A New Perspective on Simulationism, Realism, Verisimilitude, etc.

[Alex319]

In my opinion the OP is defining the difference between a roleplaying game and an abstract simulation game. In a simulation game a person does not need to roleplay in order to play the game. There is no need by the players to interpret the descriptions given by the GM as anything other than game mechanics because the mechanics do not represent the world anyways. In fact, in an abstract game a GM does not really ever need to refer to the game mechanics with any "fluff" or description at all.

I'm a little confused. What do you mean by "abstract simulation game"? Do you mean a game where players do not control individual characters? What's the difference between an "abstract simulation game" where players control individual characters, and a roleplaying game?

Abstract simulation games are like 4E combat: the players must know the rules in order to play and the rules need not have anything to do with anything resembling combat whatsoever. There are no roles contained within the rules just a nifty game for players to utilize between roleplaying periods, if the players even choose to do so.

I don't understand what you mean when you say 4e combat has "no roles." There are lots of different "roles" people can play in combat - the damage-dealer, the tank, the healer, etc. - and 4e even gives those roles names (striker, defender, leader, controller). It's true that the 4e ruleset has little if anything to do with real-life, historical combat tactics - but that's irrelevant - it does have to do with the way combat works in the game.

I can't agree with what you are calling game-based design as being attributable to RPGs. Specifically as it is not a role-based design.

What do you mean by "role-based design," and why is it essential to RPGs?

"Game based convenience" is this same error repeated and the "imperfect model" hypothesis suffers from not really counting as a game at all (while it does count as requiring roleplaying).

What "error" are you talking about? And why does the imperfect model interpretation "not count as a game at all"?

I think it's important to distinguish that roleplaying cannot be done with a puppet in an abstract simulation-like game. Neither in a computer simulation or a tabletop manual simulation. It is when the player actually acts within the role because of the position they are within. "Natural law" is the only design methodology which allows this as the description is the rule. There is no difference between situation, role, and design.

We might be working from different definitions of "roleplaying" here. I would consider "roleplaying" to mean acting the way that your character would act in the game, based on your character's personality, motivations, and knowledge, which may be different from the player's own. Under this interpretation, you could still "roleplay" in an "abstract simulation-like game", if you had your character do things that he would logically do in the game world.

It still doesn't seem like we're on the same wavelength here. Here's something that might clear it up:

Do you consider 4e an "abstract simulation game," and if so, why? Can you give an example of an RPG that is not an "abstract simulation game," and explain what the relevant differences are?

 

[Alex319]

Anyway, let me get to the post I promised to make about how this whole thing helps illuminate many of the common issues regarding "simulationism" etc. Here are some common claims made, and how to interpret them in this framework.

"Game element X is 'gamist' and not 'simulationist', because I can't think of a logical reason why it should work that way."

Many claims that one game or another is "unsimulationist" references specific game elements. For example, it is commonly claimed that the 4e paradigm of some martial powers being only usable once per day or once per encounter is "gamist" because in 'real life' martial maneuvers wouldn't have those kinds of restrictions.

However, when interpreted according to the natural law interpretation, this is not "unsimulationist" at all. True, real-life martial maneuvers don't work like that, but the game works differently from real life, and as long as it works in a consistent way as defined by the rules it is still "simulating" a self-consistent world. Thus this kind of complaint does not reflect a desire for "simulationism" in general, but rather the desire to "simulate" a specific kind of world - one in which certain elements are labeled as "magic" and can thus ignore realism-based restrictions, while other elements are not so labeled and are thus bound by realism-based restrictions. Another example of this is a post where the poster claimed that 3e magical healing was superior to 4e auto-self-healing during extended rests because the magic provided a "non-gamist reason" why people could heal so fast. But again, if it is possible to accept the existence of magical healing, then how is saying that everyone can generate whatever force is necessary to heal more "gamist?" Certainly not by comparison to real life, because the "magical healing force" doesn't exist in real life in the first place.

"We need realism because that makes it easier for players to predict the effects of their actions."

