D&D is not a world simulator

[Max_Killjoy]

You realize what you are saying is that DnD is just a superhero game in a fantasy setting.

Well, when 1000s of archers all firing at an "adventurer" at once is blithely dismissed with "I have an at-will power that makes all arrows useless against me"... superhero game in a fantasy setting is a good summary.

[Mechalich]

D&D is absolutely a world simulator. What it is not is a high fantasy or low fantasy pseudo-medieval word simulator. Instead it is a crazy many-worlds multiverse of wizards and warriors simulator that has a lot more in common with Dr. Strange's than anything in Tolkien.

However, this is mostly a function of the incredibly high power level of D&D style spellcasting and magic item production. When you restrict D&D power levels via various methods - E6, banning T1 full casters, heavy magic item restrictions, etc. - then it changes into something much closer to a high fantasy world simulator.

[Segev]

I'm not going to argue over whether D&D's "fantasy heroics" and modern "superheroes" are the same thing or not. I will say that there are genre differences, setting distinctions, and differing expectations.

The closest D&D-style adventurers come to modern superheroes is in the model where they travel around like the Lone Ranger and solve otherwise-insoluble problems for various towns in the wilderness.

Oddly, He-Man comes closer to standard genre conventions for superheroes than most D&D games, because He-Man lives in one place and thwarts villainous plans against said place. D&D adventurers usually go to a problem locale and deal with the problem there, and they are often much more traditionally...defined. The fighter/mage/cleric/thief paradigm is classic for a reason, and you'll usually find variations on that theme rather than the strange and often monomaniacal power sets of superhero teams.

But the similarities are there, and one could argue that D&D is modeled on the kinds of stories which modern superhero stories are the modern equivalent of.

[Kaiu Keiichi]

D&D has always been a narrative game. If you want a sim engine, play Runequest. D&D can't even physically define what a hit point is.

Make it clear when you run that the game runs on movie and novel logic, and you'll be fine.

When I run Pathfinder, for example, I forbid the use of the world realistically, and make it clear that we're emulating a fantasy series on HBO.

[Max_Killjoy]

D&D can't even physically define what a hit point is.

May add to sig...

[Kami2awa]

Sorry, I didn't make my initial point very clear. This is not a great criticism of D&D.

D&D never *tried* to be a world simulator. It tries to be an adventure simulator, and it does a pretty good job. Most of the problems which arise from it come from trying to interpret the world outside the adventure using the rules intended for the adventure and the adventure alone.

Other RPGs try to simulate a world, by making their rules more realistic, less abstracted, and closer to a simulation of reality (well, fictional reality), so that they can apply across more situations than adventuring. But really, adventuring is what the players will do, and D&D does what it was designed to do there.

[CharonsHelper]

When I run Pathfinder, for example, I forbid the use of the world realistically, and make it clear that we're emulating a fantasy series on HBO.

Please... think of the catgirls. - http://sellingoutforfunandprofit.com...rltpreview.jpg

[Grod_The_Giant]

Sorry, I didn't make my initial point very clear. This is not a great criticism of D&D.

D&D never *tried* to be a world simulator. It tries to be an adventure simulator, and it does a pretty good job. Most of the problems which arise from it come from trying to interpret the world outside the adventure using the rules intended for the adventure and the adventure alone.

Other RPGs try to simulate a world, by making their rules more realistic, less abstracted, and closer to a simulation of reality (well, fictional reality), so that they can apply across more situations than adventuring. But really, adventuring is what the players will do, and D&D does what it was designed to do there.

Part of the problem is, I think, that 3.5 kind of glosses over this fact. Even in just the core books, it has extensive rules for NPCs, for crafting, for creating magical armies, all that jazz. It's sort of like the uncanny valley effect-- close enough to realistic that we recoil when we realize that its head is 50% eyeball and it has no fingers.

