This exchange right here? This is why I don't believe in simulationism, gamism, or narrativism. Nobody can agree on what the terms mean because they DON'T. MEAN. ANYTHING. Each one is a collection of unrelated ideas that Ron Edwards dumped in a bucket. There is no core meaning to any of the three and I wish the RPG community would quit pretending there is.
Why use D&D for a Simulationist style Game?
Hussar
Legend
To me, a simulation is a set of mechanics that model an event. The model tells you something about how that event occurred. We've sometimes drifted into Ron Edwards territory, but, I've been pretty clear about what I'm talking about.
This is why I don't buy D&D as a simulationist game. The mechanics of D&D don't actually tell you very much about what's happening in the game world, if they tell you anything at all. To rehash a current discussion, the combat mechanics only tell you whether an opponent is alive or dead. They don't tell you anything about how you changed from one state to the other.
To me, that's not modelling anything. The argument has been raised that this is a granularity issue. That I'm complaining about having more or less information based on which model we use. To me, that's not the issue. The issue is between having any information and no information at all.
Hussar
Legend
To me, the basis of my issue in the OP was this bit:
Bold mine.
See, that right there is my issue. The mechanics in D&d don't actually answer questions about the fiction in many, many cases. That's because those mechanics aren't really modelling anything. They're purely game constructions for playing a game, not for making statements about the fictional world. The reason Batman can't throw more than 3 batarangs per day is because the game says so. End of story. You can narrate it however you like, but, that's up to you.
It's no different than most of D&D's mechanics. As soon as you start asking questions like why and how, the models completely fall apart or fail to answer the questions at all. If they cannot answer these questions, then they aren't models for simulating anything. They are game constructs. Why do knights move the way they do? Because the rules say so and it makes for a better game to have a jumping piece. Why can Batman only throw three batarangs? Because the rules say so and it makes for a better game.
And that's the answer to virtually all of D&D's rules. Because the rules say so and it makes of a better game.
Dasuul said:
Bold mine.
See, that right there is my issue. The mechanics in D&d don't actually answer questions about the fiction in many, many cases. That's because those mechanics aren't really modelling anything. They're purely game constructions for playing a game, not for making statements about the fictional world. The reason Batman can't throw more than 3 batarangs per day is because the game says so. End of story. You can narrate it however you like, but, that's up to you.
It's no different than most of D&D's mechanics. As soon as you start asking questions like why and how, the models completely fall apart or fail to answer the questions at all. If they cannot answer these questions, then they aren't models for simulating anything. They are game constructs. Why do knights move the way they do? Because the rules say so and it makes for a better game to have a jumping piece. Why can Batman only throw three batarangs? Because the rules say so and it makes for a better game.
And that's the answer to virtually all of D&D's rules. Because the rules say so and it makes of a better game.
Sword of Spirit
Legend
Remembering that I'm only jumping in without having read this particular thread from the beginning...
My usage of the terms doesn't necessarily correspond to Mr. Edwards' usage, and in some cases it intentionally differs. I read his stuff and it was thought provoking, and then I went from there where my own mind took me. So the real issue is merely, "what do you mean when you use those terms?"
Ron Edwards had a good idea. He had some insights. He got the ball rolling, and then he got out of the way. The terms do mean different things to different people, because they have escaped into the wild and we are allowed to use or abuse (hopefully not the latter) the ideas as we wish, just like other theories or philosophies. I don't see how there is any more reason to shun using these poorly defined terms than there is regarding any other poorly defined terms. And if we stop using poorly defined terms, we'll have to stop communicating with anything other than mathematics and formal analytical logic. Maybe I can learn to speak in binary.
The point is that we have to use words to communicate, and these are a good choice for a starting point. Like philosophical jargon, they are also useful in theorizing once the immediate group of participants can define how they are using them.
For me, I apply the terms to an RPG first as an overall impression of the game rather than to specifics manifestations. The same term can apply differently in entirely different areas of the game.
For example, simulationism (I prefer the term "Explorationism") can manifest in a desire to have action resolution systems emulate physics in some manner, or it can manifest as a desire to represent an explorable world that moves along on its own without PC intervention, or it can refer to a rough sense of believability. A game can be simulationist in one way and not in another, as I said.
Narrativism can manifest as rules systems that produce results consistent with dramatic narratives rather than consistent with physics or probability, or it can manifest as giving the GM encouragement to design everything around the story, ignore the rest of the setting if it isn't relevent, and fudge things as needed, or it can manifest as a shared authorial control, perhaps even breaking down the concept of players and GMs.
Gamism is represented by anything that defines the play experience by a quantifiable challenge. It can manifest in a scene by scene narratively structured story where the goal is for the players to overcome a challenge in each scene via in-character role-playing, allowing them to advance to the next scene. It can manifest in the character creation minigame, when the goal is to make an effective character with the resources allotted. It can manifest in a system designed with a high degree of balance between characters, or with a strong set of resources for determining the precise degree of challenge presented, or which rewards player tactics over character tactics, or any number of manifestations.
So I'm primarily looking at an "overall picture," rather than the particulars, and I freely admit that anyone can validly disagree with my categorization of the editions of D&D based on giving more or less weight to particular elements. I do think I have something of value to add to understanding, and I'm not attempting to be obscure or unclear here.
Again, no comment on OD&D.
