Let's talk about what we enjoy in crunchy, simulationist RPGs

[Max_Killjoy]

Since no system printed meets your standard, that means that your definitions are simply not useful for discussion. Given how wildly popular 3E was, and PF still is, it should be obvious that most players have a standard wildly different from yours (and that by most players' standards, 3E/PF is one of the most simulationist games on the market).

OK, explain exactly how it is you think 3e/PF is "simulationist".

[MrSandman]

Since no system printed meets your standard, that means that your definitions are simply not useful for discussion. Given how wildly popular 3E was, and PF still is, it should be obvious that most players have a standard wildly different from yours (and that by most players' standards, 3E/PF is one of the most simulationist games on the market).

D&D being popular doesn't mean it's simulationist. It just means it's popular. Unless, of course, you can back your claim that most players find it one of the most simulationist games on the market with some actual data.

Personally, even when D&D was the only thing I played, I never found it particularly simulationist.

[kyoryu]

No actual RPG is completely not!sim, or completely not!gam, or completely not!nar (although there are actual RPGs that are completely not!nar if one uses the very narrow and peculiar pseudo-definition of "narrative" that RE ended up with). To label a game like D&D simulationist in any meaningful way, it would have to be more sim than anything else, and that never has been the case throughout any of the editions.

Really a label like that is only useful understood as “when there is a conflict, which priority wins?”

Since no system printed meets your standard, that means that your definitions are simply not useful for discussion. Given how wildly popular 3E was, and PF still is, it should be obvious that most players have a standard wildly different from yours (and that by most players' standards, 3E/PF is one of the most simulationist games on the market).

He didn’t say no system, he said no d20 system. Which I’d agree with.

If “most popular” (has 5e eclipsed it?) means “most simulationist” then shouldn’t “most popular” mean “most narrative” and “most gamist” as well?

Which seems a bit silly.

That might be true for you, but it is certainly not true for

What game do you find sumulationist then? BRP certainly developed from simulationist roots in the Perrin Conventions, which were Steve’s attempts to reconcile D&D with his SCA experiences.

[Psyren]

First, it's fidelity to or synchronicity with the fiction-layer, real-world-like or not -- "the real world" just makes for a useful baseline or ballpark when sans other information about the setting. That is, the results of whatever rule or system need to feel like the thing they're supposed to be representing, and produce a generally similar range and distribution of outcomes as one would expect given the facts at the time within the fiction layer. If the system routinely produces "wonky" results, creating a "wait, what?" reaction in players, then it has failed in whatever attempt it was making to be "simmy".

Sure, I can agree with that - if a given game is set on an alien planet with low gravity for example, you could say there's no such thing as falling damage and still have it be a decently crunchy simulation. So it doesn't have to be trying to model the real world.

Where I think we're not quite aligned is on what provokes a "wait, what?" reaction, as per below:

Second, there are degrees of success, it's not as if the entire system needs to be a physics simulator, or be intensely crunchy and detailed.

Third, correct, no d20 system -- at least of those I've ever picked up and read, or heard described, or actually played -- is going to pass muster as "simulationist" by that standard, unless one creates the setting from scratch to match the what the system does. None of the quasi-medieval melange settings that are typical to D&D count as the sort of world for which D&D would be even marginally "simmy".

It doesn't just try and fail, it fails so spectacularly at being a simmy system for those quasi-medieval melange settings that either it wasn't ever trying in the first place, or something went horribly wrong.

On one hand you say that degrees of success do matter, but then on the other you say that D&D and other d20 systems don't have even marginal success as simulations. Which takes me right back to my original judgement, that your bar for such success/degrees of success seems to be extremely high. Now, that isn't a problem, it's your bar after all... but I then have to question its usefulness to anyone who isn't you.

D&D being popular doesn't mean it's simulationist. It just means it's popular. Unless, of course, you can back your claim that most players find it one of the most simulationist games on the market with some actual data.

I don't think it's the most simulationist by any stretch. But I do think it manages to hit the sweet spot between "simulationist enough to be immersive" while also "abstract enough to not let minutiae interfere with gameplay." That spot is pretty subjective, but Kurald's point appears to be that enough people seem to agree that its legacy (particularly 3e/PF) has continued to endure to this day.

