Contemporary Simulationist TTRPGs [+]

[Enaknomolos]

I would categorize flavors of the Cepheus Engine as contemporary simulationist...

Some Mongoose releases are strongly sim too. The World Builder's Handbook, in particular, packs an absurd amount of contemporary astrophysics into a gaming supplement.

I think it's also a clear example of one sort of situation where simulation does require complexity. If you want your sci-fi stars and worlds to accord with contemporary science, then there's simply no way of doing that without maths, even if that maths is a bit streamlined for gaming purposes.

 

[payn]

This is probably a relatively hot take for a + thread, but...

Dungeons and Dragons.

D&D has always had significant simulationist elements, from it's roots as a wargame and extending through every edition. It is 100% okay to say "I value simulationism in my D&D game". Some people will mock you for this. Some ENWorlders will mock you for this. They are wrong, as any one-true-wayism of D&D is wrong.

That being said, 3.0e was probably the height of simulationism in D&D largely due to influence from Peter Adkinson, and I doubt we'll see it matched in future editions. 2e gained a notable amount of simulationism over time (by means of it's many, many expansions). 5e is arguably towards the lower end, but the elements are still there. And I don't think 5e 2024 moves the needle much in either direction from 2014.

One of the arguments I often see is that simulation must be a complete reality simulator or its no simulation at all. Another is that folks want a game, and not a simulation, as if the two are mutually exclusive. Though, a lot of simulation can live in the abstract. For example, the 5E 6-8 encounters per day expectation is an attrition adventure day attempt at a fantasy adventure simulation. No its not attempting to sim reality, its attempting to put a process of resource attrition across the day in place to simulate an adventure day. See Snarf's post on some of the differences in rules and rulings of sim.

So, yeah I agree that D&D has some sim in it. Id even say the contemporary sim in games tends to be more the abstract under the hood variety as opposed to classic actual rules. Forbidden Lands, for example, uses supply dice to track resources in an old school dungeon crawl way. Its a contemporary design, but with a classic gaming feel. I'd agree D&D seems to be following this path since 3E.

 

[dbm]

It hasn’t finished cooking yet but The Broken Empires will be a new ’sim-lite’ RPG when it arrives. This is a new system which aims to be simulations but without going to extremes of detail that would slow down play.

It’s uses a d100 ‘Blackjack’ mechanic for its core resolution, with most actions seeming to be opposed. The person who rolls highest while still under their skill level wins. There are a bunch of interesting flourishes to the system. By using the tens number as degree of success it helps minimise the number of dice tools needed to resolve something. There are rules for travel and negotiation (without this turning into ‘social combat’), and a free-form magic system which takes inspiration from Ars Magica but aims to do something different with that premise.

It should release early next year, I’m really looking forward to it.

 

[Aldarc]

It hasn’t finished cooking yet but The Broken Empires will be a new ’sim-lite’ RPG when it arrives. This is a new system which aims to be simulations but without going to extremes of detail that would slow down play.

It’s uses a d100 ‘Blackjack’ mechanic for its core resolution, with most actions seeming to be opposed. The person who rolls highest while still under their skill level wins. There are a bunch of interesting flourishes to the system. By using the tens number as degree of success it helps minimise the number of dice tools needed to resolve something. There are rules for travel and negotiation (without this turning into ‘social combat’), and a free-form magic system which takes inspiration from Ars Magica but aims to do something different with that premise.

It should release early next year, I’m really looking forward to it.

Good call. This is another project that has me interested. I doubt that it will be my go-to game of choice, but I definitely can't wait to at least get my hands on the PDF and see how the game works.

Forbidden Lands, for example, uses supply dice to track resources in an old school dungeon crawl way. Its a contemporary design, but with a classic gaming feel.

Agreed.

 

[The Firebird]

I have more thoughts about your post, but I have an absence of time to address everything. So for now...

The thing is, I'm not so sure. I would like to direct you to a post I made in the other thread that prompted this one:

I think that it's possible that there is a contingent of contemporary sim fans that are skeptical of mechanics as the means to simulationism. There are arguably a number of new simulationist games out there that veer towards the rules light side of things as a result.

I have two comments. The first is--how popular is FKR really and what do its proponents consider the main example of the genre? I've not seen anyone running a game billed as "FKR". I have played a Braunstein, which I see mentioned in the same conversation, but I think there are some key differences. But I won't elaborate on that yet.

