It was the exploring and developing the conception that heightened appreciation. Were the stash of gold genuinely extrapolated from that, and not part of a separate pursuit of power over the game world, that would be one thing. I think the amount stipulated was 1,000,000gp? That seems less representative of anything concretely drow.*
I suppose it raises the question, can I fake a simulative experience? Certainly I can give false testimony, but I'm thinking here of whether insincerely dropping 1,000,000gp in from other motives would be incompatible with sincerely experiencing something simulationist?
*Taking the reference to mean that D&D drow are the subject, so that I can access objective standards for what drow treasures are like. The final treasure in Vault of the Drow comprises four well-hidden, heavily trapped chests
Chest 1 contains 11,230 g.p. and 3 packets of 12 applications each of the special dust of disappearance.
Chest 2 holds 4,389 p.p.
Chest 3 contains 20 potions and 8 scrolls (all clerical or of protective nature).
Chest 4 contains 37 pieces of jewelry set with gems (1,000 - 6,000 g.p. value each), a sack of 103 10 g.p. base value gems, a small pouch with 41 50 g.p. base value and 29 100 g.p. base value gems, and an ivory box (covered with an invisible contact poison which must be saved against at -6) lined with satin which holds 13 diamonds (base value 5.000 g.p. each) and a talisman of lawfulness.
Something over a quarter million worth in gold pieces. To me an unembellished 1,000,000gp doesn't enhance my appreciation of anything drow, but I agree that some sorts of treasures could.
I actually referred to faerie gold, taken from the dark elves in my MHRP game. MHRP doesn't rate treasure in the same way that D&D does: it was a persistent asset, with a die size that I can't recall.
On your remarks about "faking a simulative experience": I'm not sure what you're suggesting. I mean, the events of play had led the PCs to the bottom of the dungeon, where they found the dark elves. The player (as his PC) thought that dark elves would have gold, and wanted for himself. So while the other PCs fought dark elves, this player had his PC trick one of the dark elves into taking him to the treasure room; and then he had his PC steal the gold.
I'm trying to work out why this is not simulationist. Mechanically, the existence of the treasure was established by the player making the necessary role to create an asset. (MHRP does not use map-and-key resolution.) But I don't see how that makes it not simulationist, if the measure of simulationism is immersion, noetic satisfaction etc.
Multiple posters in this thread have pointed to examples of play from Burning Wheel as not being simulationist. You appear to do so here, with your reference to Circles tests and Wises tests.
But by
@Enrahim's and
@clearstream's accounts in this thread, those episodes of play
are simulationist because (i) they foster immersion and (ii) they foster understanding and appreciation of the subject matter of the shared fiction.
Without thinking of BW specifically, but a thought raised by some sorts of possible objections: suppose I hold both positive and negative requirements for what I'm willing to count as "simulationist"? So whereas I hold the positive requirement
I observe some sufficiency of game text articulating heuristics to be incorporated into the cognitive processes of play in light of other text such as principles and examples that are productive of any of immersive, noetically satisfying, explorative or investigative experiences of a subject when used in accord with its principles and for that purpose
I also hold the negative requirement
I observe some scarcity of game text etc... counter-productive to any immersive etc...
And this is because such text can act to spoil or shatter the play-world itself. This might better explain how folk like
@Hussar select the games they preference as "simulationist". For them, D&D is excluded
even if the weather mechanics are simulationist, because they see
other text that spoils their experience. I put that down to their resisting the game's principles for how that text is to be successfully used.... but I think the point stands, because that text still spoils
their experience.
I don't think
@Hussar is talking about game texts. I think he is talking about actual processes of resolution.
