The Death of Simulation

[HeinorNY]

Regarding 3E rules:

PCs and monsters are built using the same rules = simulationist
Class/level mechanics = gamist
PC classes and NPC classes = narrativism

Narrativism rules, IMO, try to secure the PCs status as heroes and protagonists.

Narrativism: Cause: PCs are heroes. Consequence: They act heroically and have more power than common people that allow them to be heroes.

Simulationist: Cause: PCs achieved great and heroically deeds and became more powerful than common people Consequence: PCs are heroes.



I am a simulationist at best, even more when I'm DMing.

MY motto is: If I can't believe it, I can't have fun with it.
Yeah duh, it's a fantasy game with fireball and fly spells. "Genius" point.. But when I accept the fantasy context, I can believe in it. I don't need realism, I need verisimilitude. Tolkien for example, is all about it, that's why it's so great.

SWSE is the example of heavy narrativistic game. When play SWSE I feel like that boy in the Last Action Here Movie. All his questioning while inside Jack Slater movie have the same lack of distrust as many questions made by me while playing SWSE.
"What a minute, the house exploded, how come you didn't die?"
"Hey, how come all girls in this city are gorgeous looking babes?"
"What? All numbers here start with 555?"

Those kind questions kill my fun when playing RPGs. If I start asking them when playing 4E, I'll stop having fun. It's simple.

"What? The same power lasted for 6 seconds in the last combat and now it lasted for 1 minute?'
"How come you can't use your martial maneuver again? Try on that monster that was sleeping when you first did it, he wasn't seeing.
"Why can you heal me once per battle but when we are resting you can't?"

The answers: "It's just a movie./ It's a game." don't help at all.
MY games are not like movies. I need to believe in what's happening. If the characters leave the Inn, the innkeeper is still there doing his stuff.

I have to believe in it. If playing 4E will be like being the boy in Last Action Hero, I'm out. It just won't work for me.

Without verisimilitude, the game just look plain dumb to me.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Actually, if we're nitpicking, the pound can ALSO be a measure of weight (unlike the kilogram which is explicitly mass). And given the use of the word "weighing" in the rules, it's a viable interpretation. This is also why an American spring scale can be interpreted as accurate on the moon but a European one isn't. ;-)

ok, just looked it up in wikipedia... its actually called pound-force or just pound

you know that system is strangely inconsistent...^^

 

[loseth]

I used this definition in the other thread:

It goes to WHY are you playing this RPG and what is important to you.

Gamist - It is a game and i enjoy overcoming challenges

Simulationist - It is a way to immerse yourself in a fictional world through your character

Narrativist - It is a way to tell an exciting story about the characters (or your character)

I really find it very difficult to use GNS to meaningfully articulate what I like in terms of game design. I want a game that lets me enjoy overcoming challenges by immersing me in a fictional world through the window of characters participating in an entertaining story. Any time a game puts itself in a situation where the above are mutually exclusive--or, more often IME, a situation where the designer falsely believes that they are mutually exclusive--a little voice goes off in my head saying 'bad design: you should have thought about this a little more.'

 

[HeinorNY]

I really find it very difficult to use GNS to meaningfully articulate what I like in terms of game design. I want a game that lets me enjoy overcoming challenges by immersing me in a fictional world through the window of characters participating in an entertaining story. Any time a game puts itself in a situation where the above are mutually exclusive--or, more often IME, a situation where the designer falsely believes that they are mutually exclusive--a little voice goes off in my head saying 'bad design: you should have thought about this a little more.'

They are not exclusive. But the design philosophy behind a game can enforce one of them, or at least "prepare the field" for one or two types of style in detriment of the other.
IMO, D&D 3E is fairly balanced and flexible regarding the 3 styles of playing. Actually I think it's more flexible than balanced. I can identify gamist, simulationist and narrativism mechanics in 3E. I also think one of the success factor behind D&D is exactly its flexibility towards gaming style. It's very hard to play a gamist session of Vampire, or a narrativistic session of Cyberpunk 2020.

D&D is the best in style flexibility by light-years. Or it was...

But then came SWSE with its "fast paced cinematic gaming" philosophy and it almost killed simulationist style of playing. Come on... roll 1d6 days to calculate travel time??? Characters have extra HD and "normal" people don't??? Oh yeah, they are the "protagonists"... thus we need narrativistic rules to assure that don't we?