Second, the key point I mentioned was "the GM has to make up a procedure" is a fail state. I think that doesn't clash with FKR as you describe it to the extent that the GM has expert knowledge of the material. For example, if I say "my soldiers want to dismantle this barn and use the wood to make a bridge", and the GM did that while in the army, then they aren't really making up a rule, right? They're applying an unwritten rule. In contrast, if I ask "how many bakers are in a town of 10,000", most GMs wouldn't have a solid grounding in demographics and they will have to make something up.

Put another way, we can read the FKR games as having very detailed but hidden rules. The fact that they are 'rules light' on the tin doesn't mean the GM has complete authority to rule however they want. They are ruling in line with their experience, will make the same rulings in the same scenarios, and will make those rulings based on perceived realism. And if the games are really doing what they say they are doing, then two expert GMs should make identical rulings.

 

[Aldarc]

I have two comments. The first is--how popular is FKR really and what do its proponents consider the main example of the genre? I've not seen anyone running a game billed as "FKR". I have played a Braunstein, which I see mentioned in the same conversation, but I think there are some key differences. But I won't elaborate on that yet.

Second, the key point I mentioned was "the GM has to make up a procedure" is a fail state. I think that doesn't clash with FKR as you describe it to the extent that the GM has expert knowledge of the material. For example, if I say "my soldiers want to dismantle this barn and use the wood to make a bridge", and the GM did that while in the army, then they aren't really making up a rule, right? They're applying an unwritten rule. In contrast, if I ask "how many bakers are in a town of 10,000", most GMs wouldn't have a solid grounding in demographics and they will have to make something up.

Put another way, we can read the FKR games as having very detailed but hidden rules. The fact that they are 'rules light' on the tin doesn't mean the GM has complete authority to rule however they want. They are ruling in line with their experience, will make the same rulings in the same scenarios, and will make those rulings based on perceived realism. And if the games are really doing what they say they are doing, then two expert GMs should make identical rulings.

Snarf is the poster more well-versed in FKR. Overgeeked as well. This is one area where I know that I am out of my depth, and I fear getting dragged into a protracted disagreement about the subject on what is meant to be a plus thread.

 

[Deset Gled]

Put another way, we can read the FKR games as having very detailed but hidden rules. The fact that they are 'rules light' on the tin doesn't mean the GM has complete authority to rule however they want. They are ruling in line with their experience, will make the same rulings in the same scenarios, and will make those rulings based on perceived realism. And if the games are really doing what they say they are doing, then two expert GMs should make identical rulings.

To start, I will say that I am not an expert on FKR. That being said, I disagree with this on two points.

First, I don't think it's accurate to say that FKR has "hidden" rules. That implies some level of misdirection or deception. IMNSHO, FKR is best described as being based on trust: trust between the players, trust in the referee, trust in the game. The idea that there are parts of the game that are "hidden" seems antithetical to that premise. That a referee may need to come up with an ad hoc ruling to an unexpected scenario is not a "fail" state, it is entire reason for the referee to exist in the first place. Additionally, I don't think that two FKR referees could be expected to make two identical rulings, because the defualt assumption is that two completely identical scenarios should not exist.

Second, FKR is not inherently "rules light". The baseline assumption is that the players agree to the priorities of the game (i.e. world, narrative, etc) as well as the authority of the referee. The players need to know and agree to the rules, and trust the other players and referee to know them as well. In a majority of FKR games, the rules are kept intentionally light and simple to promote the other priorities of the game. However, there is no inherent need for the rules to be light, only that they are known and agreed to. You could, theoretically, play FKR with D&D 3e, the Battletech wargame rules, or the Arkham Horror board game. As long as the players understood those rules and agreed to them. Now, this is not commonly done. Largely because those rules don't translate to the other priorities of the game. Partially because it tacitly assumes a level of rules mastery that most players won't have. And, most generally, because people playing FKR tend to not want higher complexity rules. But none of that means that "rules heavy" FKR doesn't exist, just that it's not common.

To sum all that up: FKR has an extremely high correlation with rules-light play, but there is no causation that requires it.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

@Aldarc @Deset Gled
I appreciate both of you for what you've written about FKR.

@The Firebird
I don't want to get into a whole FKR thing for multiple reasons (this isn't an FKR thread, I've been ... a little burned before when I've tried to discuss it, and this is a + thread specifically about simulationism and I don't want to derail it), but here's a few prior essays that might be interesting.* Hopefully they can answer some of your questions!

