Simulationists, Black Boxes, and 4e

[Lanefan]

The rules of the game are not the rules of the universe. The rules of the universe are whatever fluff you want. The rules of the game are there to enhance the play expereince and provide a framework for roleplaying. They allow you to create stories somewhat like the stories in literature, myth, legend, and movies. They are essentially all metagame. The rules of the universe are much more complicated than the simple rules in the PHB and DMG.

However, I want the rules of the game to be a logical fully-included subset of the rules of the universe, such that when the greater universe does rear its ugly head the rules of the game don't conflict with it. Further, I want the rules of both the game and the universe to make some versimilitudinous (yikes!) sense.

Is that too much to ask?

Lanefan

 

[Scribble]

However, I want the rules of the game to be a logical fully-included subset of the rules of the universe, such that when the greater universe does rear its ugly head the rules of the game don't conflict with it. Further, I want the rules of both the game and the universe to make some versimilitudinous (yikes!) sense.

Is that too much to ask?

Lanefan

This line of thought always leads me into feeling like my character would see the world in an OOTS way at all times...

You see son, today you reach your right of passage, and kill the seven goblins of first level. After wich, like all men before you you shall reach the second level and have +5% more of a chance of hitting things!

I hear people saying that they are a simulationist, and that if the rules of the universe don't follow a everyone uses the same rules type of approach then their "suspension of disbelief" is wrecked...

For me it's the opposite... Any thought that the rules govern the reality of my world... just makes me giggle.

If it works for you though... more power to ya!

 

[Blackeagle]

However, I want the rules of the game to be a logical fully-included subset of the rules of the universe, such that when the greater universe does rear its ugly head the rules of the game don't conflict with it. Further, I want the rules of both the game and the universe to make some versimilitudinous (yikes!) sense.

Is that too much to ask?

Yes. Yes, it is.

Seriously though, the definition of a model is a simplified representation of reality. You can't make a model without simplifying somewhere along the way, so the model is never going to be a perfect representation. No matter how complex and accurate a model is, it's always going to conflict with the universe.

As far as RPGs go, we can either accept some level of simplification or we can imagine our game takes place in some universe which is represented exactly by the game rules (which can be the stuff of great comedy, but tends to inhibit verisimilitude).

 

[PrecociousApprentice]

However, I want the rules of the game to be a logical fully-included subset of the rules of the universe, such that when the greater universe does rear its ugly head the rules of the game don't conflict with it. Further, I want the rules of both the game and the universe to make some versimilitudinous (yikes!) sense.

Is that too much to ask?

Lanefan

I hate to tell you this, but yes, it is too much to ask. We can't even get that right in our universe, with all of science, philisophy, and theology trying their hardest to put all the pieces together. When we want another universe to make sense in the same way ours does, plus add in all the fantastic elements, and have it be described in three 300 page books, with no possibility of mistakes, and be comprehensible to the general public, we are asking too much.

What we can do is ask ourselves what we want out of the experience, engineer the game to give that as best as possible in a limited and comprehensible ruleset, and fudge when we don't like it. Since we can't even get verisimilitude right in the real world (check out any religion/politics debate) we gotta give some slack to a bunch or guys that like to write fantasy and found a way to make money doing it. They are smart, but not as smart as the top scientists/theologists/philosophers.

As Hong says, This would all be easier if we just didn't think too hard about fantasy.

 

[Blackeagle]

Good post, Blackeagle. You did a good job of formulating the difference between the design methods.

Thanks, Korgoth. Glad you liked it.

Oy. As an aside, I'm pretty conflicted about that thread.

However, the thread got kind of bloody at points.

Yeah. After seeing what happened to that thread, I was a little reluctant to post this, but it seems to have inspired some good discussion (so far, at least).

 

[lutecius]

The problem with this analogy is that it only works for computer games or if you just mean rules for DM-controlled events that players ignore.

Otherwise it's never a black box. Even as a player, the processes are all in your face. They're how you interact with the world, they're what strategies are based on, you're never completely immersed in a world where only the end result matters.
If a rule doesn't work from a simulationist POV, its effects won't make sense in-game for a simulationist.

