The Death of Simulation

[apoptosis]

What is this Forge poison you speak of?

Basically it is a forum where people theorized about why people play games and how game design can influence the fun that is achieved by certain playstyles.

It really was more of a theorizing of some reasons why people used to get in arguments over game rules and play styles. They just decided to use some specific terminology to better discuss these ideas.

They were by no means the first to look at the issues, they ended up just having a lot of voices that did it (and one very vocal voice in Ron Edwards)

It really is no different than this entire Ring debate. The only difference is that they use more specific terminology (which like many field of knowledge, they defined for their use).

Why I don't always agree with the ideas on the Forge (frankly there are a lot of people there) they do many times bring up interesting analyses of gaming, game play and game design.

Many people don't like the Forge as the people at the Forge sometimes do not speak well about certain game systems (usually the negative term they use is incoherent, though I am sure worse words have been used).

It all depends on whether you care about theories behind gaming. People design and play games without lots of meditating on the overall agenda and theory behind them and sometimes they work and sometimes they don't.

The Forge just tried to approach it in a more academic sense (which makes sense as Ron Edwards is a biology professor).

Honestly I believe many of the issues that are brought up at the Forge are very similar to issues that people bring up here, they just tend to codify them in more consistent terminology.

It goes back to the Ring debate, the HP debate, game balance etc. We all complain and take issues with many of these issues. Forge theories are just one (i generally think very good) way of discussing these issues and possibly come to greater understanding of the core problems and solutions.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Simulation has been eliminated as a design goal in 4e.

This is a fact.

D&D 4e is not ideally suited to sandbox play or rules-emergent world building.

We don't need 40 Threads that amount to whining about this fact. Butt-kicking and story building, it's got them covered although details there can be argued, but the only way to salvage simulation is to SCRAP 4e as it exists. That's not happening. I am really tired of people slagging on every detail that is run over by the non-simulation train.

I feel bad for simulation players and DMs, it reflects the sandbox experience I wish I could find others to enjoy with me. 3e was kind of a heyday for you. But its done, if you want to protest, speak with your wallet and voices, but let the criticism focus on what can be fixed.

What can I say but yep. That's certainly in 100% agreement with everything I've seen about 4E. Good, bad? Well, it's all perspective. For me, I think it's both, but I think overall, the good gained from dumping the various simulationist elements of D&D (which were indeed strong with 3E, and clearly present in 2E, ESPECIALLY very early 2E)

A game being "simulationist" has nothing to do with realism.

Simulationism only requires that the game follow some kind of internal logic, and that the characters be able to determine what that is. What breaks sim is when gamist or other elements violate that internal logic, not when it violates real-world principles and experience.

This bears repeating, because some people still aren't getting it. AD&D, particularly 2E, was attempting a kind of simulationism, not really "realism" (you can have a game that's simulationist in regard to 4-colour comics, or 1920s pulp, or whatever), and to ignore that and go "lol D&D wasn't simulationistz", is really illustrative of a basic misunderstanding of the terminology. Clearly D&D wasn't purely "real-world"-style simulationist like GURPS, but nor was it purely gamist (indeed, it's hard to think of an RPG pre-1994 which was). So trying to suggest that there's "no change" really seems very out there.

It's a meaningful change, and like I've said, I think it'll work out for the better, at least in my games. Doesn't mean I won't miss it, and/or try to sneak a bit of simulationism back in through the back door, as it were, though

I think D&D doing this does leave a bit of a gap in the market, and it'll be interesting to see if anyone manages to fill it (my prediction: they don't).

PS - Alnag's "poison" comment earned him a quick trip to my ignore list. Trying to formalize debate so people can understand what others are talking about is "poison"? Good heavens.

 

[Imban]

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.

Oh, certainly. However...

If magic imbued into staves creates charged items, why do runestaves work differently?

Well, for the same reason flaming quarterstaves work differently: they're different items. For me, if it's ever been mentioned in any book ever, it must be able to be put in D&D. I don't want to hear that "magic imbued into staves creates charged items. Period."

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?

Well, that's really stupid? I mean, honestly I'd let it pass if you actually thought it would be cool or were trying to model source material, but that's Boots of Intellect level stupid there. As far as costing more, that's more or less the system trying to "soft" rule against that (by making it unfeasible to "shift slots around" so per RAW you don't see Boots of Intellect) rather than a hard rule - it's easy to remove if you don't care about associating items and their slots any more than "That isn't retarded, right?" without meaningfully affecting the mechanical working of the game at all.

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?

