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

[Bill Zebub]

Simulation seems to be something attempting to copy the real world...

That...or really the exact inverse of that...is what I was getting at in my last post. It's not trying to copy the real world, it's trying to run a simulation.

EDIT: I should rephrase that. You're not wrong, it's just that many people seem to be using a completely different definition.

 

[Umbran]

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.

So, just to demonstrate a half-agreement:

I think good simulation does reduce what you're calling "narrative contrivance". Indeed, this is some of what was behind my separating genre emulation from simulation. Genre emulation can have a lot of narrative contrivance to it.

Where this falls down for me is that you do not achieve what I think of as simulation merely by eliminating narrative contrivance. You can eliminate the contrivance merely by putting together arbitrary systems that make decisions for the GM. But only when those systems are designed to generate traits of an intended fictional world, does it become a simulation.

Removal of contrivance can be achieved, say, with a random encounter table. When the encounters are tailored for terrain type, and the terrain is set up with some notions of geology, climate, and weather processes, then you are moving towards simulation. Note: those don't have to be notions of Earthly geology, climate, and weather processes - thus how this doesn't have to be "realistic".

 

[Bill Zebub]

I think good simulation does reduce what you're calling "narrative contrivance". Indeed, this is some of what was behind my separating genre emulation from simulation. Genre emulation can have a lot of narrative contrivance to it.

The same could be true in simulation of reality, not just a genre simulation.

Here's an example to demonstrate the difference between two ways the word is being used: a the player of a high-level character wins a contested strength check to break free of a flying dragon, and a result falls thousands of feet. He takes the maximum of 20d6 damage, and lives. Which was part of his plan; he knew 20d6 couldn't kill him. The GM frowns, says "that's not realistic" and rules the character dies.

The GM broke the simulation in order to simulate reality.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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

Both awesome games I've played extensively.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

But it still depicts characters with statistics representing something real in the setting, traveling through a world full of things also represented mechanically, so I wouldn't say there's as little sim as you suggest. I've read that game. Unless you're using rules different from Pinnacle original, d20, or Savage Worlds, there's still a lot of modeling going on.

 

[Umbran]

Simulation seems to be something attempting to copy the real world.

Somewhat. But, it doesn't have to be our real world.

For examples, I can bring up much of the fiction of Robert L Forward - a physicists who wrote several novels set in worlds dramatically different than our own. Like - a double-planet system that shared an ocean and atmosphere (Rocheworld), on the surface of a neutron star (Dragon's Egg), or in a universe that allows time travel, but allows for no paradox (Timemaster).

Forward spent so much time, thought, and effort on the worlds, that his plot and characterization is... thin, at best. The works are mostly about exploring these settings. Concerns of who the people doing the exploring were was a distant second consideration.

 

[Laurefindel]

Simulation is an attempt to recreate something real or that feels believably real.

In the context of a RPG, simulation is a spectrum, not a yes/no question. Combat rules aim to simulate combat. They can be simple, they can be complex, they can be arcade-style health bar, they can be gritty tracking injuries, in the end, they’re all simulations.

Simulationist games generally aim for rules providing a more accurate recreation based on observed or perceived facts, often trading ease of play for more immersive rules increasing the believability of the characters state of mind and body. Note that I’m not necessarily equaling simulation with realism, and I’m not equaling realism with relatability.

 

[Bill Zebub]

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.

The value I personally see in that is not because it feels more like reality, but so that players never wonder if there was a finger placed on the scale.

 

[Blue]

To me, simulation is when a ruleset attempts to emulate the "physics" of the genre, and lets emergent behavior shape play.

Let me unpack what I mean by "physics", and I'm going to go to the venerable Champions (now Hero System) RPG that I played decades of. In that system, there is an underlying mathematics about all superpowers, tech, magic, etc., in order to keep it all working with the same set of rules. There's also a power cap -- think bounded accuracy but for the magnitude of powers. Once you have that, everything you do mechanically just devolves to the same set of rules -- 3d6 roll low to succeed on checks including attacks, and powers that share basic rules about Endurance costs, tallying effect, etc. If I punch someone or shoot them with a blast of energy, it will likely do (power cap/5) d6 of damage, which we roll and work out Body and Stun damage done, both of which defenses can reduce. How far you are knocked back (this did start as a superhero genre simulator) is Body less a few d6.

Gameplay is emergent from this. It aims to make the world feel like the genre (not necessarily real life). I mentioned Knockback in the example above, that's something common in various superhero genres, so the rules are sure to emulate it.

This doesn't mean there can't be rules that support non-simulationist rules, such as Inspiration in 2014 D&D 5e, just that it's not the primary.

A successful simulation ruleset often needs to be aware of the game properties of the system, as a simulation could easily make certain aspects emerge as much more powerful to the detriment of archetypes and tropes in the genre. For example it's easy to believe that a strong hero's punches are equal to another's flame blasts, but in a SF or cyberpunk genre if non-powered-weapon melee combat is part of the genre, the simulation needs to work out how that coexists in the world of firearms to make sure that it doesn't cut off the options that it wants to present.

 

[TwoSix]

Where this falls down for me is that you do not achieve what I think of as simulation merely by eliminating narrative contrivance. You can eliminate the contrivance merely by putting together arbitrary systems that make decisions for the GM. But only when those systems are designed to generate traits of an intended fictional world, does it become a simulation.

Fair point.

To build on that, I do think it would be challenging to design a truly arbitrary resolution process, a process that doesn't attempt to simulate something, simply because the usual resolution tools for these kind of games (an encounter table, a weather simulation table, a NPC/faction reaction table, etc.) require their elements to be derived from some source. Once you put a dragon on your encounter table, that detail alone has specified quite a few facts about your setting. Likewise putting "thunderstorm" on a weather generator.