The Death of Simulation

[pemerton]

D&D doesn't help a narrativist agenda at all.

On the DM-proofing thread, I am arguing that this is probably not true of 4e - that many of the changes do help a (certain sort of) narrativist agenda. Do you have a view on that?

 

[Celebrim]

Every complaint I have heard from the "sim" camp boils down to "I just don't like this rule."

Forget formal GNS for a while.

Let's talk about something everyone is familiar with - fireball.

Alot of people do use different definitions of 'simulationist'. To me, the heart of simulationism is a thought experiment. Simulationists treat RPGs as a mental toy, rather than as means of achieving some story end or as a challenge to be overcome.

Simulationism expresses itself in the game fundamentally with the notion that the actual game effect of the rules ought to be its intended effect. Hense, if the actual game effect of fireball is to not set things on fire (as it is in 3E), the simulationist response is to either look for a deep in game reason why fireballs don't set things on fire, or else to respond that a rule about balls of scalding fire ought to either be changed mechanically to where it does what you'd expect things to do (set things on fire) or else be changed in flavor (rename it 'arcane blast') so that it does not create the expectation that it should set things on fire.

To compare this to other responces to the rules of fireball, a gamist would probably be happy to say, "Sure fireballs actually do set things on fire, but because things being set on fire is mechanically messy, it should be ignored except when it has no mechanical effect." A narrativist would be happy to say, "Sure, fireballs actually do set things on fire, but because things being set on fire is mechanically messy, it should be ignored except when it has an important dramatic effect."

Looking back at the games history, the 1st edition fireball was strictly simulationist. The rules offer the proposition, "If wizards can summon bursts of fire, then the followings effects should occur: the spell takes the form of an explosive bead which bursts on contact, things should catch on fire, creatures should be damaged, more powerful wizards should summon hotter fire, the expanding ball of fire should expand to fill the area that it is contained in...", and so forth.

The 3E rules to fireball are more explicitly gamist in construction. Reading between the lines, they read, "Wizards in fantasy games can traditionally summon balls of fire. For the purposes of simplicity, these balls of fire are limited to the following precise, balanced, and easily adjudicated effects." The notion that we should be thinking about how an actual exploding ball of fire would effect a world somewhat similar to our own is removed from the rules. The world becomes more 'what is happening in the game' and less 'what is happening in our head when we envision what is happening in the game'.

 

[apoptosis]

On the DM-proofing thread, I am arguing that this is probably not true of 4e - that many of the changes do help a (certain sort of) narrativist agenda. Do you have a view on that?

I generally agree that it could help, but I think that it is an unintentional consequence of their desire to increase some gamist elements.

The players have more control in certain things, my issue is that I am not sure that their increased power will reflect their ability to investigate their characters goals and themes.

I think there are some elements to increase "Story Now" but that is I think based off their desire to not have the 15-minute adventuring problem.

I thought you had a good analysis definitely, I am just still trying to tie it back to the players ability to center the story on their characters and to increase their ability to introduce elements based on the players desires.

 

[apoptosis]

Forget formal GNS for a while.

Let's talk about something everyone is familiar with - fireball.

Nice thoughts about simulationism. They really are about how "logically" would this play out given the "science" of the game world. (science including everything from physics to psychology to social sciences)

There is not narrative issue about fireball except for WHY is the character throwing a Fireball that is what is important to narrativism.

Honestly i think many people who have talked about the WoW problem are really having an issue with the game drifting from a more simulationist stance to rules that are better for overcoming challenges using mechanical rules effects.

I think the entire issue about losing items when hit by a fireball was also all about this issue.

I think the entire debate over the Pokemount is the same. Since D&D up till present is a game of simulationism goals vs gamism goals, people who like one get upset when it drifts to the other. You can have both goals but like anything, not everybody is going to be happy.

It is called incoherrent due its lack of consistency, which doesnt necessarily mean the game will be bad, but that you will see people having issues when the two come into conflict.

 

[Psion]

Popular doesn't really equate to well made. That is painfully obvious in most all of life.