Narrativistic gaming is about "destiny", the characters are supposed to be the heroes, thus the rules are built around that. The characters are supposed to be more powerful than others because they are the main characters. They have extra HD because they are "special". Destiny points anyone? The gaming World here exists around the PCs and for them.

Simulationist is about "choices", characters are supposed to become heroes. They don't have special privileges in the rules, they are, as much as possible, normal people, until they start DOING heroic stuff. If the heroes are more powerful than others, that's because they had a hard time adventuring, earning that power. Heroes here don't need extra HD, they have more HD because they have more levels because they killed more monsters! Here PCs are just part of the world, and it exists with them or without them.

Of course my D&D is not fully simulationist, there ARE powerful PC classes and weak NPC classes, but it is not so narrativistic that I can't be as simulationist as I want to. There are gamist mechanics as classes, levels, CR, expected gold per level, LA, etc. because the game needs to be balanced and easier to play, and I like it. The problem is when a style overcomes another.

If 4E goes that same SWSE's path my style of gaming is screwed.
R.I.P D&D *1974 +2008

I hope not.

OBS: All I needed in order to be fine was one of the designer to come here and just write 2 words: "Don't worry."

 

[loseth]

But the design philosophy behind a game can enforce one of them, or at least "prepare the field" for one or two types of style in detriment of the other.

Yes, that is the great negative legacy of GNS in my opinion*. I can see several potential game-design situations that could apply to any given aspect/mechanic/element of a game during the design phase:

i) All three of GNS (as well as other important stuff not covered by GNS) can be achieved to a maximal or near-maximal degree with relative ease.

ii) At least two of GNS appear mutually exlcusive, but with good use of problem-solving skills, all can be achieved maximally or near-maximally.

iii) One or more of GNS really are mutually exclusive with one or more others.

Of course, in situation iii, you really do have to choose (though I'm not at all convinced that being consistent about your choice is a necessary condition for producing a great game). But unfortunately, I think that a widespread misconception that GNS either are or should be mutually exclusive causes many designers to sometimes treat situations i and ii (especially ii) as if they were iii. The result is a game that is sub-optimally designed thanks to a false belief, on the part of the game designer(s), that making a mechanic/element/aspect work in terms of one of GNS will necessarily dilute the extent to which it achieves the other two parts of GNS.


*Not that it doesn't have positive ones as well.

 

[Imban]

Every rule can be explained in a simulationist way, including this one.

Hmm, that's not true if you define simulationism as the pursuit of internal consistency - which is the definition I'm operating under, at least - definitionally, rules that ruin internal consistency can't be explained as advancing the pursuit of internal consistency. In the more common but less definitional complaint, rules that blatantly embody game design goals without a provided in-world explanation can have creative justifications fashioned - referred to as "fanwank" in most fandoms - but, as they default to not having any justification, are often glaring to players who desire in-world explanations and internal consistency.

I point to Asmodeus vs. the gods in Hell in 3e as an example of the former, where the rules themselves return results completely incompatible with what the fluff they're tied to indicates, and also the results of too many things being left up to the DM by the system, especially if multiple DMs are running or prewritten adventures are being used. (While a single DM who very much enjoys internal consistency is certainly likely to deliver internally consistent results, you're going to risk widely disparate views of the same thing in the same campaign when you have multiple people writing the plot and a lot of monsters' powers, for example, are left totally up in the air.)

The latter would be... well, I don't actually have a really good example right now. I guess the Ring thing if it's left totally unaddressed beyond a one-liner saying "ring slots are gained at levels 11 and 21" - taken alone, it raises enough questions to make it feel inconsistent ("Why do rings work like this, and nothing else? Why can I only wear one ring at a time now, but next level two is fine?") and more importantly there would be no official explanation to make it in any way internally consistent.

The point is that simulationist play can be done with ANY rules.

As seen above, I dispute that. I find that in most cases, however, the former case I stated is a symptom of bad rules rather than clashing design goals.

It's that most people don't want to simulate the world created by WOTC, they want to simulate a different one that only exists in their head.

Actually, this is why I don't like the Ring thing, as I said a few posts above, but I don't think it's because of the design goal this thread's about. As above, one of the other, totally unrelated things I've also always liked about D&D is the ability to adapt it to things and to adapt things to it, which 3e especially brought out. I don't just want it to be a vessel for "D&D fantasy", and the more common things that work in idiosyncratic ways, the more problematic adaptation is. Basically, if it's not flagrantly stupid or broken ("this spell kills any amount of selected targets within 500 miles with no resistance possible and even an apprentice can cast it") and it's within the realm of fantasy, especially fantasy literature, I want to be able to bash D&D into running that or bash the unique material from it into D&D. I mean, 3e had enough room for quarterstaves (the weapons), staves (the things with 50 charges that store spells and cast them based on your caster level and casting stats), and runestaves (the things from Magic Item Compendium) - I don't really want to hear that 4e doesn't have room for any enchanted item from any reasonable fantasy source.

