As anyone who has been on these boards for a while knows all to well, topics like the ones mentioned in the title are discussed to death all too often. My hope here is to come up with a new framework for discussing these issues that might lead to more productive discussions.
Issues like simulationism, realism, and verisimilitude can refer to two diffferent categories of topics: rules interpretation philosophy and game design methodology. (In the discussions below, I deliberately avoid many of the common terms like "simulationist," because they have very contentious meanings already. I will invent my own terms to emphasize the distinctions that I am trying to address.)
---
Rules Interpretation Philosophy
In this framework, I will identify three different methods of interpreting the rules: the "natural law" hypothesis, the "imperfect model" hypothesis, and the "gameplay convenience" hypothesis.
"Natural Law" Hypothesis
With the "natural law" hypothesis, the rules of the game are interpreted as defining the set of "natural laws" by which the world works. For example, if the hit point system makes it virtually impossible to kill someone in one hit, then that's just the way that human physiology in the game world works - it's different than real life. So you can't make an argument that "in situation X, I could sneak up and put an arrow through his brain and kill him" unless the rules allowed for some kind of special sneak attack like that. And that would affect other aspects of the game world - for example, assassins would have to use tactics other than one-hit kills. Another example that I read in another thread is a player who argued that his lightning attacks should do more damage if his target is standing in the water. Under the natural law interpretation, this wouldn't work: since there are rules for water as a terrain element and for being more or less vulnerable to different energy types, and they don't say anything about extra lightning damage from being in water, it doesn't work - lightning just works differently in the game than it does in real life. (This doesn't mean that it is impossible to perform any actions other than those explicitly stated in the rules. It just means that if there ARE rules governing an action, then those rules have the status of natural law.)
Advantages:
- It is not necessary to apply untested modifications to the rules for "realism" or "simulation" purposes.
- The resulting world is as self-consistent as the underlying rule system. For example, if you allowed players to bypass the hit point system to kill someone in a situation because it is "realistic" to do so, then you have a game world where "injuries work as stated by the hit point system, except when we arbitrarily decide that they shouldn't because of realism." And players can have very different views on what is "realistic", especially with reference to elements like lightning spells that have no real-life counterpart. With the natural law interpretation you don't have this problem.
Disadvantages:
- In many cases, the world created using this method can be very awkward, or at least very different from the kind of world that the players want to play in. For example, if the system allowed players to heal themselves very easily (like what 4e does with extended rest healing), then there would be no medical facilities in the game world (at least if there weren't anything else, like diseases, that need a facility to heal.)
"Imperfect Model" Hypothesis
With the imperfect model hypothesis, you accept that the rules are a way for us to model what is going on in the world, but that this model isn't perfect and sometimes needs to be adjusted In other words, we we apply the game rules as normal in all the situations in which they would normally apply, but if they produce a result that we think of as "unrealistic" or "doesn't make sense" then we can change it, either by changing the rules or making an ad hoc ruling. In the hit point example, we would use the hit point rules normally, both in situations involving PCs and also in NPC on NPC combat if necessary. But if there's a situation where we think it's obvious that the character would die, even though he doesn't take enough damage to die, then we just say he dies.
Advantages:
- Leads to a world that can be perceived by the players as "more realistic" or "more logical" than the natural law interpretation.
- Allows the rules to be in force most of the time, preserving consistency as much as possible.
Disadvantages:
- Requires that in addition to the game rules, that you specify what the "true" "natural laws" are that the game rules are to be interpreted as modeling. The answer to that is not "the natural laws of the real world," because the game rules would be an extremely poor model of the real world (for example, most fantasy RPGs include magic, while the real world does not). And if you start saying "okay, martial abilities and weapon-based combat have to follow realism-based restrictions, but spells and such don't", then you risk seriously unbalancing the game. If you say "the world follows real-world restrictions except for those specifically stated by the rules of the game," then that's the natural law interpretation described above, with all its possibly unintended consequences for what the world looks like. And even to the extent that you stick with realism, different players may have very different, or even outright incorrect, views on what is "realistic" (see http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/186860-realistic-combat.html, or watch a few episodes of MythBusters)
"Gameplay Convenience" Hypothesis
With the gameplay convenience hypothesis, the rules are intepreted simply as a convenience to aid gameplay and make it balanced, and have no necessary relationship to what the game world "actually" looks like. In the hit point example, you would simply say that only the hit points of the PCs and the monsters they are fighting need to be tracked, and that's just for purposes of combat resolution - all other creatures in the game don't even have a hit point value. An example of somethign that is almost always interpreted this way is the ability point-buy system - it is almost never interpreted as someone actually "allocating points" to their ability scores prior to being born.