[The Glyphstone]

i'd say the traditional D&D game is something closer to a fantastic Western story, of the John Wayne/Clint Eastwood/Sergio Leone variety, than it is a superhero story. As was mentioned above, typical superheroes are local defenders of an area - threats show up and they defeat them; if they leave their 'home turf', it's to help out another hero on their own turf or take on some multi-hero threat. Whereas D&D parties are like the Man With No Name or the Magnificent Seven, traveling from locale to local solving the problems of the locals as they arrive, then departing to the next source of adventure.

[Max_Killjoy]

i'd say the traditional D&D game is something closer to a fantastic Western story, of the John Wayne/Clint Eastwood/Sergio Leone variety, than it is a superhero story. As was mentioned above, typical superheroes are local defenders of an area - threats show up and they defeat them; if they leave their 'home turf', it's to help out another hero on their own turf or take on some multi-hero threat. Whereas D&D parties are like the Man With No Name or the Magnificent Seven, traveling from locale to local solving the problems of the locals as they arrive, then departing to the next source of adventure.

"Superheroic" in their scale and in the capacity for "central characters" to utterly disregard "the little average people" and laugh at the notion that even an army of "mundanes" might be a threat to them.

E: and as I noted earlier, I think my snark level regarding D&D would be much lower if the publishers and many of the fans would not, had not tried over multiple decades, to present D&D as "THE" fantasy RPG system, and instead had been honest about how it's intimately tied to a very particular sort of setting.

[Cluedrew]

To Superheroes: If I had to pick a single feature of superheroes stories that identified them it would be the 'once off' nature of their powers.

Superheroes are not part of orders where they receive training, the rarely study in schools or use some mass produced technology. Almost every single one has an ability/power-source that is either unique or almost unique.

In that sense D&D can be a superhero story, it actually depends on the NPCs. If they have abilities like the PCs (even if weaker) than it isn't a superhero story.

As for the main topic. Yes D&D is not interested in showing the entire world. It seems to be trying to a little bit sometimes, but overall not really.

[Lord Raziere]

I agree that its not a world simulator. But I don't agree about it emulating any particular genre.

if it was a world simulator, we'd be able to agree on what world is being simulated here. there would be no disagreement on whether it was simulating this or that, or whether Tippyverse could ever actually be a thing or not, or if the people involved would auto-optimize everything to its full potential without any scruples or cultural backlash. it would be consistent enough for people to look at and agree upon what its aiming to be and whether it achieves that or not.

if it was emulating a particular genre, well...
-if it was really emulating wild west in any form, it wouldn't ban guns by default, that is something you can't not have for anything approaching wild west. such settings based on that, have to have the romance of the cowboy and the six-shooters to count. until I can I pull out a six-shooter as the fastest draw in the west and kill my foe dead no refluffing anything, no hacks, nothing, but canonical emulation without any system mastery involved, that does not count. can't meet the standards for that. Pathfinder does, but not DnD.

-if it was emulating superhero anything, well.....to be honest, its too resource heavy for that. too much bean counting, when what really matters is being a strong being with unusual if not unique powers kicking ass, not tactics or inventory management, or leveling up. DnD focuses too much on those things when what you really want from a superhero game is start off strong no matter what, that and the powers aren't unique enough, too conventional and prone to extrapolation and wide use and application, you aren't an exception enough. So, can't meet the standards for that.

-now it was based on sword and sorcery stuff, DnD was never actually based on Tolkien, the Tolkien races was just added in because the first player group wanted it. so adventurers aren't actually supposed to emulate any epic farmboy heroes that save the universe from a dark lord or anything, they are supposed to be like Conan going around taking stuff from dungeons, fighting evil spellcasters who made deals with demons, corrupt kings and then spending all their money on booze and wenches at the end of the day then going out to try have more adventures because they are poor from spending all that money. But it doesn't quite emulate that either, because your encouraged to instead spend your money on improving your gear which has zero genre precedent, and you never hit a peak of your power where your just an experienced adventurer and thats all you'll ever be, you just keep going up until you become godlike, which again, has no genre precedent in sword and sorcery. so, can't meet the standards for that.

-There is action anime which looks similar to it in at least its "zero to godlike" scale and ways that fighters can survive great falls and whatnot, but given that such anime came AFTER it, and that its still too focused on inventory management and tactics over cinematic action, it doesn't meet the standards to me really.