I mean, for a true simulation I could go whole-hog and get some tabletop equivalent of Manual Samuel, where you take penalties for not breathing or blinking or something. That would certainly be a higher-fidelity simulation, but I doubt it would be a better game.

[Devils_Advocate]

D&D is heavily faux simulationist.

Take melee attack accuracy, for example. I once saw the way that this works humorously described as "I'm SO STRONG, I can cut a fly in half!" Of course, the reason for this is that strength does help attack accuracy to a degree, since it's possible not to be strong enough to wield a weapon effectively. And more simulationist systems handle that by giving weapons Strength ratings and imposing penalties on wielders with insufficient Strength. D&D instead has weapon proficiencies, which tend to put heavier weapons in the hands of stronger characters, because characters with higher Strength tend to have "character classes" that grant proficiency with those weapons. But this is done via treating the use of an extra large sword as a different skill requiring different training (rather than simply greater strength) than the use of a just large sword. Also, a dude can be so strong he can cut a fly in half.

Speaking of accurate attacks, I remember once seeing the question "Shouldn't a Sneak Attack be a critical hit?" Which seems like a valid question, since a Rogue's Sneak Attack seems like it's supposed to involve hitting someone pretty critically. But critical hits themselves aren't necessarily all that critical if it's possible to roll lower damage on a crit than on a non-crit. Which... doesn't really seem to make sense if a critical hit is, conceptually, supposed to be a better hit. How is it better, if it's doing less damage? And if it's not, what is it supposed to represent...? And why do you jump from rolling damage normally to rolling double damage at a particular cutoff point, with nothing in between?

Contrast to Exalted, 2nd Edition (the only one I'm really familiar with; not sure how different it is from the other editions in this regard). That system just... uses the idea that better rolls represent better attacks. So rolling higher on your attack roll just lets you roll proportionately more damage because you're hitting the peoples more gooder. And if you attack before someone can react, that character's dodge or parry isn't subtracted from your attack, allowing you to strike for massive damage. Doing more damage with better-aimed strikes is just part of how combat works, so there's no need for extra rules that treat this as an exceptional case.

(Mind you, this is terribly unbalanced, with high Dexterity and surprise being infamously overpowered. Which is a point to bear in mind: A system can easily provide a variety of mechanically distinct options without those options being anywhere near equally viable. And so far as simulation is concerned... realism, setting conceits, and so forth may demand that some options are far more useful than others.)

D&D achieves the illusion of simulation through a great big pile of kludges, each designed to make something behave more appropriately. To a certain extent, these patches cover so much of what one is likely to deal with that unpatched interactions do represent "corner cases". But this fidelity to what the mechanics are supposed to represent doesn't emerge organically from the system. In a genuine simulation, the relations and interactions between representations mirror the relations and interactions between the represented. D&D contrives roughly appropriate outputs for various cases, but will never genuinely simulate. Because if it weren't the same basic familiar core system plus a whole bunch of kludges, it wouldn't be D&D! Dungeons & Dragons is wedded to certain design decisions that aren't particularly good for anything other than "being D&D", because those elements are parts of its identity.

Anyway, semantics aside, the underlined sentence above is something that I like about simulationist systems, regardless of whether other systems may also be called "simulationist". Like, if X is supposed to represent 1, Y, is supposed to represent 2, and Z is supposed to represent 3, I want the system to have X + Y = Z, and I don't want it to do that by having a specific special rule that says "X + Y = Z". Dig what I'm sayin'?

[Kurald Galain]

D&D achieves the illusion of simulation through a great big pile of kludges, each designed to make something behave more appropriately. To a certain extent, these patches cover so much of what one is likely to deal with that unpatched interactions do represent "corner cases". But this fidelity to what the mechanics are supposed to represent doesn't emerge organically from the system.

A system that fakes simulation so well that the average player is unable to tell the difference, is ipso facto simulationist.

[kyoryu]

A system that fakes simulation so well that the average player is unable to tell the difference, is ipso facto simulationist.

Except D&D doesn't.

See: Moderate level fighters being able to fall down cliffs with -zero fear- of anything resembling death.

