D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

[AlViking]

Only if you don't care about the tone and flavour of your RPGing.

I didn't remember the exact wording but the result is the same. The phrasing doesn't really matter, the player is obviously going to guess something they want.

 

[definiteFreakyFishGuy]

I'm sorry, but, "strict"?

Seriously?

Asking that a simultionist system provide any information about how the result was achieved is strict? Note, again, I'm not talking about how much, or the quality of the information. Just that the system provide any information about how the result was achieved.

Isn't that the basic definition of simulationism? If it's not. If there is no need for the mechanics to provide any information about how results were achieved, then what differentiates simulationism from any other system? Whatever post hoc justification the DM makes? Again, doesn't that mean that all mechanics are simulationist so long as the DM uses the "appropriate" justifications?

I actually think it's both too strict and not strict enough.

It's too strict in the sense that your definition of simulation is at odds with the colloquial or academic usage of "simulation," e.g. using an RNG to simulate fair dice rolls.

It's not strict enough in the sense that in the context of TTRPGs, it doesn't really seem to capture the spirit of the simulationist games you yourself stated as examples. For example, @pemerton excellent post talks about what simulationist games aspire to be. D&D General - [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.. You've even admitted that FKR games are an exception to your requirement.

To sum up, while I respect the depth of your knowledge and insights, and I do not find your definition of simulation (or simulationist games) useful enough for me to adopt. And I don't think it's fair for you to force your private definition on others.

 

[Micah Sweet]

That's kind of dodging the issue; if the players are adding things midplay its nonsensical to talk about them warping reality; they're operating on a level where the reality is being warped all the time. You can talk about characters doing that, but talking about players doing that, especially when they're not changing anything already extent, makes no sense. At that point your objection is to the change in player/GM role, it has nothing to do with "warping reality".

It does if the players are doing it. So yeah, the role of the participants matters. Go figure.

 

[Thomas Shey]

It does if the players are doing it. So yeah, the role of the participants matters. Go figure.

Seriously, man? How are the players "warping reality" any more than the GM is? Especially since I'm talking about game elements and locations that didn't previously exist at all. How's that "warping" anything?

If the GM in passing generates off a table or creates via fiat a village along the way, and the player comes up with an inn with a couple NPCs in it, they haven't "warped" or even changed anything. They've added a tiny bit to an otherwise blank spot in the campaign.

"Reality warping powers". And people wonder why I roll my eyes at hyperbole.

 

[Hussar]

Sure, but enough people feel in common that D&D is sufficiently sim that it qualifies on the sim meter, even if it's near the bottom. Not everyone will feel that way. Some will, and some won't. @Hussar doesn't. I do, but I get the feeling that you are closer to Hussar on this one and don't.

Well, now there's improvement at least. We've gone from "D&D is a great simultationist game" to "it qualifies as a sim, but, just barely."

Gotta admit, it's progress.

 

[Hussar]

I can at least point to a blog post by Sam Sorenson New Simulationism - Sam Sorensen where someone other than me explains what simulationism is that's pretty close to my definition. Can you do the same? Because I've only ever heard of your criteria from one person ... you.

Even if I expand my scope to video games I see no mention of information about how the result was achieved, just the players reacting to the situations being simulated.

You absolutely do gain some information about how a result was achieved in a video game. You can see the path of the bullet as it hits the baddy. Poof, instant information. If you played an FPS and shot in the opposite direction from the baddy and the baddy fell down, would that be a good simulation? Would that be sim at all? Early Final Fantasy games had their combat as just numbers popping up on the screen after the opponent shakes a little. There's no information being passed along at all.

That's the difference between simulation and non-simulation. You keep pointing to that same blog post THAT DISAGREES WITH YOU. He agrees with me. He flat out states that mechanics MUST be tied to the narrative. Hell, his very first point - the fictional world reigns supreme is not how D&D mechanics work. Like, at all. The rules cannot change the world - the mechanics must be diegetic. What do you think that means?

And, finally, let me introduce you to the fallacy - appeal to authority. Why do I need to quote some random person on the internet to prove my point. I've proven it over and over again. EVERY SINGLE sim leaning game has mechanics that provide information about how the result occured. Every single one. You've yet to provide a single example of a sim leaning game that doesn't.

