Being able to solve for X is the least important part of the lesson. But, then again, this difference in philosophy largley underpins most of this discussion doesn't it? The idea that a simulation that produces no information as to how it achieved that result is useless as a simulation. Who cares about the result? That's not the point of a simulation. "Hey, this simulation shows that our car gets 22 km to the liter. Fantastic! " "How does it do that so we can do that on other cars?" "Who knows? This simulation only applies to this specific car and can never be replicated because we have no idea how it achieved that result."
Knowing why our car gets 22 km to the liter isn't identical to "simulationist" experiences that may be sought such as immersion. I don't know why my car gets the distance it does to the liter, but that doesn't prevent me from being immersed as myself in the real world.
Accuracy of simulation is proportional to cost, and in TTRPGs simulative work must be done at prices that can be paid at the table, including the price of interpreting and enacting the game text. That text itself must first be designed and playtested at prices that can be paid by designers. You wrote that the "absence of simulationist mechanics in one aspect of the game does not mean that the game lacks any simulationist mechanics". Limits to what can be afforded make absences inevitable, and that applies too, to the depth with which each aspect is treated.
Yet if that's all true, then the presence of simulative weather mechanics should make D&D count as "simulationist"
even if other aspects of the game aren't covered. Thus it seems that you have some additional principle in mind that hasn't been articulated. Knowing the temperature, precipitation and wind strength seem like "basic elements that inform the narrative" to me.
I've queried a few times where you see great differences between texts, and answers have anchored on "a Dodge/Parry roll in combat".
@definiteFreakyFishGuy listed information that D&D combat mechanics provides. Omitted from their list was further information that D&D provides, such as the weapons used, types of harm, positioning and movement of combatants, inflicted conditions... and of course,
dodging by any character and
parrying by duelists. Those are all "basic elements that inform the narrative"... but again it seems of the wrong sort although no explanation has been given why.
@definiteFreakyFishGuy identified the problem I noted with the argument from extension, which is that it begs the question i.e. fails to show
why some games fit your internal definition of "simulationist" and not others. What's needed is to do more than wave toward dodge and parry in combat. D&D
has dodge and parry. Cite
specific mechanics and say what subjects and experiences they serve, showing that simulative work by someone at the table isn't necessitated at any point in their implementation.