And I posted about episodes of play, not game texts. Those episodes of play fostered immersion, and fostered understanding of the subject matter of the shared fiction. Here's an example:
When the body was back in the workshop, Thoth used his Second Sight to read its Aura, looking for traits. This test failed, and so Thoth learned that the corpse had been Stubborn in life - perhaps why this particular sailor had not evacuated the Sow - which is a +1 Ob to Death Art. I also made a roll to determine the state of the body, which determined that the fire had damaged it to the same degree as a year of death, which added a further +4 Ob penalty. Thoth successfully performed Taxidermy - against Ob 5 - to preserve the corpse, with a roll good enough to carry over +1D advantage to the Death Art test but did not what to attempt the Ob 7 Death Art (with his Death Art 5) until he could be boosted by Blood Magic. And so he sent Aedhros out to find a victim
Aedhros had helped collect the corpse, and also helped with the Taxidermy (using his skill with Heart-seeker), but was unable to help with the Death Art. He was reasonably happy to now leave the workshop; and was no stranger to stealthy kidnappings in the dark. I told my friend (now GMing) that I wanted to use Stealthy, Inconspicuous and Knives to spring upon someone and force them, at knife point, to come with me to the workshop. He called for a linked test first, on Inconspicuous with Stealth FoRKed in. This succeeded, and Aedhros found a suitable place outside a house of ill-repute, ready to kidnap a lady of the night. When a victim appeared, Aedhros tried to force a Steel test (I think - my memory is a bit hazy) but whatever it was, it failed, and the intended victim went screaming into the night. Now there is word on the street of a knife-wielding assailant.
Aedhros's Beliefs are I will avenge the death of my spouse!, Thurandril will admit that I am right! and I will free Alicia and myself from the curse of Thoth!; and his Instincts are Never use Song of Soothing unless compelled to, Always repay hurt with hurt, and When my mind is elsewhere, quietly sing the elven lays. Having failed at the most basic task, and not knowing how to return to Thoth empty-handed, Aedhros wandered away from the docks, up into the wealthier parts of the city, to the home of the Elven Ambassador. As he sang the Elven lays to himself, I asked the GM for a test on Sing, to serve as a linked test to help in my next test to resist Thoth's bullying and depravity. The GM set my Spite of 5 as the obstacle, and I failed - a spend of a fate point only got me to 4 successes on 4 dice.
My singing attracted the attention of a guard, who had heard the word on the street, and didn't like the look of this rag-clothed Dark Elf. Aedhros has Circles 3 and a +1 reputation with the Etharchs, and so I rolled my 4 dice to see if an Etharch (whether Thurandril or one of his underlings or associates) would turn up here and now to tell the guards that I am right and they should not arrest me. But the test failed, and the only person to turn up was another guard to join the first in bundling me off. So I had to resort to the more mundane method of offering them 1D of loot to leave me alone. The GM accepted this, no test required.
Then, repaying hurt with hurt, Aedhros followed one of the guards - George, as we later learned he was called - who also happened to be the one with the loot. Aedhros ambushed him from the darkness, and took him at knife point back to the workshop, where Thoth subject him to the necessary "treatment"
Here are the instances of resolution that multiple posters in this thread have characterised as "non-simulationist":
*Narrating the consequence of a failed Aura-Reading test as the observation of an undesirable trait ("Stubborn").
*Narrating the consequence of a failed Sing test while wandering the streets at night, trying to must up some degree of self-possession, as being harassed by a guard.
*Narrating the consequence of a failed Circles test, hoping to have a friendly or at least helpful Elf turn up, as another guard turning up to join with the first.
But as I've posted, I don't see why these wouldn't be simulationist on your account. The whole episode focuses attention on the town at night, what happens in its underbelly, and the character of Aedhros who is part of that underbelly but is bitter and spiteful about it. It is immersive, and it generates noetic satisfaction (by enhancing the intellectual as well as emotional grasp of the town, the characters, the events).
EDIT to bring the two examples of play together:
One way to gain increased understanding of a fictional place is to learn about it via maps, lists of what items are found at what places, etc. Similarly, one way to gain increased understanding of a fictional being is to learn about their physical capabilities.
But those are not the only ways. Another way to gain increased understanding of a fictional place is to learn that its underbelly - including guards who will harass you unless you bribe them - reaches even into the supposedly elite quarters. And one way to gain increased understanding of fictional beings is to learn things about them like,
they were so stubborn that they burned to death in the ship fire because unwilling to evacuate or
they will take revenge for a small slight, even if this serves the ends of Thoth whom they hate.
Or these things might be combined: we learn about the dark elves, and their faerie gold, and the trickster who has come to visit them, by witnessing - in play - how he tricks them out of their gold.
I don't see that these immersive, noetically satisfying experiences need to be confined to the sorts of wargaming-esque concerns that animated D&D in its original form.
That's about as far from simulating anything as you can get.