-Honestly, the closest I can say it is, is that its a squad-level war game. all the stuff you have deal with during war: inventory management, troop positioning, what tactics you'll use to kill this or that just scaled down, the quality of your artillery and guns and how you upgrade them. its just that 3.5 got saddled with one of the most broken magic systems ever made, and the logisticians of the army decided to go crazy with it, and thus now you have a war already won, and an army trying to make a civilization out of weapons, armor, traps and iron rations.

[Shortstuff]

Just wanted to say: D&D can be way more realistic if you limit tiers and the like, or assume that adventurers above level <X> are super duper rare.

For instance, let's say that we're playing in an E6 setting. Okay, everyone's max level is 6. They get extra powers and such beyond that... but they're still level 6. Suddenly, these aren't gods on Earth; these are quite killable human beings that happen to possess some strange powers and are really skilled at what they do. They could potentially take on an army, but the circumstances have to be tailored for that. They'd still be amazing assets to any kingdom, and everyone would want their own set of adventurers (gotta catch 'em all!), but adventurers alone wouldn't determine the fate of the world.

It's when you start crawling into higher level play - especially when it involves full-powered manifesters, arcane spellcasters, and divine spellcasters - that you get weird settings.

[Koo Rehtorb]

D&D grew out of wargames combined with sword and sorcery. It doesn't really emulate anything at this point, though. D&D is its own thing.

[kyoryu]

It's not an anything simulator. It started out as basically a survival horror game where you went into scary places, stole their stuff, and hopefully came back out alive.

It then changed into a game system used to tell DragonLance-like stories.

It then changed into a game where people became larger than life demi-gods.

The biggest problem is that each evolution carried some of the baggage and decisions from the previous variant with it.

[Tanarii]

E: and as I noted earlier, I think my snark level regarding D&D would be much lower if the publishers and many of the fans would not, had not tried over multiple decades, to present D&D as "THE" fantasy RPG system, and instead had been honest about how it's intimately tied to a very particular sort of setting.

For at least a decade, it was effectively THE fantasy RPG setting. Because D&D was the origin of the hobby. That doesn't mean it's the only fantasy RPG system any more, but it's still the bull in the china shop, from Brand recognition and market share.

And it's not really tied to a particular sort of setting. It's tied to it's origins, which were twofold: war gaming and mega-dungeon delving. That makes it fairly good for certain kinds of game play (mainly dungeon delving adventuring & to a degree wilderness adventuring) and not so hot at ... well, being a simulator really.

D&D never *tried* to be a world simulator. It tries to be an adventure simulator, and it does a pretty good job. Most of the problems which arise from it come from trying to interpret the world outside the adventure using the rules intended for the adventure and the adventure alone.

The most critical thing to realize about D&D is that from the beginning, it wasn't supposed to be serious or a simulator. The game took the piss from all sorts of sci-fi and fantasy that was well known to the writers and designers at the time.

And Gygax even said at the beginning of the DMG "A few brief words are necessary to insure that the reader has actually obtained a game form which he or she desires. Of the two approaches to hobby games today, one is best defined as the realism-simulation school and the other as the game school. AD&D is assuredly on adherent of the latter school. It does not stress any realism (in the author’s opinion an absurd effort at best considering the topic!). It does little to attempt to simulate anything either. ADVANCED DUNGEONS 8 DRAGONS is first and foremost a game for the fun and enjoyment of those who seek to use imagination and creativity. This is not to say that where it does not interfere with the flow of the game that the highest degree of realism hasn‘t been attempted, but neither is a serious approach to play discouraged. In all cases, however, the reader should understand that AD&D is designed to be an amusing and diverting pastime, something which can fill a few hours or consume endless days, as the participants desire, but in no case something to be token too seriously. For fun, excitement, and captivating fantasy, AD&D is unsurpassed. As a realistic simulation of things from the realm of make-believe, or even as a reflection of medieval or ancient warfare or culture or society, it can be deemed only a dismal failure. Readers who seek the latter must search elsewhere. Those who desire to create and populate imaginary worlds with larger-than-life heroes and villains, who seek relaxation with a fascinating game, and who generally believe games should be fun, not work, will hopefully find this system to their taste."