My experience with BECMI was Red Box, Rules Cyclopedia and Wrath of the Immortals. While I agree it it primarily gamist, I can't call it hard gamist. There is too much world simulation in there that has nothing to do with the game, arbitrary restrictions that make some options purely better than others for simulation considerations more than game consideration, and undefined areas that the DM needs to make rulings concerning, for me to count it as hard gamism. That said, I don't think there are many RPGs that qualify as hard gamist. Most role-playing games hardly qualify as games.
On AD&D...sure, you could say that Gygaxian-style* AD&D is gamist in the sense of a player vs. DM competition to see whose characters can survive falls into gamism. But there are a lot of elements that are much more simulationist than gamist. Take weapon and armor lists. They are designed to emulate (sometimes flawed) impressions of historical armaments, rather than to provide a variety of meaningful yet equivalent options. That's why there are so many obviously sub-optimal choices. The Wilderness Survival Guide (and her subterranean brother) has the right to claim bragging rights for simulationism. Random wilderness encounter tables are very much world simulationism (though they might be used in some situations as gamist tools).
I agree that Dragonlance made a change, throwing in more narrativist high fantasy sentiment.
See above.
It bears mention that I personally put a lot of weight on world simulation in my estimations--probably much more so than many others--and I don't consider physics emulation at all necessary for simulationism, as long as results are within believable bounds and aren't overridden by gamist or narrativist goals.
Based on the overall impression my experience has given me of the various editions, I have to stand by my assessments.
* Dungeons designed to kill the players make great one-shot games, though not really my style for long term campaigns.
My usage of the terms doesn't necessarily correspond to Mr. Edwards' usage, and in some cases it intentionally differs. I read his stuff and it was thought provoking, and then I went from there where my own mind took me. So the real issue is merely, "what do you mean when you use those terms?"
Ron Edwards had a good idea. He had some insights. He got the ball rolling, and then he got out of the way. The terms do mean different things to different people, because they have escaped into the wild and we are allowed to use or abuse (hopefully not the latter) the ideas as we wish, just like other theories or philosophies. I don't see how there is any more reason to shun using these poorly defined terms than there is regarding any other poorly defined terms. And if we stop using poorly defined terms, we'll have to stop communicating with anything other than mathematics and formal analytical logic. Maybe I can learn to speak in binary.
The point is that we have to use words to communicate, and these are a good choice for a starting point. Like philosophical jargon, they are also useful in theorizing once the immediate group of participants can define how they are using them.
For me, I apply the terms to an RPG first as an overall impression of the game rather than to specifics manifestations. The same term can apply differently in entirely different areas of the game.
For example, simulationism (I prefer the term "Explorationism") can manifest in a desire to have action resolution systems emulate physics in some manner, or it can manifest as a desire to represent an explorable world that moves along on its own without PC intervention, or it can refer to a rough sense of believability. A game can be simulationist in one way and not in another, as I said.
Narrativism can manifest as rules systems that produce results consistent with dramatic narratives rather than consistent with physics or probability, or it can manifest as giving the GM encouragement to design everything around the story, ignore the rest of the setting if it isn't relevent, and fudge things as needed, or it can manifest as a shared authorial control, perhaps even breaking down the concept of players and GMs.
Gamism is represented by anything that defines the play experience by a quantifiable challenge. It can manifest in a scene by scene narratively structured story where the goal is for the players to overcome a challenge in each scene via in-character role-playing, allowing them to advance to the next scene. It can manifest in the character creation minigame, when the goal is to make an effective character with the resources allotted. It can manifest in a system designed with a high degree of balance between characters, or with a strong set of resources for determining the precise degree of challenge presented, or which rewards player tactics over character tactics, or any number of manifestations.
So I'm primarily looking at an "overall picture," rather than the particulars, and I freely admit that anyone can validly disagree with my categorization of the editions of D&D based on giving more or less weight to particular elements. I do think I have something of value to add to understanding, and I'm not attempting to be obscure or unclear here.
Again, no comment on OD&D.
My experience with BECMI was Red Box, Rules Cyclopedia and Wrath of the Immortals. While I agree it it primarily gamist, I can't call it hard gamist. There is too much world simulation in there that has nothing to do with the game, arbitrary restrictions that make some options purely better than others for simulation considerations more than game consideration, and undefined areas that the DM needs to make rulings concerning, for me to count it as hard gamism. That said, I don't think there are many RPGs that qualify as hard gamist. Most role-playing games hardly qualify as games.
On AD&D...sure, you could say that Gygaxian-style* AD&D is gamist in the sense of a player vs. DM competition to see whose characters can survive falls into gamism. But there are a lot of elements that are much more simulationist than gamist. Take weapon and armor lists. They are designed to emulate (sometimes flawed) impressions of historical armaments, rather than to provide a variety of meaningful yet equivalent options. That's why there are so many obviously sub-optimal choices. The Wilderness Survival Guide (and her subterranean brother) has the right to claim bragging rights for simulationism. Random wilderness encounter tables are very much world simulationism (though they might be used in some situations as gamist tools).
I agree that Dragonlance made a change, throwing in more narrativist high fantasy sentiment.
See above.
It bears mention that I personally put a lot of weight on world simulation in my estimations--probably much more so than many others--and I don't consider physics emulation at all necessary for simulationism, as long as results are within believable bounds and aren't overridden by gamist or narrativist goals.
Based on the overall impression my experience has given me of the various editions, I have to stand by my assessments.
* Dungeons designed to kill the players make great one-shot games, though not really my style for long term campaigns.
Similar Threads
