I think this is why high concept simulation can consistently churn out favorable play experiences while process simulation tends to struggle in the hands of all but the most deft and synched users (GM and table). And done so with less headaches for all parties involved, to boot. This is a point @
Balesir brings up often (of which I agree with completely). Assuming the resolution mechanics are reasonably robust, modeling a genre with merely a tacit nod to process requires much, much less overhead and handling time than modeling (a) the component parts of a stochastic system, (b) the stochastic system itself, and (c) attaining consistent table consensus on interpretation of both a and b.
I am summoned and so I come
I am somewhat short of time at present, however, so I may only have time to give a fairly brief synopsis of the thinking I have been doing after following the "Cliff Notes" and other threads around here (and reading this one throughout).
The simulationist wants to reflect reality as much as possible. A fight with a broadsword and chainmail ought to work just as it did in the Middle Ages. . . . These people have no place in D&D; D&D is solidly in the wargame camp, and simulationists should try Chivalry & Sorcery or make up their own games.
<snippage>
Mapping Pulsipher's terminology onto Ron Edwards' terminology, I would say that:
simulaton = purist-for-system simulation
wargaming (on its own) = skill-based step-on-up
absurd = luck-based step-on-up
novel (on its own) = high concept simulation
wargaming + novel (combined as described above) = story now
First off I'm afraid I'm going to disagree very much with this characterisation of Forge Sim. I'm pretty much in agreement with
Emerikol on this, in fact:
Actually this is Exhibit A for someone who doesn't know what the S in GNS means. If you believe the S in GNS has anything to do with accurate modeling of events then you've failed. They are not related. The guys who play these massive operational board games with a zillion rules are NOT GNS simulations. They are just plain English dictionary simulationists. The two are only passing related. Those super hyper simulationists though are still using turns when they play those hyper detailed games.
"Purist for System", as I understand it, is mostly about the
game world being faithfully reflected in the game mechanics. The game world literally works as the mechanics say it does. This can be achieved in one of two ways:
1) The rules are paramount; if the rules imply that high level characters can jump off a cliff and walk away, then that's what they can do. It's just an odd quirk of the game world that this is possible - but possible it certainly is (because the rules say so).
2) The "world" is paramount. Of course, the "game world" does not really exist, so what this actually means is that someone's vision and conception of what they want the game world to be is paramount. The usual, perhaps even default, case is that this "someone" is the GM. They simply adjust/selectively apply/make up the rules such that the game world behaves just as their model of it demands that it should behave.
Neither of these requires that the game world be in the slightest bit "realistic". Indeed, with the first it is extremely difficult to make it so and with the second it will only ever be so (assuming that it tries) for those whose model of reality accords well with that of the GM. As an aside, I see no reason whatever why D&D (any edition) cannot be played in either of these modes.
One facet of these modes, however - especially the second one - is that they can have a tendency to "drift" into a quest for "realism". Partly, this may be as a result of a desire for "character immersion", for which it seems intuitive that verisimilitude can be helpful, and we certainly tend to assume that modelling the real world will "naturally" be believable. I think there is also a tendency for GMs faced with the need to make a decision about some aspect of the game world they have not considered before to let the game follow reality in the appropriate respect as a sort of "default". Their instinct may well be sound, since the "real world" as we know it seems to work, so the chances of generating a flawed model may well be minimised by this course. I do think, however, that adopting this approach has pitfalls.
The main pitfall is actually much the same as that encountered by "Type 1" games (per my two categories above) when they try to be "realistic". The real world is actually extremely complex, and the "rules" for it are immensely involved and difficult to fully comprehend. This is as much an issue for a GM making "rulings" as it is for a designer making "rules", because "rulings" are in reality nothing other than rules invented on the fly. Making rule(ing)s that are genuinely "realistic" is hard and, in addition, the very best you will achieve is rules that emulate
your own model of how reality works. With others who have a similar model to yours, this will probably be OK-ish. With those whose model differs substantially from yours, it can be a disaster.
