Contemporary Simulationist TTRPGs [+]

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Right. A good test of whether something is simulationistic is to see whether it makes sense for the people in the setting discuss about the things represented by the rules and would they make the same conclusions than the player that are looking at the rules.

That works for me.
Wizards certainly notice whether they gain all their spells back after a good night's sleep (even if it happens in the dungeon). Spells ending (or spirits disappearing) on sunrise or sunset is also clearly observable. So they can plan around that.

Other game rules are probably harder to percieve - rerolls, damage rolls, because there are many variables that are difficult to control, so it will be broader strokes (10d6 vs 6d6 spell, sure, but 9d6 vs 11d6 might be hard to say.)

 

[Neonchameleon]

Ars Magica spell durations such as ‘sun’ (spell expires at sunrise or sunset) would be a simulationist mechanism from my perspective as it corresponds to a real thing in the game world. A spell duration based on time (even if that time is expressed in rounds which are in turn expressed in seconds etc) is also simulationist since it is based on real passage of time. But a mechanism where an effect is based on an ‘encounter’ doesn’t map to a real-world construct, or even an in-game-world conept that I can see. That would be a gamist mechanism, or maybe a narrativist one.

I really can't agree here other than that an encounter is a technical grouping of events and is as much a term of art as "Armour class" or "damage dice". Your average encounter is a fight. And that does map to a real world construct. "I will hold on to this spell for a few minutes until the short job is done and after that it will be a relief to relax" or "this spell lasts about a minute; more than enough to do this one task but not much longer" makes far more emotional sense for a whole lot of things than "I'm going to program my mobile phone with an alarm/turn over this egg timer to tell me how long is left" other than for some extremely niche magic.

These things aren’t ‘bad’, often people prefer them since whether a spell lasts 4 minutes or 5 is arguably less important than whether it lasts to the end of the encounter. But in a strongly simulationist system it would be a firm definition.

Which means in my experience that a "strongly simulationist system" ends up with a world that looks every bit as artificial as the one Order of the Stick plays for laughs.

And the benefit of this, to people who appreciate it, is that you can then make plans based on those rules and those plans have meaning. It’s an example of Sanderson’s First Law of magic, but it can apply to almost any endeavour in a simulationist game system. The players can make plans based on in-game-world-logical inferences.

Just to confirm Sanderson's First Law of Magic

An author’s ability to solve conflict with magic is DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL to how well the reader understands said magic.​

And I have never run into a group that didn't get what an encounter was. The problem is that if magic is reasonably common and durations are fixed (e.g. five minute) then you as a consequence have reliable and accurate timekeeping. And that has significant worldbuilding implications. I'm thinking of such navigation challenges such as the search for longtitude.

 

[dbm]

Your average encounter is a fight. And that does map to a real world construct.

When does a fight end? What if one combatant runs away and hides? Is it over? What if they sneak around and attack the party unexpectedly? Is that the same fight or a new one? There is no empirical measure that can define that. It would be a GM call. And so there is no game-world law which would dictate this; it would either be a game convenience or a narrative contrivance.

 

[Deset Gled]

When does a fight end? What if one combatant runs away and hides? Is it over? What if they sneak around and attack the party unexpectedly? Is that the same fight or a new one? There is no empirical measure that can define that. It would be a GM call. And so there is no game-world law which would dictate this; it would either be a game convenience or a narrative contrivance.

Real world militaries do, in fact, have definitions for encounters based on when and how an engagement starts and ends. There are real world people who define, manage, study, and measure this in the real world. It's not a game convenience or narrative contrivance at all.

 

[dbm]

So how long does it last then? What are the parameters? Where is that described in the rule book?

If it’s a simulation you can explain it to me.

 

[Deset Gled]

So how long does it last then? What are the parameters? Where is that described in the rule book?

If it’s a simulation you can explain it to me.

This would be the Basic version of the rulebook, 2001 edition.

Operations | WorldCat.org

Operations | WorldCat.org

search.worldcat.org

 

[Neonchameleon]

So how long does it last then? What are the parameters? Where is that described in the rule book?

If it’s a simulation you can explain it to me.

It starts when you roll initiative and ends when you drop out of initiative.

Now as for what "initiative order" is unless you're running an OOTS style "this simulates what it simulates" is another story. But it is there in the rulebook.

 

[Umbran]

Real world militaries do, in fact, have definitions for encounters based on when and how an engagement starts and ends. There are real world people who define, manage, study, and measure this in the real world. It's not a game convenience or narrative contrivance at all.

Well, those militaries have had people studying military conflict for decades. And those definitions probably don't actually map to when the last person got shot all the time, do they?

You figure Joe, who was a farmer last week and now is fighting off the goblin horde, has that kind of understanding? Or even anyone who isn't in a formal military organization?

 

[dbm]

It starts when you roll initiative and ends when you drop out of initiative.

And when does that happen? Could it be:

It would be a GM call. And so there is no game-world law which would dictate this; it would either be a game convenience or a narrative contrivance.

 

[Neonchameleon]

And when does that happen? Could it be:

Yes it could. There is no game-world law for just about anything even in most "simulationist" RPGs unless you're playing something as artificial as Order of the Stick. Even if we take something as basic as "strength determines how much you lift" there's also skill in weightlifting involved and strength is not measured in discrete units from 3-18

Instead what we have are GM-mediated approximations of what is going on in the game world. This is how Tabletop RPGs work and how they have always worked, no matter the RPG. If you want something where the rules are hard coded you want a modern immersive sim RPG. And no GM is ever going to do that much mathematics at the table; the standard you are setting wouldn't evne give a pass to Phoenix Command's gunplay.