Contemporary Simulationist TTRPGs [+]

[pemerton]

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.

<snip>

Oddly enough, for all their rules = they fail at simulating the real world effects.

<snip>

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.

I think that the "watcmaking" simulationist RPGs - the one I know best is Rolemaster - are especially trying to mechanically represent inputs into the given task.

A limitation that can arise is that they don't necessarily correlate that full spectrum of inputs into a "realistic" range of outputs. I mentioned Torchbearer upthread as a candidate modern simulationist RPG. It does take a lot of inputs - eg it has rules for random weather and how that factors into task difficulty - but relies more on table, and especially (but not exclusively) GM, judgement to determine exact results of attempted actions.

This is part of why I said it is good for details, colour, "proximity"-to-the-fiction sim. But not good for disclaiming decision-making. The "watchmaking" games tend to achieve the latter, even if the results they yield aren't always that realistic.

 

[RenleyRenfield]

I think that the "watcmaking" simulationist RPGs - the one I know best is Rolemaster - are especially trying to mechanically represent inputs into the given task.

...

I agree with all you posted there. I just snipped down to this as to say - yes, I 100% think that the way you put that is perfect when i think of "watchmaking" as a manner of simulationist games - as "mechanical inputs", regardless of realistic output. Love that !

To me, Simualtionist is very much both. Pasion de las Pasiones perfectly simulates a Spanish telanovela. But it has no depth of mechanical inputs to tweak, combine, munchkin, select right wrong best worst, etc etc.

My preference is on game that give outcomes that feel closer to the overall goal.

 

[dbm]

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.

Yes, I am well aware of that. You seem to have forgotten early when you were defining an encounter as:

It starts when you roll initiative and ends when you drop out of initiative.

Which was as unworkable as self-charging smart phones.

Answer me this: what law of nature means that a fighter can attempt ‘Spinning Sweep’ exactly once between 5 minute rests? Don’t worry, that was a rhetorical question. It is limited for purposes of game balance. Encounter based powers are a gamist mechanic, not a simulationist one.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Yes, I am well aware of that. You seem to have forgotten early when you were defining an encounter as:

Which was as unworkable as self-charging smart phones.

No it isn't. Until and unless you can cover every single possibility in a concise ruleset you are going to have to rely on GM adjudication.

Which means that unless you can show me the game that has something as comprehensive as the description of what a fight is then either you have an incomplete description or you are relying on GM fiat. Ultimately "GM fiat with guidance" is the only possibility you have beyond a world that is as deliberately as artificial as Order of the Stick. Everything else is unworkable.

Answer me this: what law of nature means that a fighter can attempt ‘Spinning Sweep’ exactly once between 5 minute rests? Don’t worry, that was a rhetorical question. It is limited for purposes of game balance. Encounter based powers are a gamist mechanic, not a simulationist one.

Oh, you want to be an edition warrior. And are doing so by using tedious watchmaker-style critiques.

In real life you do not have your fighters be unthinking unfeeling robots who just spam the same attack every single time. Or even open with the same trick. Because if they did the enemy would just learn them. And because if they did they'd get RSI. Which means you basically have four options:

• Zooming out so far that the differences between different attacks simply doesn't matter and you just make a single roll
• Unrealistic and untiring robotic fighters that just spam the same attack because it's their best attack and there are no mechanics to say they can't
• A highly complex mix of rising opposition familiarity and specific types of fatigue that presents escalating penalties for just spamming the same trick
• Zooming out far enough so you can use simple mechanics that encourage people to actually behave the way real people would without e.g. putting separate modifiers on each move and for each target

Encounter powers are indeed a gamist mechanic. They also lead to a world that is a much better simulated one than one that allows spiked chain whirlwind attack trip-spamming one trick ponies. Because gamist mechanics that focus on interesting outputs are normally better simulations than watchmaker input simulations.

So if a gamist mechanic creates a much better simulation of the actual decisions people make than mechanics that pretend to be a simulation why are you going after the explicitly gamist mechanic rather than praising it for replacing something awful with something that, despite being gamist in intent, made for a vastly better simulation than what preceded it?

But neither 3.X nor 4e fit within the 15 year guideline of the thread.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Mod Note:

@dbm @Neonchameleon

Y’all seem to have forgotten this is a [+] thread. Dial it back several notches and/or disengage, please.