One justification I have heard for the "double standard" described above is that it is necessary to minimize the number of game elements that deviate from reality because if the game world is the same as reality except for a small number of defined changes (such as magic) than players can understand the world better because they can use their knowledge of real life. For example, in the game world, gravity always pulls things down, since that's how it is in real life, absent any special effect like a spell. It is important to realize, however, that this principle applies only for things where there is not an explicit rule. If there is an explicit rule, then that rule being close to "reality" is irrelevant for player understanding - if the rule is written down, players know about it, and so there's no need to being in real-life information to fill in the gap. For example, if certain martial powers can only be used once per day, then players know that - the lack of a "realistic" explanation does not in any way impede players' ability to understand what's going on. This is the problem with moving from a natural law interpretation to one of the other two interpretations because you think that "natural law" produces less "realistic" results. Even if the imperfect model or gameplay convenience hypothesis produce results more realistic, they are less self-consistent, because the rules can be overridden at will. So if realism is desired as a means to consistency, it makes no sense to sacrifice consistency for realism.

"System X is more/less gamist/simulationist than System Y."

Usually, when people refer to a system as being more "gamist", they mean that it was designed under the game based design principle. However, as described above, if you define "simulation" as simply describing a self-consistent world, then even a game-based design will do that if intepreted the right way. Thus if all you care about is simulating a self-consistent world, you can use game-based design and the natural law interpretation to gain all the benefits of game-based design as well as avoid the drawbacks of inconsistent rule interpretation. However you may instead want to simulate a particular world that is not the same as the one you get from the game. This is where world-based design comes in - if the world you want to simulate is the same one that the game designer set up the system to simulate, then you can use the system and it works fine. But if not, you will have to tweak a world-based designed game just like you woul dhave to tweak a game-based designed game.

 

[steenan]

Are you using word "gamist" as an opposite to "simulationist"? I think that the system traits that empower this play styles are not mutually exclusive. They may get in each other ways, but not completely negate one another. A system may be neither simulationist nor gamist. It may also try to be both and find a satisfying compromise.

A simulationist game does not have to use rules as laws of the universe, but it should have rules that, when used, reflect what can and cannot be done in given setting and genre. It should be possible to explain why things work as they work strictly in game (as in: one character explaining it to another). Every game system is an abstraction, but it should be an abstraction that is consistent with the imaginary world. To call the system "simulationist" it must be possible to make decisions in character, without taking into account metagame criteria. Thus, the less the system follows either the real world or well-defined genre, the more the system plays the role of natural laws, because the players have no other experiences to fall back to to imagine how the world works.
It is perfectly fine to answer player's question of "But why it works this way?" with "Just because. That is the physics/chemistry/biology of this world." Just do not require the characters not to talk about it and make decisions based on these natural laws. If the system puts "once per day" restrictions on some martial attacks, it still may be played as simulationist - it will just feel like Order of the Stick...

Gamist is not "not simulationist". A system is gamist if it may be "played to win" and do not break because of it. Gamist system needs to be balanced. It may encourage character optimization, individual or group tactics, social skills, ingenuity or other kind of players' skill. It does not have to be about combat, but needs fair and precise rules that are used to resolve the important conflicts. Gamist systems gain much from being highly abstract - it's much easier to have a game both interesting and fair if those two traits need not emerge from the same rules.
Problems emerge when a part of the game world that is highly abstracted is, at the same time, important for characters' efficiency and achieving players' goals. If it was impossible to increase characters' power by buying appropriate equipment, much less people would rant about D&D "unrealistic" economy. If the game wasn't about killing things, nobody would care if it should be possible to slay an unaware person by slashing their throat from behind. And so on.

 

[Galloglaich]

Gamist is not "not simulationist". A system is gamist if it may be "played to win" and do not break because of it. Gamist system needs to be balanced. It may encourage character optimization, individual or group tactics, social skills, ingenuity or other kind of players' skill. It does not have to be about combat, but needs fair and precise rules that are used to resolve the important conflicts. Gamist systems gain much from being highly abstract - it's much easier to have a game both interesting and fair if those two traits need not emerge from the same rules.
Problems emerge when a part of the game world that is highly abstracted is, at the same time, important for characters' efficiency and achieving players' goals. If it was impossible to increase characters' power by buying appropriate equipment, much less people would rant about D&D "unrealistic" economy. If the game wasn't about killing things, nobody would care if it should be possible to slay an unaware person by slashing their throat from behind. And so on.

