> the players at the table declared certain actions, involving shooting blowgun darts into commoners; and <em>if</em> the outcomes of those declared actions were resolved using the combat mechanics; then the PCs in the gameworld might be able to formulate and even verify certain hypotheses about the gameworld.</p><p></p><p>But the first antecdent of the counterfactual is not true in my game: the players have never declared such actions. Nor is the second antecedent of the counterfactual true in my game: the outcomes of those declared actions would not be resolved using the combat mechanics.</p><p></p><p>Here is the relevant passage from the 4e DMG that explains why not (p 40):</p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px">When a power has an effect that occurs upon hitting a target - or reducing a target to 0 hit points - the power</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">functions only when the target in question is a meaningful threat. Characters can gain no benefit from carrying a sack of rats in hopes of healing their allies by hitting the rats.</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">When a power’s effect involves a character’s allies, use common sense when determining how many allies can be affected. D&D is a game about adventuring parties fighting groups of monsters, not the clash of armies. A warlord’s power might, read strictly, be able to give a hundred “allies” a free basic attack, but that doesn’t mean that warlord characters should assemble armies to march before them into the dungeon. In general, a power’s effect should be limited to a squad-sized group - the size of your player character group plus perhaps one or two friendly NPCs—not hired soldiers or lantern-bearers.</p><p></p><p>In other words, 4e is designed to be played treating common sense and genre sensibilities as a constraint on the deployment of the action resolution mechanics. It is not designed with the intention that the action resolution mechanics are a general theory/picture of how things work in the gameworld.</p><p></p><p>Hence, if (contrary to my real-life expectations) the players in my game were to have their PCs declare the sort of "experiment" you describe, the combat mechanics wouldn't be used to resolve them - the commoners would simply be declared killed ("saying yes" rather than making the players roll the dice).</p><p></p><p><em>If</em> you treat the game mechanics as a model of ingame processes, then the experiments you describe can be performed. But at that point you are affirming as a premise what you were hoping to prove, namely, that the mechanics are a model of ingame causal processes.</p><p></p><p>In other words, as I already posted upthread, the decision to treat the mechanics as a process is a <em>choice</em>. Even in RQ you could treat the mechanics as purely metagame if you wanted to; it's just that if that's how you wanted to play you probably wouldn't bother with RQ. Similarly, you <em>could</em> treat the 4e mechanics in a process sim way if you wantd to, ignoring the rules text that I just quoted. Though personally I'm not sure why you'd bother - there are much better process-sim games out there.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 6354748, member: 42582"] This paragraph reveals it's own inconsistency. As you say, when I am playing a game it is [I]numers on the character sheet[/I] that determine whether or not the fiction contains element A ("My guy is alive") or element B ("My guy is dead, killed by an orc"). The character sheet doesn't exist in the game. A number of the things written on the character sheet - eg player name - don't exist, nor represent anything, in the game. It is a [I]further decision[/I] which is not mandated by the game rules, and which at least one edition of the rules - Gygax's AD&D - eschews, to decide that the hit point tally on the character sheet represents some ingame property of a character. It's your prerogative to make that decision in your game. I can tell you that in my game that decision has not been taken; and I think likewise at [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s table. This isn't true either, without introducing additional premises which I don't accept. Here is a true counterfactual: [I]if[/I] the players at the table declared certain actions, involving shooting blowgun darts into commoners; and [I]if[/I] the outcomes of those declared actions were resolved using the combat mechanics; then the PCs in the gameworld might be able to formulate and even verify certain hypotheses about the gameworld. But the first antecdent of the counterfactual is not true in my game: the players have never declared such actions. Nor is the second antecedent of the counterfactual true in my game: the outcomes of those declared actions would not be resolved using the combat mechanics. Here is the relevant passage from the 4e DMG that explains why not (p 40): [indent]When a power has an effect that occurs upon hitting a target - or reducing a target to 0 hit points - the power functions only when the target in question is a meaningful threat. Characters can gain no benefit from carrying a sack of rats in hopes of healing their allies by hitting the rats. When a power’s effect involves a character’s allies, use common sense when determining how many allies can be affected. D&D is a game about adventuring parties fighting groups of monsters, not the clash of armies. A warlord’s power might, read strictly, be able to give a hundred “allies” a free basic attack, but that doesn’t mean that warlord characters should assemble armies to march before them into the dungeon. In general, a power’s effect should be limited to a squad-sized group - the size of your player character group plus perhaps one or two friendly NPCs—not hired soldiers or lantern-bearers.[/indent] In other words, 4e is designed to be played treating common sense and genre sensibilities as a constraint on the deployment of the action resolution mechanics. It is not designed with the intention that the action resolution mechanics are a general theory/picture of how things work in the gameworld. Hence, if (contrary to my real-life expectations) the players in my game were to have their PCs declare the sort of "experiment" you describe, the combat mechanics wouldn't be used to resolve them - the commoners would simply be declared killed ("saying yes" rather than making the players roll the dice). [I]If[/I] you treat the game mechanics as a model of ingame processes, then the experiments you describe can be performed. But at that point you are affirming as a premise what you were hoping to prove, namely, that the mechanics are a model of ingame causal processes. In other words, as I already posted upthread, the decision to treat the mechanics as a process is a [I]choice[/I]. Even in RQ you could treat the mechanics as purely metagame if you wanted to; it's just that if that's how you wanted to play you probably wouldn't bother with RQ. Similarly, you [I]could[/I] treat the 4e mechanics in a process sim way if you wantd to, ignoring the rules text that I just quoted. Though personally I'm not sure why you'd bother - there are much better process-sim games out there. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Why use D&D for a Simulationist style Game?
Top