 

[LostSoul]

But then came SWSE with its "fast paced cinematic gaming" philosophy and it almost killed simulationist style of playing. Come on... roll 1d6 days to calculate travel time??? Characters have extra HD and "normal" people don't??? Oh yeah, they are the "protagonists"... thus we need narrativistic rules to assure that don't we?

Narrativistic gaming is about "destiny", the characters are supposed to be the heroes, thus the rules are built around that. The characters are supposed to be more powerful than others because they are the main characters. They have extra HD because they are "special". Destiny points anyone? The gaming World here exists around the PCs and for them.

I have SW Saga and I'd say it's firmly simulationist. I think it does a good job of what it wants to support - playing a game that feels like being in a Star Wars movie. It doesn't do a good job of asking moral questions. Take a look at the Destiny mechanics.

Let's say I'm playing a Jedi and I have the Destiny of Redemption. I meet up with the Sith I've been tangling with all campaign and I decide that he actually doesn't deserve to be redeemed - that's a powerful moral statement. What happens in the game? You take a penalty for making that choice.

Contrast that to Burning Wheel's Belief system: if you turn away from a Belief, you get rewarded. If you achieve a Belief, you get rewarded. The choice is up to the player, knowing that his ability to contribute in the game won't be affected.

 

[HeinorNY]

I have SW Saga and I'd say it's firmly simulationist. I think it does a good job of what it wants to support - playing a game that feels like being in a Star Wars movie.

Lol yeah. SWSE "simulates" the movies very well, actually it almost perfectly recreates the action and stories we see in the movies. But it doesn't make SWSE "simulationist" as in the GNS theory or any other RPG theory.
If SWSE mechanics allow players to create a game that is identical to a movie, the game is not simulationist, it is narrativict, or cinematic.

A good example of the same story being told in the simulationist and narrativistic/cinematic styles is Lord of the Rings.
The books are simulationist, most of what happens there happens because it is supposed to happen that way. If the characters need 40 days to travel that distance, it's because that's how long it's gonna take, and not because of a meta-story motive.

My D&D is Tolkien's LotR and not Peter Jackson's LotR.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Hmm, that's not true if you define simulationism as the pursuit of internal consistency - which is the definition I'm operating under, at least - definitionally, rules that ruin internal consistency can't be explained as advancing the pursuit of internal consistency. In the more common but less definitional complaint, rules that blatantly embody game design goals without a provided in-world explanation can have creative justifications fashioned - referred to as "fanwank" in most fandoms - but, as they default to not having any justification, are often glaring to players who desire in-world explanations and internal consistency.

Well, it can still be internally consistent and have exceptions to rules. Real life is "internally consistent" and still has exceptions to rules all the time.

I mean, if you were analyzing real life as if it were a game, you might wonder why it is why some materials melt at a certain temperature and others melt at a different one. You might wonder why one set of physics works at the subatomic level while another one works at bigger than that, why you people taller than x can ride the ride but no one under that can, why some people are male and others aren't, etc.

All rules have exceptions and reasons. Some we understand, some we don't. Sometimes the reason is readily apparent, sometimes you need to have someone explain the reason for it.

I don't think that this needs to be "fanwank". Take for example, an employer saying that you aren't allowed to use the internet for personal things while at work and explaining it by saying that it is losing them money. Meanwhile another department in the same company is allowed to use it for personal things because "they need it as a stress reliever". That is a "reason". You may not agree with the inconsistency involved in the rule, but it is one anyways.

Most rules SEEM inconsistent unless you know more about. Some of the greatest mysteries of the real world made no sense to anyone at all until science eventually explained them.

When I think of any in game rule, I think of it the same way: "Does this game the game more balanced and more fun for the players mechanically? If so, I can make up a reason to fit the rule...or at the worst case scenario I can use "Scholars and mages haven't been able to answer that question yet, it is a great mystery."

Either way, I'd rather have the mechanically sound rule that was harder to explain than the mechanically bad rule that made perfect sense.