On the "Dissociated mechanics"/"Narrative Mechanical Unity" thing, I think this is an apparently natural wish for those who want Purist-for-System, intuitive world-physics RPGs (because they wish to play immersively, possibly). I understand the impulse for this, but I think it's problematic on two fronts:
a) The requirement, at least for immersive play, seems to be that the player is aware of reasons that the character is aware of for in-character decisions. More generally, there must be "in-world" reasons why a character can/cannot do something. This is unexceptional in itself - indeed, the logic of purist-for-system play implies that
it must be so; if the rules of the game dictate something, then PFS says that the game world must say this, also. The difficulty comes in demanding that the rules system should dictate what the in-world reason is. I see no reason why this responsibility should fall to the rules system, and I can see large issues with doing so - which leads to...
b) The requirement that the in-world reasons for things should be the same at all instances. PFS doesn't actually require this, but many folks seem to demand it and the demand that the rules system explain the in-world causality (per point a) militates heavily towards it if the system is not to become extremely cumbersome. This is a difficult point to summarise briefly, so I'll try an example in the hope it will become a bit clearer. Essentially, though, the issue is that ability or inability to perform skilled acts often relies upon "circumstances" that are subtle, detailed and rely upon facility with the skill in question to see and appreciate.
Example: In swordfighting combat, the ability to pull off a move will likely be dictated by a host of details concerning relative physical positioning. Where are your opponent's feet relative to yours? Where are his or her arms? How is your balance and that of your opponent apportioned between left and right feet? If the blades are in a bind (touching), exactly how much pressure is there between them and in which direction? Guy Windsor has on his
"Swordschool" site some (long) seminar videos that go into just this latter point; he goes so far as to suggest that medieval masters (Fiore dei Liberi specifically) distinguished between "Largo" and "Stretto" moves that could be (wisely) attempted only depending precisely upon the exact degree of force exerted in a bind. In short, the possible moves available to a swordsman will depend at least as much upon her opponent's actions as upon her own.
Given such a huge range of subtle effects and circumstances that will, in the "real world", dictate what is and is not possible, a game system that wishes to be "realistic"* has essentially three options:
i) To introduce rules to cover all or most of the possible circumstances. I think most would say that this approach is only marginally practical and is likely to result in a cumbersome system even if achieved.
ii) To abandon trying to cover all such circumstances and simply to adjudge some actions sometimes possible, sometimes impossible (or just harder) apparently arbitrarily. This of course raises the issue of "dissociation", in that the system no longer tells us what the "circumstances" are - we must imagine them for ourselves, assuming
a priori that there must be some and that the character will know at least approximately what they are. If imagining such circumstances "on the fly" is not among a players learned behaviours, this method may prove troublesome and un-immersive until the "skill" is acquired (assuming they are bothered to do so - and, to be clear, why should they?)
iii) To reduce the list of "circumstances" to just a few and to ignore the other factors as "minor" or irrelevant or even "not applicable in this game world". This is a fairly common and quite traditional approach in RPGs, but it has a couple of problems. The first problem is that for those who have any appreciation for the possible "circumstances", the "simulation" will feel absurd. Again, if you are really interested watch the (warning, ~1.5 hour!)
dagger seminar by Guy Windsor to see some examples of how this works. The second issue is that if the circumstances are identical on every occasion, then the optimal move will be the same on every occasion. This is the D&D 3.5 "trip fighter" issue. If the details of opponent balance and positioning are (effectively) appropriate for this move all the time, then this move will be the clear optimal action in every case. The reason this does not happen in real fights is that the circumstances are never the same; if you want variety in the game, then modelling circumstances
in some way - be it abstractly or explicitly - is required.
I hope it's obvious by now that I understand and sympathise with the desire to play immersively (at least sometimes) and to model a "real feeling" game world, but I also see some serious difficulties in so doing that game designs hitherto have failed adequately to address, at least to my satisfaction.
Add to these requirements the demands for player agency, "balance" and fairness required for Story Now! and Gamist play and I think a "broad church" RPG, while not necessarily impossible to attain, will be a tough nut to crack. So far, I don't see 5E getting particularly near it.
*: Because worlds where variety in approach seem to be inherently more "believable" than ones where they don't (per the discussion after this *), I actually think that this applies to almost all RPG rule systems, not just "realistic" ones, but I'll leave that point for you to judge for yourselves while reading the remaining points...