What Does "Simulation" Mean To You? [+]

[Micah Sweet]

To me, simulation is (mostly) creation/use of a systematically-driven model of something.

The thing being simulated may not have much to do with the real world, so simulation does not equal realism, or even verisimilitude.

Genre emulation does not, to me, equate to simulation, because 1) Fictional genre is not a well-defined "thing" to simulate. 2) Fictional genre emulation is often best achieved by including non-systematic techniques.

These days, I don't really have desire for a lot of simulation in my ttRPG play. I find, again, for me, simulation play puts focus on the thing being simulated, rather than the players, and whether I am running or playing a game, I prefer my ttRPGplay to be more player-focused. I can, and do, play other kinds of games when I want to play with simulations.

See, I prefer my TTRPG play to be more setting-focused, and exploring that setting through your PC is the primary purpose of play. So simulation is very important to me. As I said above though, I can get behind certain varieties of genre emulation, which is pretty much always more PC-focused (since the rules for the setting are in a sense already built-in).

 

[Reynard]

I always thought it meant that the game is shooting to be somewhat realistic. In the video game industry, ideally (the terms get misused sometimes) there are two classifications. There are GAME which are not trying to simulate reality, and there are SIMULATOR which are trying to simulate reality. I know when I was younger SIMULATOR were all the rage. Especially flight and racing. Nowadays the SIMULATOR don't seem to be all that popular, save Microsoft Flight Simulator, though I'm sure that's not even all that popular anymore. I think some of the EA Sports titles might be considered SIMULATOR. Kerbal Space Program is another one that, despite the goofy theme, was trying to be a kind of SIMULATOR. To give a simplified example of the difference, the way I used to explain it to people, is if you are playing a FPS and you can pick up a spinning icon and it heals you, you are playing a GAME. If you don't even hear the single shot that killed you, you are playing a SIMULATOR.

The other kind of "sim" in video games that I think maps better to TTRPG play are "immersive sims" -- games that give you as many options as possible within the context of the play space and don't require you solve things in any particular way.

 

[Reynard]

First tell me what GNS is? You are using an abbreviation before telling us what it is. I'm guessing the S is simulation, but I do not know the rest.

I did not define it because it isn't particularly important to the discussion, except to say that I am not focusing on the definition. GNS stands for Gamist Narrativist and Simulationist and is a TTRPG game theory framework from The Forge something like 20 years ago now. There are some folks that beat that drum pretty hard and I was just trying to make sure everyone understood that this discussion can be bigger than that definition of simulation.

 

[TwoSix]

I don't think about simulationism in TTRPG as really about "modeling". To me, it's more about introducing procedures into play that reduce or eliminate occurrences of narrative contrivance. Nothing happens in the fiction for reasons of "making the story more impactful" or "ensure the protagonists reach a desired conclusion"; all events and resolutions are generated by a dispassionate algorithmic tool.

Errant in the OSR space seems like a prime example of a game that is both lightweight and yet heavily focused on simulationist procedure.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I don't think about simulationism in TTRPG as really about "modeling". To me, it's more about introducing procedures into play that reduce or eliminate occurrences of narrative contrivance. Nothing happens in the fiction for reasons of "making the story more impactful" or "ensure the protagonists reach a desired conclusion"; all events and resolutions are generated by a dispassionate algorithmic tool.

Errant in the OSR space seems like a prime example of a game that is both lightweight and yet heavily focused on simulationist procedure.

Modeling is important to my sense of simulation, but yeah eliminating narrative as a mechanical consideration is just as important, as part of my sense of verisimilitude.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Modeling is important to my sense of simulation, but yeah eliminating narrative as a mechanical consideration is just as important, as part of my sense of verisimilitude.

Would it be fair to say that the distinction between setup and resolution is important? That a GM can set up whatever scenario they like, creating NPCs, establishing factions and conflicts, sprinkling treasure, adding infinite dragons, etc. But once play commences they are only the adjudicators? That to insert an extra dragon during play, because the GM thinks it will improve the narrative/experience/whatever, breaks simulationism?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Would it be fair to say that the distinction between setup and resolution is important? That a GM can set up whatever scenario they like, creating NPCs, establishing factions and conflicts, sprinkling treasure, adding infinite dragons, etc. But once play commences they are only the adjudicators? That to insert an extra dragon during play, because the GM thinks it will improve the narrative/experience/whatever, breaks simulationism?

Yes, I would say that. That motivation is anti-verisimilitudinous. Now, adding that dragon for a diagetic reason works, or if a previously undefined area is being defined (in the latter case via diagetic GM judgement or a diagetically-designed randomizer).

 

[TwoSix]

Would it be fair to say that the distinction between setup and resolution is important? That a GM can set up whatever scenario they like, creating NPCs, establishing factions and conflicts, sprinkling treasure, adding infinite dragons, etc. But once play commences they are only the adjudicators? That to insert an extra dragon during play, because the GM thinks it will improve the narrative/experience/whatever, breaks simulationism?

I think the simulationist impulse is to NOT have the GM make a decision because they think it will be a more interesting challenge or because it's relevant to the characters' interests at that point in time. The rationale for a dragon to appear is that according to setting logic, a dragon could occur in that space.

 

[zarionofarabel]

The other kind of "sim" in video games that I think maps better to TTRPG play are "immersive sims" -- games that give you as many options as possible within the context of the play space and don't require you solve things in any particular way.

Sorry if I seem slow, but can you give me an example? Do you mean like an "open world" adventure game like Fallout 4 or Cyberpunk 2077?

 

[Bill Zebub]

Yes, I would say that. That motivation is anti-verisimilitudinous. Now, adding that dragon for a diagetic reason works, or if a previously undefined area is being defined (in the latter case via diagetic GM judgement or a diagetically-designed randomizer).

I would never want to be accused of being antiverisimilitudinicitous.