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

[Pedantic]

Oh, I definitely think the result of an arbitrary algorithm still counts as a simulation.

Any one of the 5 billion planets generated for No Man’s sky is a simulation. Creating a survival mode world off a random seed in Minecraft is a simulation.

That’s why I don’t think the “modeling” aspect of the term “simulation” is very useful for what “simulation” means in the specific context of TTRPGs. It’s why I’ve been more focused on the absence of mechanisms driven by contrivance in my own personal definitions.

I agree with your point here, and I think it points to divergence about whether the antecedents of a system, or the system itself matter toward "simulation" in this sense; is simulation a design goal that can underlie your whole mechanical architecture, or is it method for fulfilling a specific design goal? Falls should be like this, so I'm modeling them this way, vs. falls work in this consistent, understandable way, and that is harmoniously accounted for in the rest of the rules structure.

I like your point about contrivance, I've been wracking my brain for a situation it fails in and I'm coming up blank. Fundamentally, I think simulation is resistance to storytelling, or maybe just "story."

I don't think the calls for a prior goal to system, having a specific thing that is modeled are necessarily constituent. It doesn't have to be realistic, it just needs to be taken seriously. If falling damage is trivial, people jump off walls. If the stealth rules are poorly designed and hiding is essentially impossible, then no one is ever ambushed, and so on.

 

[dbm]

That said I've seen that article cited as proof Gygax didn't like simulationism, but he had a way of taking strong stances that make isolated quotes unrepresentative. Certainly he is more interested in simulationist combat than modern d&d.

That sounds more like a specific counter-punch to Runequest (subject to the exact publication dates) which brought in mechanics similar to what the quote mentions. Runequest’s pitch was essentially ‘more realistic than D&D’ and this is a pitch of ‘yeah but D&D is more fun to play’.

 

[dbm]

I think it is useful to remember George Box when thinking about simulation: “all models are wrong, some are useful”. It’s often applied to physical laws like Newtonian Physics versus General Relativity - both will tell you what effect gravity will have on a body and while General Relativity might give you a more ‘accurate’ result it is much more complex to generate and the Newtonian calculation is adequate for most people’s application.

That’s why the complexity of rules isn’t a decider for ‘simulation or not’ in my book. There is another deciding factor and for me that is whether a character can extrapolate meaningfully from what they are experiencing or have presented before them. That starts with non-controversial things like objects fall, fire is hot and builds up to whatever extreme or novel circumstances they may find themselves in.

For me, the benefit of this as a player is that I can take all the evidence my character knows from the game world and then make meaningful choices when presented new things. A big monster is likely to be tough, strong and hopefully slow as big things usually are, for example. This is what makes simulationist systems particularly useful for exploratory games about going out, finding new things, and interacting with them.

Critically, when I make a choice I feel that it was mine to make and I’m not relying on the GM / table thinking ‘that’s cool - let’s go with it to make a great story’. That’s perfectly fine for a system which is aiming for genre emulation, but that is different from world simulation.

 

[Micah Sweet]

That sounds more like a specific counter-punch to Runequest (subject to the exact publication dates) which brought in mechanics similar to what the quote mentions. Runequest’s pitch was essentially ‘more realistic than D&D’ and this is a pitch of ‘yeah but D&D is more fun to play’.

Seems like more of Gygax putting on his salesman hat again, yeah.

 

[Umbran]

Oh, I definitely think the result of an arbitrary algorithm still counts as a simulation.

Any one of the 5 billion planets generated for No Man’s sky is a simulation.

But, those aren't arbitrary. No Man's Sky has algorithms designed to simulate planets.

 

[TwoSix]

But, those aren't arbitrary. No Man's Sky has algorithms designed to simulate planets.

But it also isn’t trying to model anything either, other than making something planet-like.

There’s a difference between a computer model running to determine Earth’s weather next week, and a d20 table where the DM has written in weather patterns they’ve heard of, but both ultimately produce a simulation. But I would argue the former is attempting to model Earth, and the latter is mostly arbitrary (although I assume the results will look somewhat Earth-like unless the DM makes a specific attempt to add fantastic elements).

And going back to the thread topic, there’s a difference “in-game” between rolling up a rainstorm on a table, and the DM deciding it’s raining to create a dramatic backstop for the upcoming encounter.

 

[Reynard]

And going back to the thread topic, there’s a difference “in-game” between rolling up a rainstorm on a table, and the DM deciding it’s raining to create a dramatic backstop for the upcoming encounter.

Is there a difference to the players, do you think? (assuming they don't know whether the GM used a table or not)

 

[Pedantic]

Is there a difference to the players, do you think? (assuming they don't know whether the GM used a table or not)

In specific, perhaps not from this exact thing (though maybe, depending how a GM presents things). In aggregate, yes absolutely: the more latitude a GM has over system, the more narrative curation will inevitably creep in.

 

[Umbran]

But it also isn’t trying to model anything either, other than making something planet-like.

That's still intentionally modelling something. "Planet-like" is actually a whole lot.

No Man's Sky has random numbers in the generator on the back end, but those numbers are then folded, spindled, and mutilated with a plan, to shape them with intent. I am more than sure that they tweaked and tuned that process nearly forever to get it to give output they wanted.

But I would argue the former is attempting to model Earth, and the latter is mostly arbitrary (although I assume the results will look somewhat Earth-like unless the DM makes a specific attempt to add fantastic elements).

To be clear, "arbitrary" means, to me: based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.

If it really is arbitrary, with absolutely no concern for things like, say, climate, season, and terrain, then it isn't really a simulation. But, I'm guessing that most GMs are not having it snow in tropical summer, so I expect there is at least a little thought into the sim when that table is created. No, it isn't like supercomputers doing hurricane predictions today, but a bit of actual simulation is going on there.

And going back to the thread topic, there’s a difference “in-game” between rolling up a rainstorm on a table, and the DM deciding it’s raining to create a dramatic backstop for the upcoming encounter.

Totally agree with you there.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Is there a difference to the players, do you think? (assuming they don't know whether the GM used a table or not)

Probably not, unless it becomes clear that the most narratively appropriate things keep happening. But whether or not the players consciously notice stuff like that isn't necessarily the point.