Contemporary Simulationist TTRPGs [+]

[Old Fezziwig]

Torchbearer has been mentioned already, but I'd also suggest Errant. It looks to address some of the same questions about play as Torchbearer and has a similar premise for the characters, but it comes to different solutions with a very different playstyle. In play, I found the player roles (in particular, timekeeper, mapper, and quartermaster) did considerable work towards organizing the details of play and supporting coherency in the fiction, and the processes and mechanics of play do a good job of moving between different zoom levels -- large periods of time may get elided, but you'll know what happened during that time.

 

[RenleyRenfield]

....

When GURPS does supers, you work out the damage required to punch through tank armour based on its damage resistance and structural hit points, and this will tell you how much strength you would need which in turn tells you how much you should be able to lift. It also means that you would probably reduce a normal human to a fine red mist if you were to punch them. That’s a strongly simulationist approach, since the implication of being able to punch out a tanks is logically extrapolated to other applications of strength.

...

I don't follow you here. In Infinity 2d20, there are all those same elements. It has armor rating, special penetration ammunition, strength values, and damage resistance and more. So there is no mechanical effect you mention that is not in 2d20 depending on the game chosen.

Now, back to my point = Simulation is Simulation

So if we are talking about "watchmaking" and people want to use the term "Simulationist" to mean "how many elements of a given task are represented in the mechanics." Then we are really talking about how well a given rule represents the action at hand. And oddly enough, the more details systems, like GURPS, don't get any closer to representing reality than fully narrative ones. They just have more rules to describe it.

A good example is hunting and survival. I hunt big game very year in the rocky mountains, i kill very big things with guns and bows, and i do it in winters that kill people every year and i do it at over 12,000 feet, miles and miles from civilization. No game that has lots of little rules for Survival or Hunting is even close to correct. GURPS and D&D both are laughably wrong on how it really is.

Oddly enough, for all their rules = they fail at simulating the real world effects. Sellsword Arts has done a great job at showing how both GURPS and D&D are also incredibly wrong about how swords work.

So what I was pointing out with Dune and Shadowdark is that some games get close to the mark, not by "watchmaking" but by paying attention to the results, the odds of results and the circumstances that create them.

As well, Dune show us that "simulation" does not start and end with Strength and ballistics penetration. It shows us that Simulation can apply to Politics, Intrigue and even large scale war.

But if we ARE just talking about "watchmaking" then, fine. I will shush..

 

[Deset Gled]

Now, back to my point = Simulation is Simulation
...
As well, Dune show us that "simulation" does not start and end with Strength and ballistics penetration. It shows us that Simulation can apply to Politics, Intrigue and even large scale war.

But if we ARE just talking about "watchmaking" then, fine. I will shush..

It's not anybody's place to tell you to shush except the mods. But I can tell you my opinion on two things. First, this erratic bolding reads exactly the same posting in ALL CAPS TO EMPHASISE A POINT. And second, this tautalogical revelation that SIMULATION IS SIMULATION is not profound enough to warrant SHOUTING AT EVERYONE ABOUT IT.

Unless, of course, you happen to be Brian Blessed. In which case, FLY MY HAWKMAN!

 

[TiQuinn]

It's not anybody's place to tell you to shush except the mods. But I can tell you my opinion on two things. First, this erratic bolding reads exactly the same posting in ALL CAPS TO EMPHASISE A POINT. And second, this tautalogical revalation that SIMULATION IS SIMULATION is not profound enough to warrant SHOUTING AT EVERYONE ABOUT IT.

Unless, of course, you happen to be Brian Blessed. In which case, FLY MY HAWKMAN!

This is a post of the year candidate!

 

[payn]

This is a post of the year candidate!

Definitely a contender.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Maybe you have missed the point - upthread, folks mentioned that their idea of simulationist games included something akin to how the character thinking about their world ought to mirror the player thinking about the rules.

If we are taking that as a point, then if the rules are encounter-based in some way, instead of time-based, the character should be able to think in similar terms. If the character doesn't have a clear way to know what an "encounter" is, maybe simulationist rules should avoid "encounter" based mechanics.

Basically, I think the idea is that simulationist games should tend to avoid construction made of ease of game. "Encounter" is a game term, not a simulation term. This makes sense if you go just one step down - you don't want characters thinking in "rounds" do you?

And I have said quite categorically upthread that for anything involving physical exertion and thinking in the head of your character that encounter based "you do this to the end of the fight when you can relax" makes more sense than "You keep doing this for the next five minutes no matter what changes".

Edit to clarify it makes more sense from the in character perspective.

Also edit: The end of a combat encounter is generally pretty clear. People can be wrong or be tricked into thinking something is over that isn't (which is part of why we don't hard code the rules but instead leave it up to the GM) but people generally know when the end of the fight is. And the same goes for other encounter types.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Does its battery recharge when you move from room to room? Because that’s what ‘encounter based powers’ do.

In what game do they do this?

In the main game with encounter based powers I can think of (D&D 4e) the powers did not recharge on "roll initiative" or moving into a new scene. They explicitly and unequivocally recharged on having a short (five minute-ish) rest. It was just assumed that other than in exceptional circumstances people would have long enough breaks to bandage their wounds, clean their weapons and grab a drink and maybe a handful of trail mix or other light snack.

It was also assumed that other than in unusual circumstances we had no more actual need to play through this than we do bathroom breaks although we could if we chose to (just as films can have conversations or fights in the bathroom). On the other hand in extremely dangerous circumstances there could be rolling attacks denying the short rest.

I don't deny that there might be games where 'encounter powers' recharge on the start of an encounter without referencing a short rest (and 5e has resources recharging on rolling initiative). But this is neither universal nor something that happens in the best known case that uses encounter powers - so it can not be assumed to be the general case. And this misunderstanding was one of the many common and false edition war talking points.

So no my mobile phone's battery doesn't recharge when I move from room to room. It recharges a bit when I take a few minutes to plug it in to a fast charger on a short rest and a lot more when I plug it in overnight on a long rest.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I don't follow you here. In Infinity 2d20, there are all those same elements. It has armor rating, special penetration ammunition, strength values, and damage resistance and more. So there is no mechanical effect you mention that is not in 2d20 depending on the game chosen.

Now, back to my point = Simulation is Simulation

The big question (which is part of the incoherence of the GNS definition of Simulationism; there are multiple things Ron Edwards is talking about there) is what are we simulating?

So if we are talking about "watchmaking" and people want to use the term "Simulationist" to mean "how many elements of a given task are represented in the mechanics." Then we are really talking about how well a given rule represents the action at hand. And oddly enough, the more details systems, like GURPS, don't get any closer to representing reality than fully narrative ones. They just have more rules to describe it.

Absolutely agreed; we need to look at the output more than the individual inputs. I'm only not commenting on your example because I don't have the first bit of practical experience of big game hunting but I can 100% believe it. The big question is what things are simulating - and the big details simulations frequently have things like initiative and combat rounds being the same length in every fight with minimal attempts for characters to pace themselves. Also GURPS has fatigue points that have an effect - but ask any athlete whether they can fully recover all their fatigue in an hour. Systems like 4e or even 5e with split short and long rests do better this way at modelling the outputs of rest and recovery than GURPS.

 

[TerraDave]

Since D&D and specifically 4e has come up, it’s designers have specifically said it’s not simulationist. That was very much part of the design intent, not to try to simulate anything.

I can put in a reference later, if needed.

 

[Aldarc]

As a general reminder, this is a plus thread for Simulationist games.