Think about it this way. Let's drag out the old 4e chestnut, Come and Get It. Now, every single critic will tell you that this is 100% NOT simulationist mechanics. That was the primary example of how 4e wasn't sim. Ok. Now, according to you, the process doesn't matter, only the result. So long as the DM can justify the result in a plausible, logical manner, it's a sim mechanic. Well, guess what, it's trivially easy to post hoc justify why Come and Get It works. Coming up with some sort of reasonable narration is trivially simple. So, that means that 4e is 100% a simulationist leaning game? After all, it passes your criteria.

If the only criteria for sim mechanics is that I have to justify the results, then the definition is meaningless.

 

[Hussar]

That's how it simulates a climb. And failure represents the inability to climb the cliff using skill and strength. A success indicates that he used his strength and/or skill to make it up to the top.

Really? The rope breaking or the cliff face crumbling is due to my skill? That's an interesting take. See, you've added in all this stuff that ignores the die roll. If the character's bonus was high enough to climb without a roll, then, sure, I'd buy that it was purely skill and strength. Fair enough. But, it's not. There's that pesky d20 roll in there that is not tied in any shape to skill or strength. And the d20 roll is not tied to anything. We always roll a d20. The variability is always the same, no matter what.

 

[AlViking]

You absolutely do gain some information about how a result was achieved in a video game. You can see the path of the bullet as it hits the baddy. Poof, instant information. If you played an FPS and shot in the opposite direction from the baddy and the baddy fell down, would that be a good simulation? Would that be sim at all? Early Final Fantasy games had their combat as just numbers popping up on the screen after the opponent shakes a little. There's no information being passed along at all.

That's the difference between simulation and non-simulation. You keep pointing to that same blog post THAT DISAGREES WITH YOU. He agrees with me. He flat out states that mechanics MUST be tied to the narrative. Hell, his very first point - the fictional world reigns supreme is not how D&D mechanics work. Like, at all. The rules cannot change the world - the mechanics must be diegetic. What do you think that means?

And, finally, let me introduce you to the fallacy - appeal to authority. Why do I need to quote some random person on the internet to prove my point. I've proven it over and over again. EVERY SINGLE sim leaning game has mechanics that provide information about how the result occured. Every single one. You've yet to provide a single example of a sim leaning game that doesn't.

Think about it this way. Let's drag out the old 4e chestnut, Come and Get It. Now, every single critic will tell you that this is 100% NOT simulationist mechanics. That was the primary example of how 4e wasn't sim. Ok. Now, according to you, the process doesn't matter, only the result. So long as the DM can justify the result in a plausible, logical manner, it's a sim mechanic. Well, guess what, it's trivially easy to post hoc justify why Come and Get It works. Coming up with some sort of reasonable narration is trivially simple. So, that means that 4e is 100% a simulationist leaning game? After all, it passes your criteria.

If the only criteria for sim mechanics is that I have to justify the results, then the definition is meaningless.

I think we read different blogs just like we have different definitions of a sim. I don't really care what Sorensen or anyone else says, he just states his definition more eloquently than I can.

I was pointing out that I can at least provide a link to someone who shares a similar definition. Which is something that you don't seem to be able to provide.

 

[Hussar]

For example, @pemerton excellent post talks about what simulationist games aspire to be

Ummm... I'm confused. @pemerton, in that link you provided, was pointing to how he agreed with my points.

You keep pointing to these definitions of simulation without providing the definitions, so, it makes it rather hard to understand your point. A RNG generator to simulate fair die rolls isn't a black box. We know EXACTLY how those rolls are generated. We can examine the algorithm used to generate those die rolls. ((Aren't they frequently based on the clock? Sorry, very much not my area of expertise))

But, I am very sure that if you were to try to sell a random number generator but, only with the stipulation that no one could ever know how the numbers were being generated, you'd face a pretty uphill battle.

 

[Hussar]

I think we read different blogs just like we have different definitions of a sim. I don't really care what Sorensen or anyone else says, he just states his definition more eloquently than I can.

I was pointing out that I can at least provide a link to someone who shares a similar definition. Which is something that you don't seem to be able to provide.

Why do I need to?

His blog is saying EXACTLY the same thing I'm saying. Again, what do you think diegetic means?

And, again, provide me a definition of simulation and how it is distinct from other styles, where all information is provided post hoc by the DM based solely on the results of the mechanics.