Painfully obvious is a rather subjective measure. I think it's "painfully obvious" despite criticism that D&D performs well. The metric I use here is that I enjoy D&D immensely whereas other games of supposedly superior design give me much less enjoyment. And something performing its function well is the ultimate metric of game design quality. (Of course you may not enjoy it as well/YMMV/etc., thus the subjective bit.)

The attribute we should be pointing to with respect to popularity is that whatever is popular draws criticism. So indeed, we should not take the mere presence of criticism as a signifier that something is intrinsically poorly designed.

D&D had no narrativist options it is pretty much just G and S.

I would concur that is where the focus of D&D's mechanics lies.

D&D is very good for many things. It is also very bad for many types of play.

It is great for doing a classic dungeoncrawl.

It invented the dungeoncrawl and does it well.

It does a good job of simulating the heroic journey.

It does tactical combat pretty well.

It is generally bad for exploring character goals and motivations.

It is pretty bad for murder mysteries.

It is pretty bad for horror.

It is REALLY REALLY bad for stories that involve characters of widely different levels of combat prowess.

This just means that it is a tool that is best used for games that are focused on its strengths and maybe not the best tool for exploring other types of themes and genres.

I concur. I don't think this is a result of incoherence, but the mere fact that one size does not fit all.

 

[HeinorNY]

Of course, more popular = better.

Popular doesn't really equate to well made. That is painfully obvious in most all of life.

I think you both quoted the wrong person, I didn't say D&D was the best or even that it was well made. I said it was the most successful and most played RPG.
I'll repeat it so there is no misunderstanding: D&D the most successful and most played RPG.

Everybody now:

Deeeeee NNNNNNN Deeeee iiiiiisssss theeeeee moooooosst successsssssful annnnnnnd mooooossst plaayeeeed RPGeeeeeee.

Now just the girls:

D&D is the most successful and most played RPGeeeeeeee weeeee.

Now just the dogs:

Wooof woof wooooooof woof woof wooooooof woffffffffffffffffffffff!

Now the homies:

D&dee is the most successfuleee and most playedee RPGee ya dig?

Did I hear anyone saying anything about quality?



..


.


...


Thanks everyone.

 

[apoptosis]

Painfully obvious is a rather subjective measure. I think it's "painfully obvious" despite criticism that D&D performs well. The metric I use here is that I enjoy D&D immensely whereas other games of supposedly superior design give me much less enjoyment. And something performing its function well is the ultimate metric of game design quality. (Of course you may not enjoy it as well/YMMV/etc., thus the subjective bit.)

Actually it was 8.9 on the validated PO scale, which is completely objective...just kidding. I am not even saying D&D is poorly designed or you cant get immense enjoyment out of it.

I LOVE AD&D and really enjoy playing it. It is a mishmash of rules that suit different agendas (gamism and simulation). I really enjoy the game (maybe it is just nostalgia, i am sure that has something to do with it).

I dont really sit around thinking why I enjoy it, i just do.

I would say FUN is probably the best metric for a game. It is a hobby afterall and should be fun (of course tennis is a hobby as well and it can be frustrating as can be).

I concur. I don't think this is a result of incoherence, but the mere fact that one size does not fit all.

I agree.

I do think it is incoherrent in design, but the above is more an illustration why it is not a general tool to accomplish different gaming goals not a question of it being incoherent.

But in my opinion, the further D&D veers away from the classic 'series of mostly combat challenges', the less ideal of a tool it becomes.

 

[Craw Hammerfist]

Let's talk about something everyone is familiar with - fireball.

Alot of people do use different definitions of 'simulationist'. To me, the heart of simulationism is a thought experiment. Simulationists treat RPGs as a mental toy, rather than as means of achieving some story end or as a challenge to be overcome.