[The Glyphstone]

"Superheroic" in their scale and in the capacity for "central characters" to utterly disregard "the little average people" and laugh at the notion that even an army of "mundanes" might be a threat to them.

That's not an unfair assessment of Western protagonists either, honestly. Sure, in theory they both have their six-shooters or rifles, but the Good Guy always gets his shot off the mark first, and never gets hit by the robbers/cattle rustlers/hostile Indians' shots in return. His effective ability to ignore his 'mundane' opposition is more or less absolute, and he's capable of solving problems and battling enemies that the townsfolk are helpless against despite having the same weapons he does, probably the same training, and vastly higher numbers. He doesn't need to bother himself with their problems, he could just move on to the next town immediately, but instead he sticks around to help.

Sure, there's plenty of other archetypes/tropes tying into this, as part of the general 'lone hero' meta-type, but it fits even more closely than I had realized at first glance.

[Tanarii]

and he's capable of solving problems and battling enemies that the townsfolk are helpless against despite having the same weapons he does, probably the same training, and vastly higher numbers.

lol Three Amigos just came to mind

[The Glyphstone]

lol Three Amigos just came to mind

I'm pretty sure comedies and spoofs of the genre are implicitly excluded from the statement.

[Tanarii]

I'm pretty sure comedies and spoofs of the genre are implicitly excluded from the statement.

Or possibly they're the exception that proves the rule. In hilarious fashion.

[Max_Killjoy]

For at least a decade, it was effectively THE fantasy RPG setting. Because D&D was the origin of the hobby. That doesn't mean it's the only fantasy RPG system any more, but it's still the bull in the china shop, from Brand recognition and market share.

And it's not really tied to a particular sort of setting. It's tied to it's origins, which were twofold: war gaming and mega-dungeon delving. That makes it fairly good for certain kinds of game play (mainly dungeon delving adventuring & to a degree wilderness adventuring) and not so hot at ... well, being a simulator really.

The most critical thing to realize about D&D is that from the beginning, it wasn't supposed to be serious or a simulator. The game took the piss from all sorts of sci-fi and fantasy that was well known to the writers and designers at the time.

Every RPG system, as a set of mechanics, is a "simulator", or -- better terminology -- a map or a model. The system used in a game succeeds or fails to varying degrees as a map of that territory that is the game's setting and "atmosphere".

D&D, with its very particular set of mechanisms, is only really well suited as the "map" of a very particular sort of territory.

To varying degrees over the last 30+ years that I've been exposed to it, the iterations of D&D have been marketed as far a far broader set of rules than was really objectively accurate for those marketing it to claim, and to an even larger degree. The system has been used for many published settings (and far more homebrew settings) that it was never really an appropriate map/model for, especially when including various offshoots of that system.


( * "Simulating" because I am still and always not entirely sold on the whole GNS theory thing. )

And Gygax even said at the beginning of the DMG "A few brief words are necessary to insure that the reader has actually obtained a game form which he or she desires. Of the two approaches to hobby games today, one is best defined as the realism-simulation school and the other as the game school. AD&D is assuredly on adherent of the latter school. It does not stress any realism (in the author’s opinion an absurd effort at best considering the topic!). It does little to attempt to simulate anything either. ADVANCED DUNGEONS 8 DRAGONS is first and foremost a game for the fun and enjoyment of those who seek to use imagination and creativity. This is not to say that where it does not interfere with the flow of the game that the highest degree of realism hasn‘t been attempted, but neither is a serious approach to play discouraged. In all cases, however, the reader should understand that AD&D is designed to be an amusing and diverting pastime, something which can fill a few hours or consume endless days, as the participants desire, but in no case something to be token too seriously. For fun, excitement, and captivating fantasy, AD&D is unsurpassed. As a realistic simulation of things from the realm of make-believe, or even as a reflection of medieval or ancient warfare or culture or society, it can be deemed only a dismal failure. Readers who seek the latter must search elsewhere. Those who desire to create and populate imaginary worlds with larger-than-life heroes and villains, who seek relaxation with a fascinating game, and who generally believe games should be fun, not work, will hopefully find this system to their taste."