Look at all the hp threads where half the people can only come to the conclusion that HP is literally meat, and that high level characters are basically nonhumans and practically gods because that's the only way to reconcile all the ways hp works.

If your simulation only makes sense if you presume that the beings being simulated are essentially semi-divine, then that is not a good simulation. The only thing that D&D (specifically 3.x/PF) simulates reasonably well is D&D-World.

[LibraryOgre]

Anyone else remember drowning someone to heal them?

[Dimers]

Sure I do! And I also remember that there's no mechanical way to ever stop drowning.

[Kurald Galain]

Except D&D doesn't.

It does to the average player. Not the average user of a forum that spent fifteen years overanalyzing and nitpicking the game

[Willie the Duck]

Anyone else remember drowning someone to heal them?

Yes, but I don't know how much I consider it precedence for anything. It's a linguistic glitch. The writer did not think about the situation where someone started drowning with hit point totals below zero, silly them. Makes a great amusing anecdote, to be sure.

[Mr Beer]

It does to the average player. Not the average user of a forum that spent fifteen years overanalyzing and nitpicking the game

I don't believe that is true, at least for adult players.

[kyoryu]

It does to the average player. Not the average user of a forum that spent fifteen years overanalyzing and nitpicking the game

Nah. The obvious illogicalness of the game was obvious when I was like 12, and was part of what drove me to GURPS. And that was 1e, so it was the big stuff, not the little weirdo edge cases like drown-healing.

I care a lot less about that stuff nowadays, to be honest. While D&D isn't my favorite game, I don't actively dislike it (except maybe 3.x) and any reasons for it not being a favorite have nothing to do with simulationism.

I mean, I don't think anyone here is arguing D&D is a bad game. Just that it's not a very good simulationist game.

One could even argue that that's one of the strengths of D&D - by not being a very strong "simulationist" or "narrative" or "gamist" game it opens itself to being enjoyed by a wider audience.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Nah. The obvious illogicalness of the game was obvious when I was like 12, and was part of what drove me to GURPS. And that was 1e, so it was the big stuff, not the little weirdo edge cases like drown-healing.

[...]

One could even argue that that's one of the strengths of D&D - by not being a very strong "simulationist" or "narrative" or "gamist" game it opens itself to being enjoyed by a wider audience.

It's obvious to my brand new (to TTRPGs, to RPGs, and to D&D) teenage players, basically from the start. D&D doesn't attempt to be anything other than a fun way to be able to pretend to be heroes doing heroic things. Or not. For me, that's a large part of the draw. It's not anything-ist--it's free from pretensions to following any theory or school of thought. It's absurd in parts, serious in parts, and a giant amalgam of "hey, that seems cool, let's do it!" And always has been. And, for me, that's the charm.

Is it simulationist? Nope. Not at all. And 4e and 5e make that explicit and intentional (where the others flailed around in their own amusing ways). And they're better for being explicit. I prefer games that
a) state what they're trying to do
b) do it well.

If you can't get beyond a half-donkey simulation, don't even try. Just be a good game and none of the rest really matters. To me, at least.

[kyoryu]

And to be clear, again, saying that D&D is not a strong simulationist game is not the same as saying it’s a bad game.

Hell, I’ve gravitated to a bunch of games that are even less simulationist than D&D. It’s not a criticism.

[Satinavian]

What game do you find sumulationist then? BRP certainly developed from simulationist roots in the Perrin Conventions, which were Steve’s attempts to reconcile D&D with his SCA experiences.

I have a problem with the basic resolution system for skills, which is a percentage chance. It is basically impossible to have difficulties where a professional will most likely (90%+) succeed and an amateur will most likely fail and similar things. It is basically impossible to tweak difficulties and skills in a way that skill tests would give results you would expec.

Yes, the system cops out with "only rolling under stress" and similar stuff but that only means you can't use your skills to model routine tasks and skill differences in not stressfull situations.

The authors knew very well that their system would give loads of counterintuitive results. And their solution is "well, don't use our mechnics if the outcome is rubbish and just narrate a success (or failure)".
The skill systen is at the very core of BRP. And you can't really use it for simulation.