I think this is a really good point. I believe the problems with "realistic" simulationist combat in RPG games is that it wasn't actually based on anything real, but rather on the assumptions of game designers who probably had never been in a fight in their life and knew nothing about Medieval combat. You end up with highly abstracted rules systems which try to be both balanced and realistic, but end up complicated, counterintuitive and hard for non-gamers to get into. Which contributes to shrinking rather than growing the RPG genre.

To me 4E / WoW represent totally giving up on the simulationist idea in favor of creating the ultimate "gamist" / balanced un-breakable systems, which have the theoretical advantage of being relatively simple. But layers of complexity do start to accumulate with WoW for example as there seems to be a perpetual 'leak' where they are constantly trying to fix something which players figure out how to break.

When I designed the codex, I found that the actual historical martial arts techniques written down in 500 year old Medieval books worked very well with the real physical qualities of pre-industrial weapons and armor from a game play point of view. I learned that by taking a more "Simulationist" basis than 99% of RPG combat systems, my system also became more balanced (and there fore "Gamist") than the original 3.5 combat system, and this was verified when we did mathematical analysis of the system later on.

One example of this, in most RpGs a dagger is a weapon which barely does any damage. This is because weapons are typically measured by their damage, which leads to a really wierd concept that daggers are sort of nuisance weapons that do less damage than say, a staff or a hatchet. In reality of course, a 14" specially hardened double edged knife is extremely dangerous, and historically was used to finish people off because it was better at getting around or through armor and causing catastrophic wounds. It was the dagger, not the sword, that was in fact the quintissential medieval weapon, carried by every warrior who ever went to combat, because people back then knew only very well that a sword fight can all too easily turn into a wrestling match, (especially if both opponents have armor) and a dagger is the best way to finish a wrestling match.

A stab wound from a sword and a stab wound from a 14" dagger are essentially identical. Getting your throat slashed by a 14" dagger is no less catastrophic than by a 48" longsword. The real difference between the two is that a dagger is faster and handier at close range, while a sword has more reach, is better for defense, and can perform certain types of cuts better. If you accept this reality as a game designer, you will find that other things, like how armor or armor-piercing weapons work, or how a staff or a mace work, how the historical fighting techniques work, all fit together correctly and in balance. If you throw it out the window you have to invent some strange rules (like that swords only cut and can't stab, or that a breast plate covers the whole body, etc.) in an ultimately doomed attempt to balance things out.

Once we accepted this basis, we found that we could pick a level of abstraction up a bit from the very granular, which was one of the assumptions always made in old attempts to do realistic combat systems. So we could actually make it faster too, in my opinion.

That said, personally, I don't like the GNS theory from the Forge, I think the concepts like "Gamist", "Simulationist" and "Narrativist" are too narrow and limiting, and become self fullfilling prophecies. They resulted in some very good games like Burning Wheel and Sorcerer, but I don't think they really encompass RPG design genre. I personally believe the term "Gamist" was invented to denigrate DnD in particular. Regardless, as you point out, if you use these models you will often find they are not mutually exclusive.

But there is no doubt that people have different goals in how they want to play and design RPGs, and there is nothing wrong with thinking about how that works. I've heard the term "Immersionist" bandied about, which is probably closer to what I want to experience when I play an RPG.

G.

 

[howandwhy99]

I'm a little confused. What do you mean by "abstract simulation game"? Do you mean a game where players do not control individual characters? What's the difference between an "abstract simulation game" where players control individual characters, and a roleplaying game?

I realize I could have been more clear with my terms. Essentially an abstract simulation game isn't a simulation game at all as nothing occurring in the game actually mimics what occurs when the actual activity is undertaken out of game. It is instead a game where the gameplay is too different from the real world activity to qualify as what it is supposed to be simulating. For example, could Magic: the Gathering be considered a simulation game because the cards are used to describe actions? I mean, they are not really lands or monsters and "tapping" lands and monsters is not similar at all to how the action represented operates. But because the playing pieces have names, then games like it may be taken as simulation games. In truth, actual simulation games require operational similarity to what is being simulated.

