Recent content by Lanefan

To make it work, certain attacks need to be able to bypass hit points and go direct to some other effect. Example: slitting the throat of a defenseless humanoid-ish target with a sharp implement should kill it outright even if the target's otherwise at full hit points, regardless of how many...

I'm tempted to say that a simulation mechanic is more of an underlying feature of the setting independent of whatever abstractions might be in use, while an abstraction is a rules-based attempt to model something in the fiction that the players can't do at the table (physical combat being the...

This... ...and this... ...only serve to tell me that the "Fantasy Combat" system being used is in serious need of repair.

Various people upthread have done a fine job of defining simulation in the same (or better!) terms that I'd use, which means I don't have to type it all out. :) In short (yeah, right!) and in summary, then, simulation to me represents a collection of elements mostly around relatability: ---...

I'd put it more that the GM found a major flaw in the simulation and corrected it on the spot. "On the spot", however, isn't exactly the best time to be making corrections to how the simulation works. Ideally, big things like this get caught and fixed well ahead of time.

TSR tried putting out various D&D-adjacent pieces - boardgames, some memorabilia, etc., not sure about mugs - in the 80s and 90s and if memory serves they collectively went over like a bunch of lead balloons. Hardly surprising that WotC doesn't want to go the same route.

To expand on this a bit - and to (gasp!) bring it back toward the thread topic - setting lore is far more likely to matter to the players in a simulationist type of game than it would in a gamist type of game, because the lore is an integral part of the world they're trying to simulate.

Yeah, that's the difference in how we view this. You roll the dice to change the situation. I roll the dice to see if the situation changes. That, and if "nothing happens" can be a legitiamte result then I can also throw in dummy rolls, in order to disguise rolls that matter and not give away...

Modern D&D? No. Some versions of TSR D&D could certainly be used for simulation without too much tweaking, and 3e in its hamfisted way tried its best. 4e went full-on gamist, and 5e kept some of that. You're right in that in any version the higher the PC levels get, the worse things become...

The PCs search the west wall for a secret door. On success the DM narrates they find a secret door, and where it is, and maybe some details about it. On failure the DM narrates nothing happens.

Because it's uncertain whether the Thief can open the door. He only has a 60% chance, remember? Oh, and I should point out there's no such thing as re-rolls. Your roll represents the best you can do in however long you have, as do your initial odds. Here it's because the players don't know...

You misread me. The situation doesn't have to change on both results but it does have to change on one, where "nothing happens" can be the other. What's being promoted is that the situation always has to change on any result, and I think that's a misreading of what 5e is trying to say with...

In a manner of speaking, I suppose. However, what I keep hearing here is that any situation where after a roll the DM narrates "nothing happens" is (or has somehow become) verboten; and I call BS on that.

I second the motion. All in favour?

Yes there is, if there's a meaningful consequence for success.