I also never said that BRP was not simulationist. That seems to be the main design philosophy. I instead said it was not particularly good at simulation. That many other, more modern games (not even that modern games) just do it better. For example TDE4 and TDE5 are both more geared towards simulation both in design and result. SIFRP is rather rules light and gets a better simulation without even wanting to be simulationist. I would argue that most Shadowrun versions are better for simulation but that would be a very close call. Then there are games like GURPS which can be better at simulation - if one chooses the right optional rules. And games that have a very narrow fokus but simulate that one quite well while failing everywhere else (various Mechwarrior RPGs, Ars Magica)

I played a couple of BRP games. But it never worked for me. Because the simulation aspect was inferior to those of other games i was familiar with and the games had not much to make up for it.

[Max_Killjoy]

I have a problem with the basic resolution system for skills, which is a percentage chance. It is basically impossible to have difficulties where a professional will most likely (90%+) succeed and an amateur will most likely fail and similar things. It is basically impossible to tweak difficulties and skills in a way that skill tests would give results you would expec.

Yes, the system cops out with "only rolling under stress" and similar stuff but that only means you can't use your skills to model routine tasks and skill differences in not stressfull situations.

For better or worse, "only roll under stress, never roll otherwise" and "the system only needs to deal with things that are in doubt, not the entire span of the possible" and similar have become sacred cows for a large swath of the RPG industry and gamers.

Personally, I want a system that can tell me about the characters more broadly, not just within a narrow range of special circumstances. I should be able to put any character on a character sheet in full detail and have the system represent or map their abilities and limitations -- not just PCs. I don't care if the lab rat professor of magic or the court jester or the sheltered prince or the limping shopkeeper are not "appropriate" PC for most campaigns or the sorts of things that the designers foresaw PCs getting up to; the system should still be able to encompass that character as a "person" in the "world" of the game if the GM determines a need to completely write them up.

[Pleh]

I skimmed the glut of simulationist arguments. Seems like a train of thought that's sitting in the mud, spinning wheels to dig itself in deeper without going anywhere.

Crunch isn't that valuable to me, because I can readily improvise and freehand it with Roleplaying. To some extent, I value the ability to do so.

But for the moments I've appreciated the crunch of a game, it's been where the crumch was able to evaluate an outcome that I was either on the fence about or drawing a blank on, and do so in a manner that is convincing and informs my understanding of the system.

Basically, I value crunch that is both rigorously, and simply designed. Rigor is less valuable if I can't understand it or it requires too much effort to understand. Simplicity is less valuable when oversimplifications lead to uninspiringly nonsensical conclusions

(like how SWSE originally had collision rule that had both colliding objects/creatures taking damage based on the size of the larger object/creature, meaning you could launch an Ewok at the Death Star to cause the Death Star to take damage as if it had collided with another Death Star... it was errata'd).

Basically, I view rule crunch like power tools. If they are too finnicky and require me to literally rennovate my work space to accomodate them, it might not matter how powerful or useful they are. Likewise, if they are too cheap and have little power to perform various tasks or break easily, I'm probably not using it to build anything I care deeply about.

[jjordan]

I have a problem with the basic resolution system for skills, which is a percentage chance. It is basically impossible to have difficulties where a professional will most likely (90%+) succeed and an amateur will most likely fail and similar things. It is basically impossible to tweak difficulties and skills in a way that skill tests would give results you would expect.

It's not impossible. Building on the works of others you can fairly simply modify the existing system, behind the scenes, by adding on a few rules/concepts to tweak the DC target.

Skill Level	DC Multiplier	Note
Unskilled	x 3	No knowledge of this skill.
Skilled	x 2	Casual acquaintance with the skill. Book learning
Proficient	x 1	Education and practice
Expert	x 0.5	High degree of knowledge and skill practiced thousands of times.
Master	x 0.25	You wrote the book on this subject. You dream about this skill.

