Again, this is just a straw man. People are trying to make a naturalistic world, a model sufficient for a game. They aren't pretending to be a computer that simulates reality. But in reality, things that happen are still bound by logic. Even improbably events, when you roll them back, have a logic and cause and effect that makes sense. All most people are saying here is that they try create a gaming experience in the world bound by cause and effect and naturalistic reasoning. But it is more than just that. They try to run NPCs as if they were real, operating on real personalities, motives, etc. It is the difference between starting with what the villain wants to do to the party, for example cut them off before they reach the Duke's manor, then figuring out what steps that NPC needs to take in order to cut the party off, versus deciding that the NPC and his men just so up because it is dramatically appropriate. Also nothing in the former precludes rolling dice. Most GMs like this will rely on randomness from time to time to help achieve a better sense of verisimilitude. They aren't obligated to but if you follow discussions by people who play these games you see random rolls form a large aspect of the style of play (but usually as tools, not as requirements).
And to be clear, nothing wrong with the other approach I mentioned in the example. Like I said in my example about men popping out of walls. I've done that when it is dramatically appropriate in some games because I wanted to emulate a thrilling Cheng Cheh movie. But I have also been in more naturalistic games, where something like that doesn't happen because it is appropriate, but you make it something that could happen provided there is an appropriate set up (in which case, if it does happen, it is likely to go down very differently and be easier for your players to detect or hear about ahead of time).
I don't even think sim-immersionist is the best way to play. As I have said, I often run games that are drama and sandbox, while the rest of the time run games that are monster of the week. And I avoid language like simulationist. But I don't understand why folks in these threads are so bent on proving this style doesn't exist or is somehow absurd when people clearly engage in it all the time
There is no straw man. Here are my contentions specific to what you quoted:
1) There are GMs here, elsewhere online, and all over meatspace that (a) have an approach to play that prioritizes their personal sense of cause & effect within extremely complex systems; their generated and modelled setting. Then, they (b) overwhelmingly "onscreen" their generated content, which includes playing of antagonists, and centering what they deem the most plausible outcomes of their mental modeling. They do this because (c) they want to build-out an (autobiographical) immersive environment for play (both for themselves and their players) and (d) they want a causal logic inference-based, puzzle-solving quality around gamestate to feature prominently in play.
2) There are trade-offs to and failure points inherent to this prioritization and, therefore, embedded within this style of play once you move
outside of the contained, tropey environment of the dungeon and
scale up. They are as follows:
* One person's understanding of a singular phenomenon can diverge partially or significantly from another. Further, this compounds when one person's conception of a causal chain composed of the interaction of multiple phenomena diverges partially or significantly from another. This compounds further still when one person's conception of a complex system composed of many interacting causal chains over multiple timescales diverges partially or significantly from another.
This is certainly a barrier to that (d) above but also might be a barrier to (c).
* Even if someone understands a phenomenon or a causal chain, they will likely struggle to communicate its intricacies and particulars consistently within the medium of a shared imagined space, especially if they are attempting to veil or obscure affairs (either for immersion priorities or their perception of "what would happen" or "to make players do the legwork and earn their inference"). Alternatively, they might objectively communicate it well, but one or more of the other participants' uptake is poor for a number of reasons. It is actually better for pacing and table time spent on action/momentum if all of the other participants' reach consensus that is an incorrect conclusion, because at least they will commit to action and move play. If they do not, table time will come to a screeching halt and pacing will suffer as the participants spend 30+ minutes (typically minimum) pleading their respective cases. The worst of this is when it generates bad feels among the participants due to social dynamics.
If table time spent on forward momentum and action and pacing are auxiliary concerns and are willing to be sacrificed for the sake of other priorities, then the issue becomes muted. Further, if social dynamics don't manifest due to well-adjusted people meeting consistently good behavior, then the issue becomes muted. But given the frequency with which we witness complaints about these very things, it is abundantly clear that this is very much a concern.
Finally, circling back to the beginning, the breakdown of a shared regime of causal chain inference is a Sword of Damocles here. If a participant, or participants, don't understand how the gamestate is moving from
here to there, they're going to start to detect GM effery (retroactive action negation or proactive blocks) even if it isn't present. Alternatively, they might deem the game's causal machinery as sufficiently opaque/inconsistent such that it fails to even rise to the level of "game" at all.