Another analogy would be to the "opening crawls" in Star Wars movies. They are simply a convenience to get the audience up to speed on the plot - they aren't "actually there" as astronomical phenomena in the Star Wars universe.
Advantages:
- Rules do not interfere with storytelling. You can tell whatever story you want, in whatever rules system you want, in whatever world you want.
Disadvantages:
- Players can feel a tension between making rules-efficient choices and participating in the story, since the choices that characters make in the story/world are not necessarily supported by the rules. For example, if the world contains expensive "magic schools" that almost all wizards go to to train, but the game rules don't give any mechanical benefit to that training, then the players may feel like they are being forced to waste money.
- Plus many of the disadvantages listed under the "imperfect model" hypothesis.
------------------------------------
Game Design Methodology
I will identify two schools of game design methodology - "world-based" and "game-based."
World-Based Design
With world-based design, the designer starts by deciding on the kind of world he wants the rule system to simulate, and then tries as best as possible to design a rule system that simulates the "natural laws" of the world. For example, if you were making a Star Wars RPG using this method, you would look through Star Wars media, such as the films and books, to determine things like how effective different weapons are in different situations, how much training it takes to become a Jedi, what powers Jedi have and when they seem to use them, and then make a rule system based on that.
Advantages:
- With this system, a player can use the natural law hypothesis to interpret the rules, and get back a world that looks like the world that the designer used as input. Assuming that this is the world the player wants to play in, he can play in that world without any of the disadvantages associated with the imperfect model or gameplay convenience hypotheses.
Disadvantages:
- If the world itself is inconsistent, this process may be difficult. For example, if there are instances in the Star Wars media where Jedi refrain from using their powers even when they would clearly be useful, then it is necessary to come up with a game mechanic that explains why they can't use their powers (like some sort of "energy pool" that gets depleted) and that may have other consequences that are inconsistent with the world (like Jedi saying, "wait here a minute, I have to recharge my energy)
- It can be difficult to take a world and make it a fun game. For example, if the world has one-hit-kill attacks that are nearly impossible to avoid, then it may make the game frustrating for players if they keep getting killed by attacks they had no way of defending against. Or if certain types of characters are way more powerful than other types, it may be difficult to design a game where those players can adventure together in the same party and everyone has something meaningful to do.
Game-Based Design
With game-based design, the designer starts off with an idea of what he wants the gameplay experience to look like, and then designs rules to support that kind of experience. For example, if the gameplay experience is a "dungeon crawl," then the designer would put rules in about how to make dungeons, what monsters are found in dungeons, etc. and set aside aspects like how the world's economy works, where the monsters get all their treasure, etc.
Advantages:
- Provides a fun game "out of the box."
- By providing a "baseline" that is fun and balanced, it enables players to add whatever elements they want to flesh out the world and easily see the effects of those elements. For example, suppose the system has a set amount of treasure by level. If the players want to adjust the prices of items to fit with how they imagine the economy will work, they can do so, and they can easily see how that will affect the ability of players to get the gear they are "expected to have" at certain levels.
- Using the above method, players can adjust the game to suit whatever world they have in mind. This contrasts with the world-based design method, where the design is tied to a particular world and so would have to be redone more if the world is changed.
Disadvantages:
- Does not provide a fully fleshed-out world "out of the box", which is what some players might want.
- It is not always straightforward or even possible for players to put the world elements they want into the game. For example, if players want a world where offensive magic is limited but powerful, while martial abilities are weaker but repeatable and reliable, this would be hard to put into the 4e design paradigm where all classes have the same number of at-will, encounter, and daily powers.