This provides you with a DC that slides according to the level of proficiency someone has at a particular skill. You might also allow accumulative DC attempts. If someone is trying to accomplish a task with a DC of 200, for example, there's no way they are going to accomplish this first try. You can allow them try multiple times and add their roll to their cumulative attempt to accomplish this task. The time required for each attempt is multiplied by attempt number. First attempt the time is multiplied by one. Second attempt the time required is multiplied by two. And so on. Incredibly difficult tasks effectively become impossible for people without the appropriate skills. If someone put in all the time needed to accomplish this task I'd actually bump up their skill level once they successfully completed it.

Sorry for the tangent.

[Satinavian]

It's not impossible. Building on the works of others you can fairly simply modify the existing system, behind the scenes, by adding on a few rules/concepts to tweak the DC target.

If you change it enough that system works completely differently, it can give the results of a better skill system, yes.

Not that your example is that good. Now you have skill DCs and skill levels as distinct things that more or less mean the same. And you have weird jumps in the probability distributions in a very detailed system. And you made the stuff way more complicated than it needs to be. You multitly the DC for skill level and you multiply it again for difficulty (which is tracked separately) before you do a D100.

Instead of trying to rescue the BRP system with such fixes, i would sooner take another resolution method, there are many.

[Psyren]

Except D&D doesn't.

See: Moderate level fighters being able to fall down cliffs with -zero fear- of anything resembling death.

Look at all the hp threads where half the people can only come to the conclusion that HP is literally meat, and that high level characters are basically nonhumans and practically gods because that's the only way to reconcile all the ways hp works.

If your simulation only makes sense if you presume that the beings being simulated are essentially semi-divine, then that is not a good simulation. The only thing that D&D (specifically 3.x/PF) simulates reasonably well is D&D-World.

Which is fine if that's your bar, but again, I find that to be an impossible standard for most TTRPGs (and certainly all the d20 ones) to be held to. D&D models so many things other games don't bother to try, like bleeding, starvation/thirst, exhaustion, suffocation, heatstroke, frostbite, gravity, light levels, states of awareness, hazardous surfaces, cover/concealment, to say nothing of more fantastic terrains, conditions or abilities. If none of that counts as a simulation, I can only hope you've found a game that does, and enough other people to play it with regularly.

[Satinavian]

Which is fine if that's your bar, but again, I find that to be an impossible standard for most TTRPGs (and certainly all the d20 ones) to be held to. D&D models so many things other games don't bother to try, like bleeding, starvation/thirst, exhaustion, suffocation, heatstroke, frostbite, gravity, light levels, states of awareness, hazardous surfaces, cover/concealment, to say nothing of more fantastic terrains, conditions or abilities. If none of that counts as a simulation, I can only hope you've found a game that does, and enough other people to play it with regularly.

Going back to my examples, TDE does model all of those too and more (with the exception of gravitation which does not vary relevantly in the covered settings). And still provides a better simulation for pretty much every aspect.

Actually most crunchy systems get the majority of that list done.

[Morty]

Dark Heresy 2E covers most of those as well, clunky as it is. And unlike D&D, starvation and thirst don't become non-issues with enough XP gain.

[LibraryOgre]

Hackmaster is pretty on point with things like that, too.

[Psyren]

Going back to my examples, TDE does model all of those too and more (with the exception of gravitation which does not vary relevantly in the covered settings). And still provides a better simulation for pretty much every aspect.

Actually most crunchy systems get the majority of that list done.

1) Define "better."
2) I never said other systems are not also simulations. A game can be a "worse simulation" (whatever that ultimately means) and still be a simulation.

And again, it's the attempt that matters most to me, the crunch itself can be easily tweaked if I feel it needs it - if I want starvation or a fall to be more lethal for example, I can do that. I paid the designers for the framework, adjusting that framework is then something I can easily do on my own.

Dark Heresy 2E covers most of those as well, clunky as it is. And unlike D&D, starvation and thirst don't become non-issues with enough XP gain.

You call that a bug, but I call that a feature. D&D characters become what we would consider superhuman at high levels, and given the challenges they have to face, that's expected. If you can't cross a regular desert/tundra at high levels, what hope would you have to make it across somewhere like Abaddon or Stygia?

[Segev]

Given the level of simulation Max_Killjoy seems to be demanding, I'm curious what systems he thinks ARE simulationist. Is GURPS the only one? Does GURPS even manage it? I mean, I doubt he thinks any tabletop wargame is simulationist by the level of abstraction he refuses to tolerate.