Abstract "simulation" games cannot be roleplaying games because the elements of these games are too abstracted to define the acted out activity. By any definition of roleplaying, the portions of play that are not "acted out" are not roleplayed. That's as simple a truth about roleplaying as one can get. That which is not acted out is not roleplayed.

Can abstract (non-simulating) "simulation" games allow a person to roleplay regardless? That's a yes/no answer which includes or excludes many RPGs in the hobby from being RPGs. Personally, I find it next to impossible to think within a role when I am having to think in game terms instead. Ideally, to roleplay a person isn't thinking in terms of game rules at all. They are playing the role based upon what they have learned through playing it.

I don't understand what you mean when you say 4e combat has "no roles." There are lots of different "roles" people can play in combat - the damage-dealer, the tank, the healer, etc. - and 4e even gives those roles names (striker, defender, leader, controller). It's true that the 4e ruleset has little if anything to do with real-life, historical combat tactics - but that's irrelevant - it does have to do with the way combat works in the game.

Those are roles in all games in the same way a "Banker" is needed in Monopoly, not the kinds of roles RPGs are designed for place a person within. Otherwise every game could be rightfully termed a roleplaying game (and probably should be to be completely honest about what roleplaying is).

What do you mean by "role-based design," and why is it essential to RPGs?

RPGs (not just any kind of game with its' roles) are designed to place players into certain roles in order so they may act them out successfully. If the rules do not include any situations for the acting out of these roles, but rather follow an abstract rule-following game, then roleplaying can only occur when the game rules are not being used.

What "error" are you talking about? And why does the imperfect model interpretation "not count as a game at all"?

I should have said "gameplay convenience" falls into the same error as game-based design. It's not bad, but it is the element of design that, while nice, causes game to be un-roleplayable in the manner I point out above.

Imperfect model games are based on building DM fiat into the rules. Rule Zero and all that. Whether these are considered games or not is up to you, but without rules in place of "because I say so" an activity doesn't really stand up to the definition of a game.

We might be working from different definitions of "roleplaying" here. I would consider "roleplaying" to mean acting the way that your character would act in the game, based on your character's personality, motivations, and knowledge, which may be different from the player's own. Under this interpretation, you could still "roleplay" in an "abstract simulation-like game", if you had your character do things that he would logically do in the game world.

It still doesn't seem like we're on the same wavelength here. Here's something that might clear it up:

Do you consider 4e an "abstract simulation game," and if so, why? Can you give an example of an RPG that is not an "abstract simulation game," and explain what the relevant differences are?

Roleplaying is the actual performance of a role. I'm referring to roleplay simulation which informs the design of almost every hobby RPG ever created. As you probably already know, in these games the paramount activity is strategy and tactics according to the role played. However, inabstract simulation games these actions do not exist in roleplaying terms. Rather the players simply play a the game and not the world, not the role. There is no acting out of a role. There is no thinking outside the box. In these games if a player wants something to happen, they think in rule terms. It is full of rule-think and rule-speak, the non-role played elements of a game. 4E combat almost never refers to anything except by game terms and relies on players to know these terms so they game can be played. Pre-d20 D&D almost never referred to game terms except by indirect reference. Players did not need to know the rules, but rather learned of their effects by taking actions in play. This may lead to learning the rules themselves, but more accurately they deciphered the operation of the world because of these exact operations were the rules in effect. It's just like discerning the rules of the real world, it is done by observation rather than rule-play.

I should mention that no rules are ever needed to roleplay. The point of game rules are to define specifically what elements of a role are being measured in their performance. This successful performance is the objective of the game. In other words, solving mysteries requires the players to actually solve them. Climbing a mountain requires the know how of actually climbing a mountain. Using magic requires the learning and performing of magic as it is defined by the game's designer.

While all these things level elements out of roleplay, any could be put back in if the action can be performed successfully in the real world. For instance, players could climb a climbing wall under different conditions to simulate the climbing of Mt Everest. Or, if it were no longer a game, they would still be roleplaying mountain climbers if they actually went to Mt. Everest and climbed it.