----------------
In my next post, I'll talk about how these classifications can be used to illuminate a lot of the common debates how "realistic" or "simulationist" different versions of D+D and other RPGs are.
Issues like simulationism, realism, and verisimilitude can refer to two diffferent categories of topics: rules interpretation philosophy and game design methodology. (In the discussions below, I deliberately avoid many of the common terms like "simulationist," because they have very contentious meanings already. I will invent my own terms to emphasize the distinctions that I am trying to address.)
---
Rules Interpretation Philosophy
In this framework, I will identify three different methods of interpreting the rules: the "natural law" hypothesis, the "imperfect model" hypothesis, and the "gameplay convenience" hypothesis.
"Natural Law" Hypothesis
With the "natural law" hypothesis, the rules of the game are interpreted as defining the set of "natural laws" by which the world works. For example, if the hit point system makes it virtually impossible to kill someone in one hit, then that's just the way that human physiology in the game world works - it's different than real life. So you can't make an argument that "in situation X, I could sneak up and put an arrow through his brain and kill him" unless the rules allowed for some kind of special sneak attack like that. And that would affect other aspects of the game world - for example, assassins would have to use tactics other than one-hit kills. Another example that I read in another thread is a player who argued that his lightning attacks should do more damage if his target is standing in the water. Under the natural law interpretation, this wouldn't work: since there are rules for water as a terrain element and for being more or less vulnerable to different energy types, and they don't say anything about extra lightning damage from being in water, it doesn't work - lightning just works differently in the game than it does in real life. (This doesn't mean that it is impossible to perform any actions other than those explicitly stated in the rules. It just means that if there ARE rules governing an action, then those rules have the status of natural law.)
Advantages:
- It is not necessary to apply untested modifications to the rules for "realism" or "simulation" purposes.
- The resulting world is as self-consistent as the underlying rule system. For example, if you allowed players to bypass the hit point system to kill someone in a situation because it is "realistic" to do so, then you have a game world where "injuries work as stated by the hit point system, except when we arbitrarily decide that they shouldn't because of realism." And players can have very different views on what is "realistic", especially with reference to elements like lightning spells that have no real-life counterpart. With the natural law interpretation you don't have this problem.
Disadvantages:
- In many cases, the world created using this method can be very awkward, or at least very different from the kind of world that the players want to play in. For example, if the system allowed players to heal themselves very easily (like what 4e does with extended rest healing), then there would be no medical facilities in the game world (at least if there weren't anything else, like diseases, that need a facility to heal.)
"Imperfect Model" Hypothesis
With the imperfect model hypothesis, you accept that the rules are a way for us to model what is going on in the world, but that this model isn't perfect and sometimes needs to be adjusted In other words, we we apply the game rules as normal in all the situations in which they would normally apply, but if they produce a result that we think of as "unrealistic" or "doesn't make sense" then we can change it, either by changing the rules or making an ad hoc ruling. In the hit point example, we would use the hit point rules normally, both in situations involving PCs and also in NPC on NPC combat if necessary. But if there's a situation where we think it's obvious that the character would die, even though he doesn't take enough damage to die, then we just say he dies.
Advantages:
- Leads to a world that can be perceived by the players as "more realistic" or "more logical" than the natural law interpretation.
- Allows the rules to be in force most of the time, preserving consistency as much as possible.
Disadvantages:
- Requires that in addition to the game rules, that you specify what the "true" "natural laws" are that the game rules are to be interpreted as modeling. The answer to that is not "the natural laws of the real world," because the game rules would be an extremely poor model of the real world (for example, most fantasy RPGs include magic, while the real world does not). And if you start saying "okay, martial abilities and weapon-based combat have to follow realism-based restrictions, but spells and such don't", then you risk seriously unbalancing the game. If you say "the world follows real-world restrictions except for those specifically stated by the rules of the game," then that's the natural law interpretation described above, with all its possibly unintended consequences for what the world looks like. And even to the extent that you stick with realism, different players may have very different, or even outright incorrect, views on what is "realistic" (see http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/186860-realistic-combat.html, or watch a few episodes of MythBusters)
"Gameplay Convenience" Hypothesis
With the gameplay convenience hypothesis, the rules are intepreted simply as a convenience to aid gameplay and make it balanced, and have no necessary relationship to what the game world "actually" looks like. In the hit point example, you would simply say that only the hit points of the PCs and the monsters they are fighting need to be tracked, and that's just for purposes of combat resolution - all other creatures in the game don't even have a hit point value. An example of somethign that is almost always interpreted this way is the ability point-buy system - it is almost never interpreted as someone actually "allocating points" to their ability scores prior to being born.