Finally, finally, if one person is actually in lockstep with the GM's approach to mental modeling and communication intricacies/tells (they've sussed it out and become expert at "playing the GM"), this also creates a play problem as asymmetric power relationships naturally either develop or are detected even if they haven't actually developed. Actual play experience and social cohesion is in danger.
* Because causal chains and plausibility become paramount (for inference continuity, for a particular brand of immersion), you regularly see the advocacy for table time which features premise-neutral or conflict-neutral or just benign content in the form of ancillary side quests, "Dollhouse Play" in the form of tavern shenanigans/parties/baking or buying muffins/elaborate trips to tailors or color-exclusive merchants, or just passive exploration of a beloved property (setting or NPC w/in setting).
Even for folks that are into this, the line between "cool" and "rudderless, shallow drift that is a complete waste of table time" is novel/particular both in terms of types of activities and amount of play spent on them. Both immersion and social cohesion are put at risk, even for tables with the types of priorities I'm talking about.
* What about relying upon tropes? Ok. Well, when are we naturalistically modeling a complex system sans-tropes and when are we either embedding a trope within the causal chain integration or having that trope subordinate everything else? Tough to know because we aren't going to have a meta conversation about it when it happens.
* When things break down and people become exasperated (GM or players), you see losses or TPKs that make no sense from the perspective of the players, dysfunctional accusations of poor play or malfeasance (often not to the face of the individual but in places like this where you routinely see it!), or GMs just falling back on exposition dumps in order to correct misbegotten inferences or correct for misattribution which becomes tantamount to "the GM playing the game for the players."
None of this is a straw man. I've done sort of gaming aplenty in the very contained confines of a dungeon crawl where tropes are heavily leveraged and operationalized, where the superstructure of the play loop is clear and robust, and where "puzzle solving mode for this room" becomes overtly signalled and engaged. I've done it in the not-so-contained confines of a hexcrawl. I've done it with all kinds of players. I've done it without clarifying meta-conversation. I've done it with clarifying meta-conversation. I've watched people's games live. I've played in games of this type a handful of times for short duration. I've witnessed people discuss their techniques and laments galore here and everywhere else in the gaming sphere. I've watched practitioners of this play online.
One of my best friends has been running this exact game for 3 decades...probably 75 % of his games are littered with micro-failures or problems of the type I'm pointing out above that he is constantly lamenting to me like I'm his TTRPG therapist. More than half his games fail outright. This individual is smart, conscientious, educated, charming, a good communicator, very well-educated on the fantasy fiction that serves as the superstructure for play, and extremely experienced. He, like so many others, are moving away from this and more into a Neotrad approach to play that relies nearly fully on genre emulation, power fantasy, and table time perpetually devoted to action (like Sword & the Serpentine). Not my game nor one of the agendas of play I enjoy, but I couldn't be happier for him. He's finally having some more consistent success.
Yes, these games have variance within them in terms of subtleties around priorities, techniques, and "social solves" for issues. How could they not given all the factors in play? I'm not remotely saying they are some kind of homogenous monolith. "There is so much (built-in) variance in these games" doesn't turn my critique into a strawman. The fact that there is so much (built-in) variance in these games (and the whys and wherefores) is actually central to the critique!
Folks who love this sort of play and who have had success with it will point out this variance as a source of strength. Perhaps. But the issue I've seen for decades now is that it might be both strength and simultaneously Sysiphus' boulder. The requirements of "same pagedness" are absolutely immense...profound. The skill in terms of formulation and execution of modeling and communication and uptake of that modeling and communication is just ginormous. And there are so many subtleties in preferences (for instance, one person loves them some "Dollhouse Play" and feels it is mandatory to eat up at least 25 % of table time while another feels like it should eat up only 10 %...in a monthly game of 16 hours, that is one person being miserable and chafing for 2.4 hours...that cascades forward) that can generate bad feels, tear at social cohesion, or just render gameplay either GM Storytime, rudderless exploration, or "ungameable" (there experience of deftly manipulating the gamestate is nil, remote, or dysfunctional).