 

[Hussar]

Roleplaying is the actual performance of a role. I'm referring to roleplay simulation which informs the design of almost every hobby RPG ever created. As you probably already know, in these games the paramount activity is strategy and tactics according to the role played. However, inabstract simulation games these actions do not exist in roleplaying terms. Rather the players simply play a the game and not the world, not the role. There is no acting out of a role. There is no thinking outside the box. In these games if a player wants something to happen, they think in rule terms. It is full of rule-think and rule-speak, the non-role played elements of a game. 4E combat almost never refers to anything except by game terms and relies on players to know these terms so they game can be played. Pre-d20 D&D almost never referred to game terms except by indirect reference. Players did not need to know the rules, but rather learned of their effects by taking actions in play. This may lead to learning the rules themselves, but more accurately they deciphered the operation of the world because of these exact operations were the rules in effect. It's just like discerning the rules of the real world, it is done by observation rather than rule-play

I gotta call shenanigans on this very thinly veiled edition war volley.

"almost never refered to game terms"? Are you kidding. Umm, THAC0? One minute rounds? Measurements in INCHES? Come on.

While all these things level elements out of roleplay, any could be put back in if the action can be performed successfully in the real world. For instance, players could climb a climbing wall under different conditions to simulate the climbing of Mt Everest. Or, if it were no longer a game, they would still be roleplaying mountain climbers if they actually went to Mt. Everest and climbed it.

Hang on, you were just telling me that pre-d20 D&D was less abstract simulationist. But, you certainly never swing anything other than a d20 to attack in ANY version of D&D. So, you're pretty much saying that D&D, in any iteration, isn't a role playing game. Since the only way to role play is to use mechanics which directly mirror that which you are acting out, according to you, then any version of D&D is not a role playing game.

You do realize that this is a definition of RPG that is pretty much not going to fly too well don't you?

If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that the only way I can role play is if the game has direct correlation with whatever is being simulated. Good grief, you realize that this definition bars about 99% of games out there from the term role play?

What is the point of defining role play in such a way that makes it pretty much meaningless?

 

[howandwhy99]

I gotta call shenanigans on this very thinly veiled edition war volley.

"almost never refered to game terms"? Are you kidding. Umm, THAC0? One minute rounds? Measurements in INCHES? Come on.

Call my opinion whatever you wish, it wasn't meant as an edition war. I don't know how you play, but I play without knowledge of the game rules needed by the Players before play begins. Some elements become immediately obvious, like using stochastic timing, in combat or not. But this isn't a lob against 4E-lovers, if that's where you are coming from.

Hang on, you were just telling me that pre-d20 D&D was less abstract simulationist. But, you certainly never swing anything other than a d20 to attack in ANY version of D&D. So, you're pretty much saying that D&D, in any iteration, isn't a role playing game. Since the only way to role play is to use mechanics which directly mirror that which you are acting out, according to you, then any version of D&D is not a role playing game.

D&D was not a game about individual combat, that's for sure. Team combat? Certainly. Tons of "outside the box" thinking in relation to combat? Definitely. But that's to be expected with one of the primary roles being Fighting-Man.

You do realize that this is a definition of RPG that is pretty much not going to fly too well don't you?

If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that the only way I can role play is if the game has direct correlation with whatever is being simulated. Good grief, you realize that this definition bars about 99% of games out there from the term role play?

What is the point of defining role play in such a way that makes it pretty much meaningless?

To answer your questions in order, this definition is accurate and followed as far back as '74 when the hobby was created. It doesn't exclude 99% of games, so it should fly just fine. And it is not meaningless as it is accords to the definition of roleplaying.

To understand me correctly, please note an RPG requires the players to actually act out what is roleplayed. That isn't possible in a dissimilar design except outside of game-based decisions. That's hardly a necessity to the system as designed. Which pretty much means it is as much an RPG as any game with an avatar. If the latter fulfills your definition of an RPG rather than the former, than I we couldn't we agree to disagree? I'm not here to ruin your day or start fights. I'm simply here disagreeing with Alex319's opinion on roleplaying game design.

 

[Alex319]

@howandwhy99: I think I understand what you're saying now. You're defining a "role-playing game" as "a game such that the players don't have to know any of the rules to start playing, and they can figure it out along the way by describing their actions and letting the DM translate it into game terms."