I can almost hear the Gygaxian smug in this. "Some people want to have fun, and some people want to play those other games."

[Tanarii]

I can almost hear the Gygaxian smug in this. "Some people want to have fun, and some people want to play those other games."

Wow. Segev wasn't kidding about your snark in relation to D&D. That's quite the chip you're carrying on your shoulder there.

[Max_Killjoy]

Wow. Segev wasn't kidding about your snark in relation to D&D. That's quite the chip you're carrying on your shoulder there.

Gee, maybe I'm misreading his comment that approaches to game design other than his own are absurd...

(As for that other poster... out of sight, out of mind.)

[Mechalich]

D&D has an inherent contradiction in design in that it wants to represent a fantasy world in the heritage of Tolkien but offers characters powers in the heritage of Moorcock and Vance. The result is that the characters are too powerful for the world to contain and the functionality of the worlds make no sense.

Now you can scale the powers back to make them match the intended world - which is the premise behind E6 and similar mechanical variants. Or you can scale the world up and make it match the powers - which is the premise of Planescape and other settings that embrace D&D's super high magic. Whichever choice you make, one is necessary, otherwise for D&D worlds to function at all, certain elements have to be strictly limited by fiat that's not in the rules. A big and obvious example is FR's unwritten restriction on high-level spellcasters. They aren't allowed to rule the realms as living gods because they aren't.

[nrg89]

Just wanted to say: D&D can be way more realistic if you limit tiers and the like, or assume that adventurers above level <X> are super duper rare.

Yes, and that's the reason I seldom play it because other settings don't require such drastic changes. These are things the fans have figured out after witnessing the absurd power level of D&D and it requires something to be done. You cannot pick up D&D and run a Conan game with the vanilla rules, for example. The engine should be judged on its own premises and if someone picks up D&D as his entry to the hobby because of brand recognition, and he or she wants to create a setting that acts sort of like Medieval Europe, he or she better read the book thoroughly, along with some forums.

Had he or she picked up other systems this might not necessarily be true. The world could behave in a way that mostly makes sense for everyone, requiring very little suspension of disbelief, without a complete rules overhaul.

Now you can scale the powers back to make them match the intended world - which is the premise behind E6 and similar mechanical variants. Or you can scale the world up and make it match the powers - which is the premise of Planescape and other settings that embrace D&D's super high magic. Whichever choice you make, one is necessary, otherwise for D&D worlds to function at all, certain elements have to be strictly limited by fiat that's not in the rules. A big and obvious example is FR's unwritten restriction on high-level spellcasters. They aren't allowed to rule the realms as living gods because they aren't.

Yep. It's the main reason Forgotten Realms is my least favorite setting (well why don't you just become king so you can fix everything all the time, Elminster? Because of some non-flexible alignment rule?) while Planescape is my favorite, followed by Eberron and Dark Sun. Either you embrace the reality warping powers of magic or you invest the time to make a setting that restricts the players in a believable way. As Max_Killjoy said, vanilla D&D warps the entire setting its applied to.

[Lacuna Caster]

@Max_Killjoy: I agree and all, mostly, but I think you need to consider carefully whether getting persnickety over this problem is an optimal use of your time.

Going back to the original point, (since most of the others regarding 3E or later have been thoroughly dissected- i.e, superhero physics with western narrative and a lot of inventory tetris,) I will chime in and say that I agree that D&D is not a world simulator. However, I say this specifically because the bulk of the rules have always been concerned with dungeon-crawling, and not with interaction with a larger setting (whatever it might look like.)