Uh, your head slot. Or your earrings slot. Or one of your accessory slots. Seriously, I've played in games where each of those has been true, because they were based around different things. I suppose that in the "head slot" one, it would indeed make a helmet stop working, because it would count the same as trying to stack any two helmets, both in terms of the mechanical reason and the in-game reason.

And I mean, that's a reasonable in-game reason, since having people wear a skullcap, an earring, and a helmet would also be stupid.

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.

That's consistency in a way, yes, but as I said in my last post, this is one of the times where I definitely don't want the consistency of a single setting.

 

[Celebrim]

D&D has never been particularly simulationist, but I agree with the OP that 3E gave the most support for sim-style D&D compared to previous editions. Have you seen the Rules of the Game web articles that dig into the rules at an excruciating level of detail? Try the flying movement rules (part 3 of 7 on movement!); that level of simulation was never attempted by previous editions.

The 3rd edition flying movement rules are a simplification of the 1st edition rules as laid out in the DMG.

Based on my reading of the first edition DMG, I think D&D was explicitly simulationist from the offset. It spends a very large amount of time discussing the world's physics, as it where. It may have not had in its first stab an elegant ruleset for simulating things, but it was drawing in the near term from a wargaming mindset which is explicitly simulationist. One of the reasons that the 1st edition game was so prone to rules arguments was that many of the rules were laid out in a simulationist fashion - this happens because this is true about the interaction of X and Y - which prompted players to seek ad hoc rulings or disagree with ad hoc rulings based on thier understanding of the 'physics' of the situation. This was inherent in the rules. To view 1st edition D&D as gamist because it does not have a the holistic approach to the rules we associate with modern simulationist games is I think viewing the game out of context. If you actually read the 1st edition DMG and the Dragon articles from the period of 1st edition, they are very much of the approach, 'When this happens in the world, how do we simulate it?' If everyone is adopting a different approach to the question, its mainly because when these questions are being asked they are often being asked for nearly the very first time. The rules set wasn't designed; it evolved.

In any event, I think you are wrong to suggest that 3E represented the high point in D&D's simulationism and we are only know moving from it. Things like 'Infravision' were taken out of the game precisely because the explaination involved too much rules trouble. The flight rules were simplified, and so forth. What 3E represents is not so much the height of simulationism in the game, but the height of simulationist elegance in the game. It produces the most elegant simulationist toolset of any edition.

You are right however that 4E is no longer seeing this as a high priority design goal.

 

[Philip]

Three groups are recreating the adventure in the Hobbit with the 4e rules. Thhe first a group consists of strict simulationists, the second of strict gamists and the third of stric narrativists.

At some juncture the person playing Bilbo's character stumbles across the ring and puts it on. What happens?

1. The Simulationists
Before the ring is put on, a intense discussion ensues. Everyone agrees that the current 4e rules do not represent the Rings of Power correctly, and players and DM begin suggesting intricate rules-systems and additions to the 4e rules to better represent a Ring of Power. Although every member keeps disagreeing over the exact rules to use, they are having great fun thinking up mechanics to represent a Ring of Power.

2. The Gamists
The Ring doesn't work, the Bilbo character is too low level. The DM knows it, and every players knows it and accepts it. It is even likely that the player playing Bilbo won't even try to put it on since they know it "won't work" anyway. They will keep it safe for the moment they attain the level to use it. They go on with the game, slay some Orc and are having great fun.

3. The Narrativists
The Ring works! The players don't argue once about the fact that the rules say the Ring shouldn't work for such a low level character. On the contrary, the fact that the Ring goes against the rules is an even stronger indication that it is an essential plot item, and they focus on unraveling its mysteries and have great fun.

In summary: any rules set tends to bother strict Simulationists. There is always something that could be improved or tinkered with, in fact, part of their fun comes from discussing rules and tinkering with them. For them a solid basis that needs some tinkering is the ideal ruleset: 4e.

The Gamist needs rules that are clear and consise, but still allow everyone to do something "useful" in-game. An ruleset to intricate or full of expections and oddball rules frustrates them. The streamlined 4e version is an ideal ruleset.

The Narrativists don't care much about the ruleset. They care more about finding different players they can play with that also know the system, and they like the system to provide enough room for their favorite stories: 4e.

 

[apoptosis]

3. The Narrativists
The Ring works! The players don't argue once about the fact that the rules say the Ring shouldn't work for such a low level character. On the contrary, the fact that the Ring goes against the rules is an even stronger indication that it is an essential plot item, and they focus on unraveling its mysteries and have great fun.

I

The Narrativists don't care much about the ruleset. They care more about finding different players they can play with that also know the system, and they like the system to provide enough room for their favorite stories: 4e.

