An opinion that has virtually nothing supporting it deserves to be giggled at. They should be dismissed. Why should I take an opinion seriously that has virtually no evidence to back it up?
Let's unpack this. First, can we all agree that "simulationism" is just jargon introduced in the '90s.
The threefold model. If you want a brief refresher, this was a debate that was primarily between the "D" and the "S." It was about
decision-making.
Simulationists believe that decision-making (players and DMs) should be based on cause-and-effect from in-world game logic.
Dramatists believe that decision-making (players and DMs) should be based on the logic and needs of the story.
(Gamists were always marginalized, both then and now, but looked at game skill- think Gygaxian Skilled Play).
Anyway, think of this in terms not just of debates between games, but decision-making within games. If you're running a 2e game, are decisions being made based on the logic of the game world or based on story logic?
By the way, this isn't something new. Lewis Pulsipher (who posts here) was arguing against the "D" approach in the
late 1970s. This is all covered in
The Elusive Shift. Old debate, new can of paint.
Then came ... that other thing. It wasn't really explanatory, instead, it just shifted the terms around, changed it from decision-making to agendas, and used it as a critique (in other words, elevating "N" ... replacing "D" in order to critique G and S).
The important point is this- the origin of the terms is actually
jargon. So when certain people come in and start slinging around "simulationism" they are using it as jargon. But they are also sneaking in the collateral meaning in order to rubbish what other people enjoy - the more common meaning of simulation. I wrote about this previously, calling it the "Texas Two Step"-
------------------------
This problem of conflation of jargon with natural language occurs repeatedly in conversations here, because these are all hobbyist-created terms. And because of this conflation, one of the recurring issues I see is what I call the "Texas Two Step." Let's use "simulation" as an example.
"Simulation" was first widely used in the threefold model (GDS) and later adopted for the GNS model. While it has various definitions, I'll just crib the one from wikipedia which is close enough for our purposes-
Simulation is concerned with the internal consistency of events that unfold in the game world, and ensuring that they are only caused by in-game factors - that is, eliminating metagame concerns (such as drama and game). Simulation is not necessarily concerned with simulating reality; it could be a simulation of any fictional world, cosmology or scenario, according to its own rules.
Notice that this term is
jargon. It has a specified technical meaning that arose in the context of RPGs, and it was about playing
goals and decision-making. It was trying to set it off against the "G" and "D" components.
The trouble is that while this is jargon, it also has specific connotations that people are familiar with in the real world. For example, when someone says that a pilot has 1,000 hours in a Boeing 737 simulator, a person who hears that assumes that the machine is designed to simulate the reality of flying a Boeing 737- not just some fictional world or fictional genre. In common parlance, simulations usually reflect
our reality, and the closer that they completely reflect reality, they more accurate they are as a simulation. So this is where the Texas Two Step comes in, over and over and over again.
Zeno: I like playing that RPG because I like Lord of the Rings.
Achilles: Well, we all know that is a
simulationist RPG. You like simulations! (Using the JARGON that someone is playing the game as a simulation of the LoTR genre).
Zeno: Um, sure. I like the way the game immerses me in the feeling of Middle Earth, and the fiction of Tolkien.
Achilles: HA! How dare you say that? Don't you know that game doesn't accurately simulate the economics of Middle Earth? For that matter, how can a world exist on the same technology for thousands of years? Heck, I don't even think that Tolkien understood plate tectonics and didn't accurately model how the mountains in his world formed!!!! It's not a simulation! (Using the COMMON VERNACULAR of simulation).
Unfortunately, this happens repeatedly- people that deliberately conflate jargon with the more widely-understood meaning in order to berate people for differing preferences. It's the Texas Two Step- first, get people to use jargon, then use the non-jargon meaning to criticize them, and then go back to defending the jargon. Rinse, repeat. Once you see this pattern happen, you will see it happen over and over and over again, with all sorts of terms.
---------------------------
And that's the problem. Why are you laughing at someone who says they enjoy simulation? They aren't saying that their fantasy game is "real." Or that they think that hit points is a 100% accurate representation of combat. Instead, they are saying that they prefer games that largely
follow the cause-and-effect of in-game logic, and don't sacrifice that for story reasons.
That's a reasonable position and difference to articulate; arguably, that's one reason that people either did (and did not) enjoy 4e, which had an emphasis of "getting to the good stuff."
It's important to understand what the actual objection is.