Death of Simulation?

[Celebrim]

Ron Edwards on AD&D 1E

From the text above, it's already done : gamist movement rules coming from simulationist wargame movement rules.

The text isn't really about 1st edition AD&D, and to the extent that it is, I'll be bold enough to say that Ron Edwards was wrong.

For example:

A good place to start is Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, in just about the first text ever that tried to explain what was going on (Dungeon Master's Guide, first edition, 1979, TSR; the author is Gary Gygax):

Of the two approaches to hobby games today, one is best described as the realism-simulation school and the other as the game school. AD&D is assuredly an adherent of the latter school. It does not stress any realism ... It does little to attempt to simulate anything either. ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS is first and foremost a game for the fun and enjoyment of those who seek to use imagination and creativity.

How to parse this? It seems unequivocal. However, first, this text is palpably disingenuous regarding "simulates nothing" - the immense efforts devoted in this book to the importance of in-game time and in-game justifications of hit-points, retainer/hireling opinions, costs for castle parts, and much more, do not support his claim. Second, and more importantly, Gygax is speaking from a 1970s perspective of role-playing existing as a subset of wargaming.

Edwards is just flat out wrong there. What Gygax is addressing is specifically the threat from highly simulationist then rivals to D&D like C&S (or even Tekumel) which had carved out a niche by pointing out how poor of a simulation of anything D&D was. Gygax is here rejecting heavy simulationism in favor of the game. And when he says 'game', he means game. In order for Edwards to continue to make his point from here, he then has take Gary's words and twist them around so that they no longer mean what they obviously mean. I would love to be able to support my argument by saying, 'When the author says, 'red', he really means 'blue', and when he says 'blue', he really means 'red'.', but doing so would be truly disengenious rather than merely "palpably" so.

When Gygax says, "imagination and creativity", he means just that. And the context he is using them in is not tools of simulation (which he's just explicitly denied), but tools of problem solving ie 'gamist'.

Edwards does this same twist a bit later on:

The following text is also from the first edition of the Dungeon Master's Guide (TSR, 1979); the author is Gary Gygax.

Game time is of the utmost importance. Failure to keep careful track of time expenditure by player characters will result in many anomalies in the game. ...

One of the things stated in the original game of D&D was the importance of recording game time with respect to each and every player-character in a campaign. In AD&D it is emphasized even more: YOU CAN NOT HAVE A MEANINGFUL CAMPAIGN UNLESS EXTENSIVE RECORDS ARE KEPT.

[provides an example, then


You may ask why time is so important if it causes such difficulties with record-keeping, dictates who can or can not go adventuring during a game session, and disperses player characters to the four winds by its strictures. Well, as initially pointed out, it is a necessary penalty imposed on characters for certain activities [making magic items - RE]. Beyond that, it also gives players yet another interesting set of choices and consequences. The latter tends to bring more true-to-life quality to the game, as some characters will use precious time to the utmost advantage, some will treat it lightly, and some will be constantly wasting it to their complete detriment. Time is yet another facet which helps to separate the superior players from the lesser ones.

That latter point bears close, close examination. Gygax is not talking about winning, I think, but about a quality. This is his value judgment about how to play this game. His "true to life quality," I think, is synonymous with his earlier reference to creativity and imagination, or Simulationism (prioritizing Exploration) as defined by me.

Edwards wants to focus on the 'true-to-life quality' phrase in that statement, but deliberately ignores all the context. Why is Gygax obsessed with keeping careful track of resources? Because, keeping careful track of resources challenges the players: "Time is yet another facet which helps separate the superior players from the lesser ones." The snipped out text is part of Gygax's larger discussion of challenging the players. Some players will use thier time resources unwisely, and thus fail the challenge, and other players will use thier time resource wisely and prove themselves the superior player. He is most certainly not focusing on keeping track of time so as to make the game believable, however worthy of a goal that might be. And this can easily be shown because in other places, the need to keep challenging the players and not let them get ahead will trump realism or simulationism. As anyone that has read through the whole of the 1st edition DMG knows, when Gygax says 'a meaningful game', he means one that has been suitably challenging. He reserves his greatest disdain not for DMs who fail to simulate things, but for those DMs who fail to challenge the players. When he brings up realism in the 1st edition DMG, its entirely in the context of creating additional burdens and complications for the players.

Sometimes the irony gets pretty good though:

It's significant, I think, that movement-specific mechanics do remain in many Gamist RPG design as an element of tactical challenge.

Yes, it is, but maybe not for the reason Edwards outlines here. Again, D&D latched on to earlier wargame mechanics not for any hard resolution/realism reasons, but because of the desire to create tactically challenging situations where players would excercise "imagination and creativity". As Edwards goes on to write just a bit later:

The causal sequence of task resolution in Simulationist play must be linear in time. He swings: on target or not? The other guy dodges or parries: well or badly? The weapon contacts the unit of armor + body: how hard? The armor stops some of it: how much? The remaining impact hits tissue: how deeply? With what psychological (stunning, pain) effects? With what continuing effects?

