D&D General D&D isn't a simulation game, so what is???

[Thomas Shey]

Agreed, for a system that works that way. One could imagine a representative system faithful to the reference cosmos, that doesn't resolve linearly forward.

I agree in theory, but in practice, its hard to see such a resolution system being constructed for a game that considers that kind of element important. Even games that don't consider such things important, but still have multipe steps tend to do them chronologically so that intervention can be practiced before things finally gel.

For sure. In many cases I am rereading to see if I can better understand that.

Good luck. If people consider variations of the Threefold confusing, wade into an Immersion discussion and try and come out knowing more than you did going in.

Here's a link to the comments attributed to him. I found this from stackexchange although I didn't capture that particular link.

Yeah, that reads like Brian. I think he's a little off on a couple of things at least: First, I don't think r.g.f.a. Simulationists were defining their preference by the negative the way he says; it just happens that that was a side effect of their preference for world-exploration over everything, but there were a few special-cases where things that could only be called metagame decision that would fit in their preferences; they just wouldn't be considered a virtue. Secondly, I think he underestimates the number of Dramatist proponents that were present back in the day, though the Simulationists did kind of drive the discussion.

Regarding GNS, most of his critique seems to be of its creator than the theory, though I do agree it shows one of the same issues GDS had; one wing was only there by sort of implication and became the place to pile misunderstanding on (game in GDS, simulation in GNS).

 

[Thomas Shey]

I'm not saying must, only can. It contrasts with RQ, where there is no comparable possibility of the player injecting their metagame priority into resolution.

Uhm, not so sure. Is there a real difference between that and deciding where and when to use your one Parry/Dodge? That can involve an in-character assessment of risk, or an out-of-character estimation of flow and how the GM is probably going to use uncommitted attackers.

 

[clearstream]

On causal, I have been wondering about the relationship of setting details to simulationism? Some examples

In RQ if I roll an 86 during character generation my character comes from a poor noble background (implied, there are poor nobles).
In RQ I can buy a cart horse for 50L.
In RQ I can buy and wear an open helm, similar to a Roman legionnaire helm.

These elements contribute I think to the simulationism (contrast adding a sportscar to the list of things for sale... that changes things, right?) I don't picture them as situated in mechanical chains of causation.

A simulationist design is one whose models and rules preponderantly take inputs and produce results including fiction, corelated with references; so that we know when we say what follows that our fiction accords with the reference, and the imagined inhabitants of the world can have knowledge corresponding to its rules.

I've avoided insisting on causation with static details in mind, that to me need to be present and in some way consistent in sustaining our impressions of the reference. They are at the model level of the simulation, therefore being definitional and not procedural. What I am here avoiding is assigning a greater priority to causes of events in the setting over facts about the setting. If the intuition is right, I may need to tweak the first part of the definition.

 

[Thomas Shey]

On causal, I have been wondering about the relationship of setting details to simulationism? Some examples

In RQ if I roll an 86 during character generation my character comes from a poor noble background (implied, there are poor nobles).
In RQ I can buy a cart horse for 50L.
In RQ I can buy and wear an open helm, similar to a Roman legionnaire helm.

These elements contribute I think to the simulationism (contrast adding a sportscar to the list of things for sale... that changes things, right?) I don't picture them as situated in mechanical chains of causation.

Well, clearly proper simulation is going to be contextual. That's one of the reasons simulationist leaning generic systems are so difficult.

 

[jgsugden]

Just remember, that every version of this game ends in Rocks Fall Everybody Dies.

That is why you use the spawn action to create a nw character to continue the storyline.

 

[firstkyne]

Let the anger from offended D&D fans flow through you. Use it!

...to go check out the BRP games mentioned earlier, and also maybe GURPS Fantasy. There are definitely fantasy games that are more directly simulationist than D&D. GURPS, for example, uses something like 1-second combat turns, and has much more specific mechanics for stuff like damage from specific weapons against specific types of armor.

GURPS contains the tools to play in a simulation manner better than anything else I have played (38 years a rp-er). you can also opt for various rules which move the game style to cinematic or outright high fantasy. It's not entirely to my tastes actually, but it's better than most rpg systems. Definitely worth a try.

 

[Grendel_Khan]

GURPS contains the tools to play in a simulation manner better than anything else I have played (38 years a rp-er). you can also opt for various rules which move the game style to cinematic or outright high fantasy. It's not entirely to my tastes actually, but it's better than most rpg systems. Definitely worth a try.

imo GURPS falls flat for cinematic play--I certainly tried, many times, but the way action is sliced up, and the way you have to layer on rules and/or points, always felt cumbersome. But it really is a simulationist's dream.