D&D General Thread 'FKR: How Fewer Rules Can Make D&D Better'

May 17, 2023

A lot of the time, I fail my own wisdom saving throw. I sometimes will refer to FKR with the assumption that people will know what I'm talking about, given that I've written about it in the past. However, as @Micah Sweet recently reminded me, that is not the case. So, since it has been a while since I've gone into this, I thought I'd post some collected thoughts on the subject, and end with a conclusion as to how, even if you do not choose to play FKR games, some of the concepts can be used in your own D&D game.


1. What is FKR?
Despite being the stuff of nightmares...

• Snarf Zagyg
• Replies: 189
• Forum: *Dungeons & Dragons

• 
• 

D&D General Thread 'Respeckt Mah Authoritah: Understanding High Trust and the Division of Authority'

Aug 18, 2023

It's been a hot minute, eh?

Over on another thread, people have started talking about a perennial topic that tends to rear its ugly head here on the EnWorld forum- who sucks more, the BAD DM or the BAD PLAYER? And while the contours of that debate are interesting (for certain low values of "interesting"), I thought it might be interesting to look at the conversation from a slightly different point of view- to discuss what people mean when they talk about "high trust," and, more importantly, why different game designs have different divisions of authority- and why those different designs...

• Snarf Zagyg
• Replies: 171
• Forum: *Dungeons & Dragons

• 

D&D 5E (2014) Thread 'Realism and Simulationism in 5e: Is D&D Supposed to be Realistic?'

Mar 10, 2022

Well, like Beetlejuice, I will appear when I am summoned. In a different thread, @Swarmkeeper requested that I create a thread on the "topic on realism and verisimilitude in 5e..."

The second worst thing in life is not getting what you want. The worst thing in life is getting it.

I've touched on this particular topic numerous times, so this is going to be an overview of my thoughts to allow other people to continue the discussion. I'm not planning on joining in, because my thoughts will (a) primarily be in the OP, (b) are relatively nuanced and conflicting, and (c) aren't very...

• Snarf Zagyg
• Replies: 374
• Forum: *Dungeons & Dragons

• 

*Here's a link to my second archives if you want to see more material. Note that as they go further into the past, they may not reflect my current thinking. My opinions and thoughts always evolve, and I am always ready to contradict myself, for I am always right- at least, in the present tense.

 

[The Firebird]

To start, I will say that I am not an expert on FKR. That being said, I disagree with this on two points.

First, I don't think it's accurate to say that FKR has "hidden" rules. That implies some level of misdirection or deception. IMNSHO, FKR is best described as being based on trust: trust between the players, trust in the referee, trust in the game. The idea that there are parts of the game that are "hidden" seems antithetical to that premise. That a referee may need to come up with an ad hoc ruling to an unexpected scenario is not a "fail" state, it is entire reason for the referee to exist in the first place. Additionally, I don't think that two FKR referees could be expected to make two identical rulings, because the defualt assumption is that two completely identical scenarios should not exist.

Second, FKR is not inherently "rules light". The baseline assumption is that the players agree to the priorities of the game (i.e. world, narrative, etc) as well as the authority of the referee. The players need to know and agree to the rules, and trust the other players and referee to know them as well. In a majority of FKR games, the rules are kept intentionally light and simple to promote the other priorities of the game. However, there is no inherent need for the rules to be light, only that they are known and agreed to. You could, theoretically, play FKR with D&D 3e, the Battletech wargame rules, or the Arkham Horror board game. As long as the players understood those rules and agreed to them. Now, this is not commonly done. Largely because those rules don't translate to the other priorities of the game. Partially because it tacitly assumes a level of rules mastery that most players won't have. And, most generally, because people playing FKR tend to not want higher complexity rules. But none of that means that "rules heavy" FKR doesn't exist, just that it's not common.

To sum all that up: FKR has an extremely high correlation with rules-light play, but there is no causation that requires it.

Thanks for your response. This question of "to what extent are unwritten rules actually rules" is I think a really interesting one. For example, if I place a ball bearing on a sloped path, it should roll down, but I've never seen that stated in a game book. It is implicitly understood by the participants that the rule of 'gravity' is in play.

That said, a few people have expressed a desire for the conversation to turn elsewhere, and I don't want to break even the informal rules of the + thread, so I'll drop this line.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

What is common to FKR and more systematic simulationist approach, is that they aim to model functioning of the fictional world. World, not a story. The logic is: "Given the parameters of the situation, what would happen?" Not, what would be most dramatic, funny, thematically appropriate or would push the action to most interesting direction. Such things might be considered in simulationistic play, but not as part of the resolution, but as part of seeding the initial conditions.