It's like the old "narrativist vs simulationist" justification for "Vancian" fighting:
Assuming that the opportunity for a character to make a physical attack like "brute strike" or "tick strike" comes about once per day may be realistic enough. But knowing that your character can only try such a move exactly once per day, no matter what, won't work for a simulationist.

In the end it still depends on what you are willing to accept as realistic enough.

 

[ForbidenMaster]

However, I want the rules of the game to be a logical fully-included subset of the rules of the universe, such that when the greater universe does rear its ugly head the rules of the game don't conflict with it. Further, I want the rules of both the game and the universe to make some versimilitudinous (yikes!) sense.

Is that too much to ask?

Lanefan

I dont think its too much to ask, but I think that it should be more of in the domain of an adventure. I like the fact that the core books are just giving rules and not giving much fluff (MM excluded) because it lets me make my own fluff without it being "different" and not on par with the core D&D.

 

[PrecociousApprentice]

The problem with this analogy is that it only works for computer games or if you just mean rules for DM-controlled events that players ignore.

Otherwise it's never a black box. Even as a player, the processes are all in your face. They're how you interact with the world, they're what strategies are based on, you're never completely immersed in a world where only the end result matters.
If a rule doesn't work from a simulationist POV, its effects won't make sense in-game for a simulationist.

This is why I still have a problem with the GNS theory. You are assuming that the game mechanics actually exist from a character's perspective, and like any natural law, can be discovered by them. This to me is the only way to explain why anyone has a hard time with aligning their fluff and crunch. Simulationist gaming has become such a catch all that it is losing any meaning, and people then keep throwing out simulationist to mean "a player or game that equates game mechanics with the physics of the world." This may be a valid interpretation of simulationist, but is not the only way to interpret it. Some simulationists might be the "internally consistent ruleset" type. Others could be the "ruleset should not only accomodate but encourage and facilitate a certain genre/theme/literary world." I do not think that either of these types of simulationists would inherently have a problem with rules being in your face. They would also take different stances on when and how the rules are interpreted. When a term is used for many different things, some of which can be opposite and contradictory, the term loses a great deal of power.

In the end it still depends on what you are willing to accept as realistic enough.

In this you are partially right. If you insist that the rules have to spoon feed you the fluff that is realistic enough for your tastes, then yes. It does depend on that. If you are able to let the mechanics guide the narration of their result in game fluff, but not require that the fluff be the actual output of the mechaincs, then no. How well this analogy works is not dependent on how much "realism" you need. I need a lot of "realism" but I don't need my mechanics to give it to me. And strangely enough, someone whose opinion on the matter I greatly respect has recently told me that I am not necessarily the narrativost that I though, but an "illusionist' simulationist. I like the output focused (read exception based or black box) design paradigm.

 

[tomBitonti]

And I know it's a fantasy world but pricing salt at 5 gp/lb is foolish and one would have to conclude that the sea does not contain usable salt. I'm sure heavy-handed DM fiat can invent some last minute rationalizations for these things but IMO it's clumsy and unconvincing and hurts the versimilitude of the setting. The "gamist" thing to do IMO is to not talk about the price of salt in the first place and if you feel that you must, then some reasoning and perhaps some research IMO is warranted. Otherwise your just being lazy and making up numbers off the top of your head which is something that I, as a consumer, don't need to pay someone else to do. Nor do I see the point in taking up space in a rulebook with stuff like that.

i see what you are saying ... but didn't the British do this in India? Impose a "salt tax" that dramatically increased the price? I'm really foggy on this, but I thought it all ended when Indians marched en-mass to the sea and basically made salt.

 

[taichara]

i see what you are saying ... but didn't the British do this in India? Impose a "salt tax" that dramatically increased the price? I'm really foggy on this, but I thought it all ended when Indians marched en-mass to the sea and basically made salt.

Salt has, historically, quite often been a highly valued commodity. We in the modern world tend to take it for granted, but salt was critically important for many many cultures including the pre-industrialized West.

So much so, that the word "salary" derives from the Latin salarium, which (depending on who you ask) was the pay of Roman soldiers, or a salt allowance paid to Roman soldiers ...

Regardless, salt was indeed a much more valuable substance back in the day. The British imposed a salt tax in India, and they were far from the first to do so.