Simulationism expresses itself in the game fundamentally with the notion that the actual game effect of the rules ought to be its intended effect. Hense, if the actual game effect of fireball is to not set things on fire (as it is in 3E), the simulationist response is to either look for a deep in game reason why fireballs don't set things on fire, or else to respond that a rule about balls of scalding fire ought to either be changed mechanically to where it does what you'd expect things to do (set things on fire) or else be changed in flavor (rename it 'arcane blast') so that it does not create the expectation that it should set things on fire.

To compare this to other responces to the rules of fireball, a gamist would probably be happy to say, "Sure fireballs actually do set things on fire, but because things being set on fire is mechanically messy, it should be ignored except when it has no mechanical effect." A narrativist would be happy to say, "Sure, fireballs actually do set things on fire, but because things being set on fire is mechanically messy, it should be ignored except when it has an important dramatic effect."

Looking back at the games history, the 1st edition fireball was strictly simulationist. The rules offer the proposition, "If wizards can summon bursts of fire, then the followings effects should occur: the spell takes the form of an explosive bead which bursts on contact, things should catch on fire, creatures should be damaged, more powerful wizards should summon hotter fire, the expanding ball of fire should expand to fill the area that it is contained in...", and so forth.

The 3E rules to fireball are more explicitly gamist in construction. Reading between the lines, they read, "Wizards in fantasy games can traditionally summon balls of fire. For the purposes of simplicity, these balls of fire are limited to the following precise, balanced, and easily adjudicated effects." The notion that we should be thinking about how an actual exploding ball of fire would effect a world somewhat similar to our own is removed from the rules. The world becomes more 'what is happening in the game' and less 'what is happening in our head when we envision what is happening in the game'.

Why, thank you. That is the most cogent explanation for the sim-gamist issue I have heard. It does, however, raise a problem with point of view. You are assuming that a fireball would catch things on fire. If all of the players have that same assumption, then you can go forward in the sim experience. I don't assume a fireball would do more than scorch the walls. I worked in the oil field years ago and saw a handfull of small explosions. Those that were natural gas related typically did not catch things on fire. The fire was hot, but it was over fast. Most of the damage was concussive. An exploding gasoline can catches all kinds of things on fire, however because it throws fuel all over. What if fireball is more akin to the former? Does that mean 1e was gamist for me, but 3e is a sim?

Granting that the fireball is just a single example, I'm sure that there are any number of instances where the natural consequences of a spell or action do not get tracked in D&D. However, for any given scenario, "what is happening in my head" is different, to varying degrees, from "what is happening in your head." How does this get rectified in a sim based game? (or is that the game itself?) In D&D, the rule switched. Whereas you were more comfortable with the rule as enabling a sim game in 1e, it feels more internally consistent to me in 3e. Is simulationism v gamism a purely subjective viewpoint?

 

[apoptosis]

...


Thanks everyone.

Originally Posted by Doug McCrae
They're dead wrong that games are worse when they mix GNS.

They are wrong indeed. The most successful and played RPG of all time has the greatest mix of GNS.

That is true you didn't state that.

In all fairness though there was an implication (and i made an inference, maybe incorrectly) based on your reply to Doug McCrae that you were saying this as he was talking about quality.

Unless he meant 'worse' in a way I misunderstood.

 

[apoptosis]

Why, thank you. That is the most cogent explanation for the sim-gamist issue I have heard. It does, however, raise a problem with point of view. You are assuming that a fireball would catch things on fire. If all of the players have that same assumption, then you can go forward in the sim experience. I don't assume a fireball would do more than scorch the walls. I worked in the oil field years ago and saw a handfull of small explosions. Those that were natural gas related typically did not catch things on fire. The fire was hot, but it was over fast. Most of the damage was concussive. An exploding gasoline can catches all kinds of things on fire, however because it throws fuel all over. What if fireball is more akin to the former? Does that mean 1e was gamist for me, but 3e is a sim?

You still run into other sim problems (i am sure you knew this, i am saying this in a good way)

Why does fire resistance/immunity help if it concussive damage. Why does it melt metals but not catch stuff on fire.

Of course the players handbook was never supposed to be a chemistry, biology or physics manual (thank goodness, those are very dry and I am a scientist).