Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="chaochou" data-source="post: 8671745" data-attributes="member: 99817">Simulation is an element of D&D that grew out of its wargaming roots. Simulation in wargaming remains quite a contentious topic. Some people think sci-fi wargames can be simulations. Others don't.My benchmark for simulation is 'can be tested against reality'. A wargame about the the Battle of the Bulge needs to be able to recreate the actual events as one of its outcomes. The effectiveness of different units needs to fall within a range of plausibility generated by our knowledge of their actual battle effectiveness. Supply limitations need to be based on actual knowledge of supply shortfalls and logistical difficulties. Movement speeds need to match the known capabilities of men and vehicles. And so on.So if a Panther meets a Sherman Firefly at 700 yards we can have a reasonable idea - based on matters of record - of the range of outcomes and their probability in that engagement. So the stats of a Panther, relative to a Sherman - together with a gameplay loop - can be created to try and match those outcomes. You can also take the known technology of a T80 and a Challenger II and try to create a predictive model on a hypethetical conflict - but again based on the measurable reality of speeds, muzzle velocities, ammo loadouts, gun traverse speeds, targeting systems, smoke dispensors. This is what, broadly speaking, wargamers consider 'simulation' - whether military formations behave according to their known, demonstrable, evidenced limitations from the historical record and whether the troops and supplies available in the game match those that were present in reality. Even then, there's an element of subjectivity in these descriptions. Some wargamers have very narrow views on the range of outcomes in certain circumstances, others are more accepting of a broader range.But when it comes to fantasy rpgs, all these concepts are meaningless from the start. What exists is make believe, the range of outcomes are inventions. There are no demonstrable limitations. There is no 'simulation' of what happens when a small white dragon lands on the roof of a house. The answer has to be made up by someone, and the other participants have to agree. That's all there is to it. Make-believe creature, make-believe house, make-believe outcome.The illusion of simulation is created by creating great libraries of numbers in statblocks and pretending they represent a reality. But all those statblocks are invention. They can't be tested against anything, so they can't ever be right or wrong. They can be agreed to or not agreed to, but that's not a test of simulation - that's a test of whether the invented mechanics meet the aesthetic preferences of the group.And that's what I see most of all when people talk about simulation - the question isn't whether something is verifiable, the question is whether outcomes meet an entirely subjective aesthetic preference which can be a) labelled as 'real' or 'plausible', andb) attributed to the system rather than the people playingI used to play a lot of this style, but don't nowadays. My group and I still want plausible actions and outcomes, but we expect them to come from the people playing rather than the game system.</blockquote>

Verification