D&D has notably never cared much about any of that stuff. Of course, it would be entirely unfair to Mr. Edwards to claim, despite what you seem to imply by sending me this link, that he thinks of D&D as a simulationist school game. Rather his early mention of D&D is trying to argue about simulationists roots, and here - for whatever reason - he flubs the argument. If Gygax had wanted to take his vast knowledge of history and use it to create a simulationist game, D&D would have been alot more like C&S. If he cared nothing about it, it would have been alot more like T&T.

 

[marune]

In fact I quite agree with you that Ron Edwards seems to be reading too much in Gygax words.

To clarify my thoughts, I think that D&D (any edition) is mainly gamist but sometimes faking to be simulationist. I want 4E to clarify the gamist nature of D&D* and get rid of that bad habbit. I wouldn't care fluffly text explaining in-game reasons for "per encounter" ability if that would not fuel the simulationist approach.

*For example, saying clairly that the goal of the game for the players is to succeed enough challenges to reach the 30th level (and of course that the DM will add some fluff around it to make it more interesting) !

Edit : read my next post before quoting this one.

 

[Mouseferatu]

To clarify my thoughts, I think that D&D (any edition) is mainly gamist but sometimes faking to be simulationist. I want 4E to clarify the gamist nature of D&D* and get rid of that bad habbit. I wouldn't care fluffly text explaining in-game reasons for "per encounter" ability if that would not fuel the simulationist approach.

*For example, saying clairly that the goal of the game is to succeed enough challenges to reach the 30th level !

Now this I cannot even remotely agree with.

Combat and advancement are part of the game, yes. But to me, an equal if not greater part is the collaboration between DM and players in creating a story, a believable world, and believable characters. I want players who have in-character goals, not just meta-game ones, and I want a game that explains at least the basic core mechanics in a way that's acceptable in character.

I'm fine with "per encounter abilities" as a shorthand. I'm not fine with "per encounter abilities" that they don't even try to explain rationally. And I have no interest whatsoever in playing with people whose only goal is to reach 30th level. If that's one of their goals, that's fine, as long as they also want to solve the mystery of who killed their character's parents, or want to regain their birthright, or want to be the first scholar to observe red dragon mating rituals, or even just want to buy a tavern and retire. But if there's no in-character motivation, there's no character, AFAIAC.

 

[hong]

I am quite happy if they don't try to explain per-encounter abilities, because that gives me more room to come up with my own explanation.

 

[marune]

Now this I cannot even remotely agree with.

Combat and advancement are part of the game, yes. But to me, an equal if not greater part is the collaboration between DM and players in creating a story, a believable world, and believable characters. I want players who have in-character goals, not just meta-game ones, and I want a game that explains at least the basic core mechanics in a way that's acceptable in character.

Try The Burning Wheel

If you want to make in-character goals really relevant, you need to link them with as many as possible parts of the system, at least advancement. At this point, the players won't take decisions according to the best way to overcome a challenge, but the best way to satisty their goals.

Otherwise, you can fake it with fluff, like I said in my previous post, but it won't produce the same result. To be clear enough, I would say that "reaching the 30th level" is the generic goal and in each campaign, the DM add fluff to it to make it interesting (maybe not right from the start) like "save the world from the return of Orcus". Also, the fluff around one of the adventure can be linked to a PC specific "goals" which are loosely defined.

With good communication between players & DM, the "faking" solution may get results satisfying enough for a "vanilla" narrativist feel.

 

[Mouseferatu]

If you want to make in-character goals really relevant, you need to link them with as many as possible parts of the system, at least advancement. At this point, the players won't take decisions according to the best way to overcome a challenge, but the best way to satisty their goals.

I do. Story awards of XP.

Otherwise, you can fake it with fluff, like I said in my above post, but it won't produce the same result.

Depends on the players.

 

[marune]

I do. Story awards of XP.

IME, it's not a powerful enough tool, because XP is no more really a reward under 3.x (and I don't think 4e will really change it). IMHO, Actions Points is probably a better way of doing it with D&D.

Depends on the players.

Now that's the real problem, if you want a game working for the majority, you need more than wishful thinking.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Now that's the real problem, if you want a game working for the majority, you need more than wishful thinking.

Which is why I think the gamist/narrativist/simulationist/whateverist balance of D&D shouldn't change too dramatically* from where it is now. That way, the people who want to do heavy RP and get into character can do so, and the people who don't aren't penalized for it. IMO, trying to build a game to force in-depth RP is as much of a fool's errand as trying to build a game that doesn't allow for it. Therefore, I'm opposed to the removal of what simulationist aspects there are in 3E during the conversion to 4E.

* I say "not too dramatically" because I'd actually like to see the pendulum swing a little bit more away from the gamist philosophy. I think 3E went a hair too far in that regard.

 

[Moon-Lancer]

I dont know if gamest is better or simulationist. But it all sounds like good bad fun to me (if that saying means what i think it means)

I am happy for per battle rules, because i found its though to always send 3 encounters of x cr a day at the pcs so they feel the are barely escaping death. needing 3 encounters a day seems to go against the story telling thread.

 

[Azgulor]

Is it just me or are the 4e designed totally ripping out all the semi-simulationist stuff, like monster leveling, many elements of encounter design, and increasing the gamist stuff, like "per encounter"

I think that is awesome.

Well it's certainly too early to say for certain, but it's looking that way.

Which is fine for a board game or video game. Not so much for a role-playing game.