That said, I argue that it's a question of what you're trying to simulate. Are you trying to simulate the physics down to the biological effects of a blunt object hitting at this precise muscle group, or a piercing tear through these organs? Are you trying to simulate just whether each individual maneuver "hits" and "does damage" to a "hit zone" or the whole body?

I think, for a useful discussion of "what we enjoy in crunchy...RPGs," we need to accept that the crunch is going to be abstracted to some degree, and not reject it if it's not "simulationist" if we're going to define "simulationist" too finely.

I mean, I agree with Max's earlier comment about liking having speed be represented somewhat differently than skill in terms of what it enables. Crunchy systems give more knobs to turn to more precisely describe options in the mechanics. I love that D&D 3e, for instance, has a difference in mechanics between psionics and spellcasting; that psychic magic in PF is just more spellcasting is irksome to me.

[Satinavian]

1) Define "better."

Actually giving results that match reality when real world stuff is simulated. Or being at least consistent in itself and with the setting for fantastical stuff.

You know, actually simulating these things, not just having rules for it.

D&D is not good at simulation but doesn't try to be one particularly hard either.

If you think otherwise you probably have not tried many other very crunchy RPGs.

[Max_Killjoy]

1) Define "better."
2) I never said other systems are not also simulations. A game can be a "worse simulation" (whatever that ultimately means) and still be a simulation.

And again, it's the attempt that matters most to me, the crunch itself can be easily tweaked if I feel it needs it - if I want starvation or a fall to be more lethal for example, I can do that. I paid the designers for the framework, adjusting that framework is then something I can easily do on my own.

At what point is a system so bad at being "simulationist" for anything at all, let alone a particular setting or type of setting, that it just doesn't count as "simulationist"?

[Willie the Duck]

At what point is a system so bad at being "simulationist" for anything at all, let alone a particular setting or type of setting, that it just doesn't count as "simulationist"?

Honestly, bearing a 'simulationist' (/'narrativist'/'gamist') flag is fairly meaningless. I'd almost say that none of them mean anything except on a relative scale -- i.e. 'X is more simulationist than Y (at least with regards to qualities which are important to me or my group),' or 'A is not simulationist enough for my needs, while B is (but....).'

We're back to the point they were bitd of the Forge where these categorizations of game qualities have taken on importance in and of themselves, and they are just ways of carving up an analysis.

[kyoryu]

Which is fine if that's your bar,

Personally, no, but it’s a reasonable target for a simulationist system.

but again, I find that to be an impossible standard for most TTRPGs

Not really, for simulationist systems. But not all systems are or should be simulationist. “Simulationist” is not a synonym for “good”.

(and certainly all the d20 ones) to be held to.

Pretty much. It’s not a standard d20 really goes for. It prioritizes certain types of heroic action.

D&D models so many things other games don't bother to try, like bleeding, starvation/thirst, exhaustion, suffocation, heatstroke, frostbite, gravity, light levels, states of awareness, hazardous surfaces, cover/concealment, to say nothing of more fantastic terrains, conditions or abilities.

Comprehensiveness if rules is less important for a simulationist system, I think, than fidelity.

If your drowning rule is “someone immersed in water loses one hit point per hour, and if they run out of hp they die” and a typical character has 100hp, then that is not simulationist.

Saying D&D isn’t simulationist isn’t a criticism any more than saying that a blue car isn’t a black one is. It’s an attribute of the system that some people may look for or not, not a statement of quality.

If none of that counts as a simulation, I can only hope you've found a game that does, and enough other people to play it with regularly.

I’ve found a number of games more simulationist than D&D. I don’t really play many of them any more. I’m actually playing more non-simulationist games these days (though truth be told many of them have more “realistic” results than D&D.

I don’t play many hardcore simulationist systems these days.

Me not playing D&D isn’t because it’s not simulationist.

I play more “narrative” games than anything, but will play GURPS, Savage Worlds, D&D, or pretty much anything depending on the situation.

Not being simulationist isn’t a criticism, any more than saying a Ferrari is bad at off-roading is a criticism of a Ferrari