The Death of Simulation

[marune]

From the latest Design & Development article:

...

Simulationism is not dead at all. Let's celebrate!

Cough, cough.

Simulationist is defined by a main focus on Exploration.

D&D 4E may be a "high-exploration" gamist RPG, but certainly not a simulationist one.

 

[Raven Crowking]

The "at what cost" aspect is paramount to nar play IMO and quite in contradiction to sim play. If you don't think it is, you're not really talking about sim play IMO.

The "at what cost" part assumes and forces acheivement. What I mean by that is that the characters will achieve what they were made up for. It's inevitable.

I don't believe that I agree with this. I mean, I certainly agree that sim play mandates the possibililty of failure, but that possibility of failure is a potential cost of trying. To say that you must succeed in order to be concerned with the "at what cost" part is, IMHO, frankly limiting to what costs may be incurred.

RC

 

[Bastoche]

IMO, in this context, "believability" is kinda meaningless as it should be there in each and every game out there lol. That being said the definition of "believability" certainly is in the eye of the beholder (and not the one with a big central eye and a couple of tentacled others )

 

[Bastoche]

I don't believe that I agree with this. I mean, I certainly agree that sim play mandates the possibililty of failure, but that possibility of failure is a potential cost of trying. To say that you must succeed in order to be concerned with the "at what cost" part is, IMHO, frankly limiting to what costs may be incurred.

RC

Tell me at what cost you acheived "Y" when "Y" never was acheived?

 

[Raven Crowking]

Anyone who tried to "adress premise" in an actual sim game knows that it just don't happen. It turns into "guess work" because the GM gives "hints" to the players that aren't obivous because the players aren't the same persons as the GM and they don't see the imagine universe the same way as the GM do. Skeptic can testify on this.

Obviously, both you and Skeptic have experiences that universally apply to all games and all gamers, everywhere.

If you want the players to acheive a specific goal in gamist and sim play, you must use railroading.

If you want the players to achieve a specific goal in ANY play, you must use railroading. Of course, the players may choose to go along with the railroad. "An out of game agreement about what the players will do" is an agreed-upon railroad, whether you're primarily sim or nar in playstyel.

In a sim game, you can seed thematic exploration, and then allow the players to choose what themes to follow, in the same way as they can choose what adventures to follow. I fail to see why you believe that this would be at all difficult.

RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

Tell me at what cost you acheived "Y" when "Y" never was acheived?

Tell me why "Y" was never achieved, and I will tell you at what cost you pursued "Y".

RC

 

[pemerton]

Characters can't speak or understand "metagamish". If we can't translate that to "ingamish", character immersion is hurt, and the gameworld starts to fall appart.

But players speak and understand "metagamish", and they translate it into "ingamish" via the process of running their PCs (and doing whatever else they are permitted to under the rules).

There are definitely two camps among players who enjoy "Simulationist" play, and it's one of my biggest gripes with the divisions

I agree there can be a confusion here.

I think the simplest way to define simulationism in it's essence is by the (ideal) absence of metagaming.

But doesn't high-concept simulationism have at least implicit metagame when the players agree to subordinate their mechanical decision-making to genre imperatives? Or does that only happen in a poorly-designed ruleset - a perfect high-concept ruleset wouldn't permit genre violation (like Pendragon, perhaps)?

Yeah I know. I just have diferent understadings. I consider "The Purist for the system" to be simly simulationism, "High concept simulationism" or "genre simulation" is narrativism/cinemativism and what The Forge calls narrativism is not even roleplaying game, it's storytelling game.

That's a pretty strong thing to say given that narrativist play takes place using RPGs (eg Champions, Tunnels and Trolls, Marvel Superheroes, OD&D - to mention some of the mainstream games that Ron Edwards discusses narrativist play of in his essays).

Maybe what you mean is that it's not how you like to play an RPG.

 

[Bastoche]

Obviously, both you and Skeptic have experiences that universally apply to all games and all gamers, everywhere.

That contributes to the discussion...

If you want the players to achieve a specific goal in ANY play, you must use railroading. Of course, the players may choose to go along with the railroad. "An out of game agreement about what the players will do" is an agreed-upon railroad, whether you're primarily sim or nar in playstyel.

I strongly disagree. If the players create characters that have a specific goal, the DM can "throw ideas at the players" and vice versa which IMO is not railroading. Railroading is: the DM writes a scenario and the players follow along or a made following.

In a sim game, you can seed thematic exploration, and then allow the players to choose what themes to follow, in the same way as they can choose what adventures to follow. I fail to see why you believe that this would be at all difficult.

RC

My point is that this is NOT sim play anymore. IMO, your first sentence is EXACTLY the definition of my ideal game and it sure ain't no sim game. That's what I'm trying to say. "seed[ing] thematic exploration, and then allow[ing] the players to choose what themes to follow, in the same way as they can choose what adventures to follow" is either nar play or sim drift toward nar play. No matter how you call that game, it has at least a small proportion of nar play thrown in. Because that way, the "plot unweaving" is hardwired in the game via player and GM priorities. They agree out of game or meta gamingly to do *something* (specific). Then they collectively "work" on/toward a plot. That's not sim play IMO.

 

[Bastoche]

Tell me why "Y" was never achieved, and I will tell you at what cost you pursued "Y".

RC

It was never question of pursuing "Y". But rather of achieving "Y". In sim, you may not acheive while in a given nar game about the "costs of acheiving "Y"", you KNOW beforehand that "Y" will be acheived.

In a sim game, you may in retrospec dicuss about the costs of acheiving "Y" when "Y" did happened. But it's not the GOAL of the game. It's color. An added or bonus feature. In nar game, it's the very goal so the rules are such that Y will happen no matter the costs. And the costs is what the players are exploring.

I'm not saying that what comes out of a nar game never come out of a sim game. I'm just saying that the player's source of "fun" in either game is different and therefore requires different rules.

 

[HeinorNY]

Cough, cough.

Simulationist is defined by a main focus on Exploration.

D&D 4E may be a "high-exploration" gamist RPG, but certainly not a simulationist one.

Maybe yes, maybe no. Who knows?
All I care now is that my worries are gone and I can peacefully and happily wait for 4E.
"simplicity, playability, fun, and believability" are my key words when DMing. I'm more then satisfied. 4E won't let me down.
LET THE BABY DANCE!