I point to Asmodeus vs. the gods in Hell in 3e as an example of the former, where the rules themselves return results completely incompatible with what the fluff they're tied to indicates, and also the results of too many things being left up to the DM by the system, especially if multiple DMs are running or prewritten adventures are being used. (While a single DM who very much enjoys internal consistency is certainly likely to deliver internally consistent results, you're going to risk widely disparate views of the same thing in the same campaign when you have multiple people writing the plot and a lot of monsters' powers, for example, are left totally up in the air.)

Well, there are a number of issues that come up when you have multiple DMs. More than just this one. I don't think the game was ever intended to be used with multiple DMs in the first place. I really don't think that a game that catered to this sort of thing should be what they should be aiming for.

The latter would be... well, I don't actually have a really good example right now. I guess the Ring thing if it's left totally unaddressed beyond a one-liner saying "ring slots are gained at levels 11 and 21" - taken alone, it raises enough questions to make it feel inconsistent ("Why do rings work like this, and nothing else? Why can I only wear one ring at a time now, but next level two is fine?") and more importantly there would be no official explanation to make it in any way internally consistent.

I love rules that raise questions. Some of my favorite parts of role playing books are when something completely comprehensible is said without a reason for it. They inspire the most creativity in me.

And there are a lot of them in the game. It's just that people normally house rule them or gloss over them when it comes to explaining them.

I love the idea that rings can't be used until high level. Whereas, I'm sure that the reason for it is a math one(bonuses that rings give break the formulas if added before 11th level), the real reason can be whatever I want and it can be the root of plots in my world if I wanted to or explained using a simple explanation and move on with playing mechanically interesting games.

Actually, this is why I don't like the Ring thing, as I said a few posts above, but I don't think it's because of the design goal this thread's about. As above, one of the other, totally unrelated things I've also always liked about D&D is the ability to adapt it to things and to adapt things to it, which 3e especially brought out. I don't just want it to be a vessel for "D&D fantasy", and the more common things that work in idiosyncratic ways, the more problematic adaptation is. Basically, if it's not flagrantly stupid or broken ("this spell kills any amount of selected targets within 500 miles with no resistance possible and even an apprentice can cast it") and it's within the realm of fantasy, especially fantasy literature, I want to be able to bash D&D into running that or bash the unique material from it into D&D. I mean, 3e had enough room for quarterstaves (the weapons), staves (the things with 50 charges that store spells and cast them based on your caster level and casting stats), and runestaves (the things from Magic Item Compendium) - I don't really want to hear that 4e doesn't have room for any enchanted item from any reasonable fantasy source.

D&D has never simulated everything. It has only ever simulated D&D Fantasy. The thing about D&D fantasy is that is has always had a kitchen sink feeling to it. If it's ever been mentioned in any book ever, it must be in D&D. Which has actually caused some of the internal consistency issues you don't like.

If magic imbued into staves creates charged items, why do runestaves work differently? If a belt of giant strength can be made why can't a earring of giant strength? And if it can be made, why does it cost more? And what slot does it take up? If it is the head slot, why does putting on an earring suddenly make your helmet stop working? The answer to all of those questions is easy: Balance and creating a fun game. The in game reason? Something about certain magics having affinity for certain parts of your body.

In 4th edition they are actually going for MORE consistency by saying "All rings give this type of bonus and can't be worn until 11th level", "All neck slot items give you this type of bonus", and so on.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

I really find it very difficult to use GNS to meaningfully articulate what I like in terms of game design. I want a game that lets me enjoy overcoming challenges by immersing me in a fictional world through the window of characters participating in an entertaining story. Any time a game puts itself in a situation where the above are mutually exclusive--or, more often IME, a situation where the designer falsely believes that they are mutually exclusive--a little voice goes off in my head saying 'bad design: you should have thought about this a little more.'

I don't think there is a "one true answer" when designing a game. For a game to have mechanical consistency you need to control the numbers carefully. If a character is expected to have a +10 to hit at 12th level then allowing an item into the game that would increase that to +40 would be perfectly acceptable by immersion sake(there is magic, with magic anything is possible, so it is possible to make an item that does that, so it makes sense that one exists). It isn't a good idea for game balance, however. So, one has to invent rules to prevent it for gamist reasons: "Magic doesn't get THAT powerful in this world."

Why can a wizard only cast so many spells per day? For balance reasons again.

Nearly every rule in the game sacrifices immersion in a world for mechanical benefit. Unless you have no problem immersing yourself in a world where all of those rules are true.