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

[Bill Zebub]

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.

And by that logic, random encounter tables, and rules for when to use them, prepared before the session would be part of the "clockwork mechanism" by which the game universe operates, correct?

 

[TwoSix]

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?

When I see that term, I think of survival games like ARK or exploration games like No Man's Sky.

 

[Umbran]

I've been asking myself this same question while reading the discussion in the thread that led to this. I write computer simulations, and the use of the term in an RPG context doesn't make any sense to me. So I'll be curious to follow along in this thread to see how others respond.

I came at my answer in part from a background of making computer models of physics processes, as well as playing a bunch of simulation games as a kid.

 

[Koloth]

I will start with a non RPG. Star Fleet Battles bills itself as a starship combat game based on information received via a data burst from the future(ST-The Original Series universe). SFB is limited to ST-TOS and Animated for its source material. Obviously, it is hard to accurately model 3D space combat using a flat hex map and cardboard counters. But the game is fun to play. Is it a simulation? Probably. Accurate? Ask me in 300 years.

Society for Creative Anachronism(SCA) combat tries to simulate medieval combat. But for safety reasons prohibits metal weapons, sharp edges and points. Also there are minimum armor requirements. Most modern folks would react poorly to a simulation that resulted in smashed bones, missing limbs and death. Simulation? Yes. Accurate? Sort of within safety limits.

RPGs like D&D/PF try to do combat but are often sidetracked by the mechanic of Hit Points. If you have ever watched SCA combat, the typical fight often lasts only a few seconds. Much shorter then the average RPG fight. Plus the SCA rules handle things like limb damage/loss, something many RPGs skip. So is D&D/PF combat a simulation? Not a very good one.

Once you introduce magic, you are leaving accuracy and getting into the world of guessing. We don't have a real world model for a fireball or teleport spell. Plus few games try to factor in how magic would influence combat. Why would a leader invest the masive reasources needed for a walled fort when it can be easily bypassed by things like passwall, rock to mud, teleport and the ever popular fly? Yet most fantasy RPGs with easy to obtain magic stick to historical Earth for how societies work. Probably still a simulation but not a very accurate one.

I have enjoyed reading the useage of large words. Some kind of vocabulary usage simulation?

 

[TwoSix]

And by that logic, random encounter tables, and rules for when to use them, prepared before the session would be part of the "clockwork mechanism" by which the game universe operates, correct?

That would be how I think of them, yes. They're designed mechanics to avoid even the appearance of "contrivance".

From many years of these discussions, I think avoiding any hint of "contrivance" (where the GM or player makes decisions based on what would be interesting or challenging) is the primary goal of simulationist procedures.

 

[Reynard]

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?

A couple very popular examples are Deus Ex and Dishonored. Skyrim is often considered close to an ImSim, moreso than Fallout 4, but many people think it fails at being an ImSim because there are characters you can't kill and situations that must be resolved a specific way. As with all things, the ideal is not often lived up to, but that's the goal: complete player agency within the context of the space. Which is why I suggested it might map better to TTRPGs than, say, factorio.

 

[Umbran]

See, I prefer my TTRPG play to be more setting-focused, and exploring that setting through your PC is the primary purpose of play.

Sure. No surprise there.

I would note that the simulation is orthogonal to exploration. I've a Deadlands: Lost Colony game that I'll be running starting likely in January - there's a ton of things for the PCs to explore, but there's very little simulation about it.

 

[aco175]

Simulation seems to be something attempting to copy the real world. A flight simulator or golf simulator attempts to copy the real world flying or playing of golf. People know it is not the actual thing and can play along for what it is or try to break it by crashing the plane knowing nothing real is going to happen.

Playing in a role-playing game also bring in verisimilitude or playing along with things not real. People should know playing the game and swinging a sword to kill an orc is not real. Simulation says that a real sword does more damage than a dagger so the game sword deals more damage than a dagger. My characters strength is really strong, so he deals even more damage. There are boundaries between how far people want to go which we might call gritty meeting boundaries of fun and speed of play. Examples of threads on armor being more/less cool vs a sword and need a flail or something.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I came at my answer in part from a background of making computer models of physics processes, as well as playing a bunch of simulation games as a kid.

My first reaction to that was, "Great! But some explanation of what that answer was and how that background led to it would be helpful..."

Anyway, just in this thread I've realized that I keep thinking of the word "simulation" as "simulating reality", which seems quixotic, imo. But the thing I mentioned upthread, about the difference between setup and execution, the idea of letting the clockwork mechanism run its course, makes more sense to me.

 

[Reynard]

Simulation seems to be something attempting to copy the real world. A flight simulator or golf simulator attempts to copy the real world flying or playing of golf. People know it is not the actual thing and can play along for what it is or try to break it by crashing the plane knowing nothing real is going to happen.

Playing in a role-playing game also bring in verisimilitude or playing along with things not real. People should know playing the game and swinging a sword to kill an orc is not real. Simulation says that a real sword does more damage than a dagger so the game sword deals more damage than a dagger. My characters strength is really strong, so he deals even more damage. There are boundaries between how far people want to go which we might call gritty meeting boundaries of fun and speed of play. Examples of threads on armor being more/less cool vs a sword and need a flail or something.

Yes, rule elements like the very granular weapon reach and space rules, or weapons versus armor types, from AD&D 1E are simulationist rules.