Actually this is a huge misunderstanding. Narrativist playstyles really want rules, they have to have rules that encourage narrativist agendas (the PC/player controls the story and it is based on the wants of the character/player and is tied to the character/players goals).

Actually they are the ones who really need rules. allow the players to have narrative control in the creation of the story. Games like early D&D were not good for narrativists play specifically because they had little to no rules to address PC control of narrative and story outside of their characters strictly defined class abilities.

Games that don't have rules that encourage the role of the character in the story (by that I mean it is focused on the characters decisions, goals, desires and all outcomes are tied into choices made by the characters) dont have a narrativist agenda and are usually a poor choice for players looking for this.

 

[Philip]

Actually this is a huge misunderstanding. Narrativist playstyles really want rules, they have to have rules that encourage narrativist agendas (the PC/player controls the story and it is based on the wants of the character/player and is tied to the character/players goals).

I don't think I misunderstand. I agree, Narrativists do need rules, they just don't care overmuch if it is 3.0, 3.5e, 4e or some WoD ruleset, as long it meets some minimum standards. I think 4e will meet enough of those standards to be fun for the strictly narrativist gamer.

 

[WyzardWhately]

I don't think I misunderstand. I agree, Narrativists do need rules, they just don't care overmuch if it is 3.0, 3.5e, 4e or some WoD ruleset, as long it meets some minimum standards. I think 4e will meet enough of those standards to be fun for the strictly narrativist gamer.

This is incorrect. Narrativists care just as much about rules as anyone, they just prefer rulesets along the lines of The Mountain Witch, Capes, My Life With Master, or With Great Power. It's not "minimum standards," it's "rules that actually support what they are attempting to do."

 

[apoptosis]

I don't think I misunderstand. I agree, Narrativists do need rules, they just don't care overmuch if it is 3.0, 3.5e, 4e or some WoD ruleset, as long it meets some minimum standards. I think 4e will meet enough of those standards to be fun for the strictly narrativist gamer.

I dont mean to just disagree but from what you replied I dont feel we are on the same page.

Actually what I mean is that they need narrativists based rules. Rules that engage narrativists play.

LOTR in narrativists play---

Gandalf - his character is about struggling using/not using great powers and how the ring could corrupt him = there would need to be rules that address both the consequences of him using his powers and that address his choice of taking and using the ring. There must be rules that make certain that the choice of him taking the ring comes into play

Boromir - he wants to to use the ring for the good of Gondor. They need rules that allow that choice to firmly impact play (and rules that make sure that the choice happens)

Samwise - that player wants a character where a individual of little power but great loyalty is crucial to the story. Rules that allow him to gain bonus dice and advantages whenever he helps Frodo obtain Frodos goal. His choice is also between loyalty to do Frodos wishes vs loyaltly to not let Frodo damage himself by being the ring bearer. The choice of taking the ring from Frodo for Frodos own good vs obeying Frodo must come into play and there must be some rules to facilitate this.

Frodo - the player wants to be the main protagonist (this is of course arguable) but has little power but great responsibility. He needs rules that impact his choice to keep being the ring bearer vs lettign someone else take it for their own ends.

That is what would be rules for narrativist play. A good rules set that does not address the characters goals and the players narrative control, do not address narrativist play at all.

 

[Kesh]

What is this Forge poison you speak of?

The Forge is a gaming forum that is well known as the main discussion area for the GNS theory of gaming*. Trouble is, it earned a bad reputation as some gamers sought to promote 1) GNS itself, which has flaws or 2) their particular style of gaming as "best." It also has a reputation of being a bit insular, to the point where folks who go there to ask questions about gaming theory tend to feel shunned by the regulars. It doesn't help that many of the terms used by GNS are found in other areas of academia, but used in a completely different manner. This, combined with the rather loose criteria for each GNS category, lends to arguments about what "category" a particular game or group fits into.

It's also where Ron Edwards, one of the main proponents of GNS, made the comment that people playing Vampire: the Masquerade were literally damaging their brain by playing the game.

Needless to say, some folks find this attitude hostile.

Anyway, in my experience, any discussion that leans into the realm of GNS theory tends to spiral out of control, and will eventually lead to statements which are thinly veiled personal attacks against a particular playstyle and/or that the other side of the debate doesn't understand The Theory™.

* For those who have no idea what I'm talking about, GNS stands for Gamist-Narritavist-Simulationist. The idea being that most gamers focus on one aspect of gaming, and that they should focus their energies on games/groups with a similar goal for maximum fun. It starts falling apart the minute you try to define criteria for each category, though.