@steenan: I wasn't myself advocating the viewpoint that "gamist" and "simulationist" are mutually exclusive - I was presenting those terms as they seem to be used by the community and pointing out that when viewed according to my new classification system, they're really talking about different things, and so aren't mutually exclusive. So you actually made part of my point better than I did.

@Galloglaich: I'll definitely check out the Codex Martialis. It's been on my list for a while but I haven't gotten around to it yet (though I did read the preview portion on RPGNow). One thing that really gets me about what a lot of people say about "realistic combat" (and not just combat, realism in general in games) is that they generally choose one or two aspects that they think of as "unrealistic" - like the item costs not being realistic or Weapon X doing more damage than Weapon Y - and focus on those. So in 4e someone might say "it's unrealistic that armor reduces chance-to-hit only and doesn't act as DR at all, and it's unrealistic that plate armor is only slightly more effective than chain" which might be true - but it also ignores all the other factors that mitigate that, like that very heavy armor was very expensive to make in real life and that there were other tactics that you could use against someone in armor.

What often happens when people make those kinds of incremental changes for "realism" is that they tend to add more complexity, special cases, and potential loopholes, without really making the game much more "realistic". Starting over from the ground up, as you seem to have done, is a new way of going about doing things - using realistic tactics as a basis for designing the tactical structure of the game.

Here's an analogy I came up with (and have been waiting to use). 4e is like a James Bond-style action movie: full of over-the-top combat action with little pretense of "realism." There's nothing wrong with this kind of game. The Codex Martialis, from what I've heard, is like Oliver Stone's JFK movie: using information about how real-life combat works (medieval fighting in the case of the CM or ballistics in the case of JFK) as a basis for the conflict. There's also nothing wrong with this kind of game. But the "start with a completely fantastic system and make a couple arbitrary changes for 'realism'," (which describes some parts of 3.5e in my opinion) is like a James Bond movie where during the middle of the climactic battle scene, you pause the action to have Oliver Stone give a 15-minute lecture on bullet trajectories.

If you want any thing approaching "realism," it has to be designed into the system from the start - realism isn't something that you can achieve just by making incremental changes. And designing realism into the system from the start it, based on what I've heard, exactly what the Codex Martialis has done.

 

[LostSoul]

D&D was not a game about individual combat, that's for sure. Team combat? Certainly. Tons of "outside the box" thinking in relation to combat? Definitely. But that's to be expected with one of the primary roles being Fighting-Man.

It's like the time I was facing a mummy in 2E. We had two PCs, and both were low level (I think I was 2nd level). I knew what it could do if it hit, so I picked up the table in the room and used it as a shield to keep it back. The DM gave me a bonus to my AC; that kept it off my back long enough for the other PC to hit it with some greek fire. Once it was on fire, we got the chance to flee.


I'm not sure if that is really any different than how combat can work in 4E, or what is possibly the Forge game, Sorcerer.

 

[S'mon]

I gotta call shenanigans on this very thinly veiled edition war volley.

"almost never refered to game terms"? Are you kidding. Umm, THAC0? One minute rounds? Measurements in INCHES? Come on.

This confuses statement of action (by player) with resolution of action (by DM). In pre-3e D&D, the player of a non-spellcaster did not actually need to know any rules to play the game.

Player: "I attack the orcs with my sword."

GM: "OK, roll a d20"

Player rolls. GM looks at die.

GM: "OK, you hit the leading orc. Roll damage.."

Player: "Sheet says I do d8+3"

Player rolls. GM looks at result.

GM: "OK, you cut down the first orc. Its friends raise their scimitars as they come on..."

It also works fine with the GM keeping hold of the character sheet - eg I'm currently in a battle in a C&C PBEM (with super orcs, who are kicking our butts!), I simply state what my Fighter is doing and the GM resolves the results, I don't need to look at my character sheet.

In 3e this is still just about possible with a pregen PC with the right feat selection and options noted on the sheet; I play 3e with my wife and in-laws this way. In 4e it looks to me to be impossible.

Anyway, my point is that certainly in pre-3e D&D the player did not need to know anything about THAC0, inches, or other rules in order to play.