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

[Reynard]

I don't understand "plus thread". Is the default behavior here to assume that everyone has the same opinion about the thread topic?

It is usually used to emphasize that we should debate the matter civilly, especially when history shows that discussions about "simulationism" can get heated. I also use it as a reminder that arguing against the premise is bad form.

 

[The Firebird]

I don’t think those logically follow from each other, although I agree some people go that route. As evidence, I would offer Kriegspiel, which was a war simulation used for training real officers by the Prussian Army very successfully. It is most definitely a simulation with no need to consider gameplay / enjoyment or story yet it was mostly operated by the referees judgement based on experience. It did not have a whole stack of specific rules or procedures for different kinds of activities an army might undertake. Hence simulation does not need to mean lots of rules.

This reads to me as the rules being unstated rather than not present. For the system to work, the referee has to be experienced. Presumably that means that two different referees would rule similarly--maybe not exactly the same as if the rules were written, but much more so than if there were no rules.

This kind of game is harder to referee than almost any other. Why? Because it has a lot of rules and those rules are not stated.

 

[Celebrim]

I don't understand "plus thread". Is the default behavior here to assume that everyone has the same opinion about the thread topic?

No. They just mean that they'd prefer you not fill up the thread with an argument about how simulation is a dysfunctional play style and Real Gamers don't play that way.

 

[dbm]

@Celebrim , @The Firebird , @pemerton - while you all make very reasonable points about the codification of play, my point was that this is not a feature of simulationist games but rather a trend with games of all kinds. So it isn’t a defining quality if simulationist play in my opinion.

 

[pemerton]

@Celebrim , @The Firebird , @pemerton - while you all make very reasonable points about the codification of play, my point was that this is not a feature of simulationist games but rather a trend with games of all kinds. So it isn’t a defining quality if simulationist play in my opinion.

I'm not so much talking about codification, as expertise. In the absence of expertise and an objective standard of correctness, decision-making by a referee won't be simulation. It will just be authoring.

 

[dbm]

I'm not so much talking about codification, as expertise. In the absence of expertise and an objective standard of correctness, decision-making by a referee won't be simulation. It will just be authoring.

I disagree; GM decisions based on in-world phenomena and likely cause / effect count as simulation in my book. YMMV

 

[pemerton]

I disagree; GM decisions based on in-world phenomena and likely cause / effect count as simulation in my book. YMMV

I don't know what it's simulating, though. The GM could make up whatever they like, and it would count.

A simulation has some sort of correctness condition, in that either it produces the right outcomes (like a free kriegsspiel referee, based on their expertise) or that it models a process in some fashion.