I'll quote a few excerpts from Luke Crane's playthrough of Moldvay D&D:

As for design specifically…the game seems easily hackable. And it is, in the same way a hotrod is customizable. You can tune the engine, try different tires and even change the chrome, but you can't take it off-road. This game is a hotrod. It is built to explore dungeons. As soon it moves away from puzzle-solving and exploration, the experience starts to fray. There are precious few levers for the players to pull once their out of their element. Heaven forfend we get into an in-character argument at the table, the game is utterly silent on that resolution. Might as well knife fight...

My point is that while the original designers may have wanted an inclusive and expansive design, their best rules focused on underground exploration and stealing treasure. Moldvay brushes away the caked up sand like an archeologist and shows the true beauty of the artifact. Or, more accurately, Moldvay does a fine job editing the rules down to their core game and evoking the brilliance of the original design...

I understand that the designers may have thought their game could do anything. I understand they may have wanted to bend it to a variety of circumstances, but in truth their design had narrow application. It does most things poorly, and a few things exceedingly well—and it odd though it may seem, it's not for the designers to say. You can say your game is about friendship, but if most of the rules are about fighting, then the game is about fighting.

[CharonsHelper]

E: and as I noted earlier, I think my snark level regarding D&D would be much lower if the publishers and many of the fans would not, had not tried over multiple decades, to present D&D as "THE" fantasy RPG system, and instead had been honest about how it's intimately tied to a very particular sort of setting.

The two aren't mutually exclusive. As the market leader it is inherently the default choice, and in some peoples' minds it is almost synonymous with fantasy RPGs in the same way that sometimes people say "Kleenex" when they mean "tissue" despite Kleenex being a specific type/brand of tissue. (Not the best comparison - perhaps soda/Coke or motorcycle/Harley would be better. *shrug*)

And of course they're going to play up the fact that they're the market leader. That's what market leaders do. It's like Campbell's commercials that are basically about how if you like soup you should get Campbell's soup. It's the little guys who make the comparisons between themselves and the market leader. The market leader wants you to forget that the others exist.

[Quertus]

I'll quote a few excerpts from Luke Crane's playthrough of Moldvay D&D:
There are precious few levers for the players to pull once their out of their element. Heaven forfend we get into an in-character argument at the table, the game is utterly silent on that resolution.

First off, how much cred am I supposed to give someone who can't differentiate between "they're" and "their"? I mean, I'm usually typing on my cell phone, with crazy autocorrect, but I still usually get things breast.

Second, some look at that as a feature, not a bug. I do not appreciate having a GM try to dictate what my character thinks, feels, or says. If you encapsulate everything in the rules, eventually The Rules will look at all the wetware cluttering up the game space, ask what it needs those for, and toss them out.

[Lacuna Caster]

I'll also suggest that D&D isn't really tied to a particular type of setting, because it mostly isn't concerned with setting at all. It's concerned with dungeons, which may be found in almost in any setting.

First off, how much cred am I supposed to give someone who can't differentiate between "they're" and "their"? I mean, I'm usually typing on my cell phone, with crazy autocorrect, but I still usually get things breast.

Second, some look at that as a feature, not a bug. I do not appreciate having a GM try to dictate what my character thinks, feels, or says. If you encapsulate everything in the rules, eventually The Rules will look at all the wetware cluttering up the game space, ask what it needs those for, and toss them out.

Quertus, with respect, you don't know what you're talking about (and Mr. Crane does.) Having rules on the subject of thoughts/feelings/speech doesn't give the GM dictatorial control over said attributes any more than rules for combat means the GM gets to dictate combat tactics.

To be frank, it's a rather strange non-sequitur. What gave you this impression?

[Cluedrew]

I think Dungeons & Dragons does what it is supposed to do quite well. The thing is, it has been around long enough and adapted so many times that people forget what that actually is. Actually take a look at Tanarii's Gygax quote "A few brief words are necessary to insure that the reader has actually obtained a game form which he or she desires." D&D was not supposed to be a magical catch all fantasy role-playing game. But because of a combination of presence and marketing people seem to think it is. And speaking of marketing: take a look at where that quote is from. This is not an unbiased review (if Gygax could give one) but a sales pitch, playing up the game to the max. And even there is says if you are looking for a serious or realistic game, don't play this.