Another analogy would be to the "opening crawls" in Star Wars movies. They are simply a convenience to get the audience up to speed on the plot - they aren't "actually there" as astronomical phenomena in the Star Wars universe.
Advantages:
- Rules do not interfere with storytelling. You can tell whatever story you want, in whatever rules system you want, in whatever world you want.
Disadvantages:
- Players can feel a tension between making rules-efficient choices and participating in the story, since the choices that characters make in the story/world are not necessarily supported by the rules. For example, if the world contains expensive "magic schools" that almost all wizards go to to train, but the game rules don't give any mechanical benefit to that training, then the players may feel like they are being forced to waste money.
- Plus many of the disadvantages listed under the "imperfect model" hypothesis.
------------------------------------
Game Design Methodology
I will identify two schools of game design methodology - "world-based" and "game-based."
World-Based Design
With world-based design, the designer starts by deciding on the kind of world he wants the rule system to simulate, and then tries as best as possible to design a rule system that simulates the "natural laws" of the world. For example, if you were making a Star Wars RPG using this method, you would look through Star Wars media, such as the films and books, to determine things like how effective different weapons are in different situations, how much training it takes to become a Jedi, what powers Jedi have and when they seem to use them, and then make a rule system based on that.
Advantages:
- With this system, a player can use the natural law hypothesis to interpret the rules, and get back a world that looks like the world that the designer used as input. Assuming that this is the world the player wants to play in, he can play in that world without any of the disadvantages associated with the imperfect model or gameplay convenience hypotheses.
Disadvantages:
- If the world itself is inconsistent, this process may be difficult. For example, if there are instances in the Star Wars media where Jedi refrain from using their powers even when they would clearly be useful, then it is necessary to come up with a game mechanic that explains why they can't use their powers (like some sort of "energy pool" that gets depleted) and that may have other consequences that are inconsistent with the world (like Jedi saying, "wait here a minute, I have to recharge my energy)
- It can be difficult to take a world and make it a fun game. For example, if the world has one-hit-kill attacks that are nearly impossible to avoid, then it may make the game frustrating for players if they keep getting killed by attacks they had no way of defending against. Or if certain types of characters are way more powerful than other types, it may be difficult to design a game where those players can adventure together in the same party and everyone has something meaningful to do.
Game-Based Design
With game-based design, the designer starts off with an idea of what he wants the gameplay experience to look like, and then designs rules to support that kind of experience. For example, if the gameplay experience is a "dungeon crawl," then the designer would put rules in about how to make dungeons, what monsters are found in dungeons, etc. and set aside aspects like how the world's economy works, where the monsters get all their treasure, etc.
Advantages:
- Provides a fun game "out of the box."
- By providing a "baseline" that is fun and balanced, it enables players to add whatever elements they want to flesh out the world and easily see the effects of those elements. For example, suppose the system has a set amount of treasure by level. If the players want to adjust the prices of items to fit with how they imagine the economy will work, they can do so, and they can easily see how that will affect the ability of players to get the gear they are "expected to have" at certain levels.
- Using the above method, players can adjust the game to suit whatever world they have in mind. This contrasts with the world-based design method, where the design is tied to a particular world and so would have to be redone more if the world is changed.
Disadvantages:
- Does not provide a fully fleshed-out world "out of the box", which is what some players might want.
- It is not always straightforward or even possible for players to put the world elements they want into the game. For example, if players want a world where offensive magic is limited but powerful, while martial abilities are weaker but repeatable and reliable, this would be hard to put into the 4e design paradigm where all classes have the same number of at-will, encounter, and daily powers.
----------------
In my next post, I'll talk about how these classifications can be used to illuminate a lot of the common debates how "realistic" or "simulationist" different versions of D+D and other RPGs are.
