The Death of Simulation

[Fallen Seraph]

I'll just say this, if in 4e a level 1 wizard can beat two house-cats then it is closer to real-life then 3e ever was

 

[Voss]

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.

You can do it with any game. You can do it with D&D minis, or warhammer or even risk or axis and allies if you really want it to. It helps if the rules aren't jumping out at the player, kicking them in the head and shouting "You're playing a game, stupid", but it can be done.

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.

So, essentially, don't post here if you have a different opinion? Nice.

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.

Nurr. 3e? No. 3e was almost solely about number crunching and having the biggest pile of bonuses possible. Roleplaying of any sort was something you did on your own time, actively struggling against a rules set that didn't really care about it at all. Which, of course, is always possible, but its a far cry from a heyday. 4e actually looks to me like its trying to support both, but in different areas. And when it fails, its very, very gamist, to the point of kicking the player in the head. When it suceeds, it looks more promising than any edition of D&D since BXCMI.

 

[IceFractal]

Simulationist doesn't have to mean realistic, in any way relating to the real world. A system with giant space hamsters where gravity fluctuated based on the day of the week could be highly simulationist, if it had internal logic and stuck to it.

It just means that the system has internal "laws of physics" (metaphorically speaking), and it sticks to them whether or not that's balanced, whether or not it makes a good story. You can get several benefits from this, of which approximating reality more closely is only one possbility.


Another is emergent gameplay/properties. It's ironic that while many people are trying to put emergent gameplay into electronic games (see Spore, for example), it no longer seems welcome in "modern" tabletop RPGs. Let me give you an example of what I'm talking about:

A while ago, in a thread not that far away, there was a discussion on how to visit other planets in a D&D setting, using existing material. Teleport requiring familiarity, a ship to actually fly around looking for them was needed. One of the proposals was, once the ship was in space, to use a large array of "Mage Hand" magical traps to propel the ship forward at high speed. This was made possible by the fact that once in space, the ship's lack of weight put it within Mage Hand's limit.

Not only was this an interesting idea, but it had emergent properties. Just like many hypothetical space propulsion systems in science fiction, it didn't work within a gravity well, and thus required the ship to stay in space and send down shuttles to explore planets. This wasn't something added to the rules, it naturally occured from the interaction of existing components.

Now this couldn't have occured in a purely gamist system - it relies entirely on the kind of loopholes and secondary effects 4E is trying to stamp out. And it would only occur by pure chance in a storytelling system - if having a starship is part of the story, you don't need to figure out the cheapest way to construct it.


That kind of creativity - not just thinking of an interesting thing, but figuring out how to construct it within the game system; and emergent gameplay, where unexpected things that neither the players, DM, or game designer expected can turn up - that's what I'm looking for in simulationism.

And while 3E certainly isn't pure simulation, and 4E doesn't discard it entirely, the amount of it does seem noticably reduced, from what I've seen.

 

[Reynard]

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.

Thanks. You saved me a whole bunch of typing.

 

[HeavenShallBurn]

Simulationist doesn't have to mean realistic, in any way relating to the real world. A system with giant space hamsters where gravity fluctuated based on the day of the week could be highly simulationist, if it had internal logic and stuck to it.

It just means that the system has internal "laws of physics" (metaphorically speaking), and it sticks to them whether or not that's balanced, whether or not it makes a good story. You can get several benefits from this, of which approximating reality more closely is only one possbility.


Another is emergent gameplay/properties. It's ironic that while many people are trying to put emergent gameplay into electronic games (see Spore, for example), it no longer seems welcome in "modern" tabletop RPGs. Let me give you an example of what I'm talking about:

A while ago, in a thread not that far away, there was a discussion on how to visit other planets in a D&D setting, using existing material. Teleport requiring familiarity, a ship to actually fly around looking for them was needed. One of the proposals was, once the ship was in space, to use a large array of "Mage Hand" magical traps to propel the ship forward at high speed. This was made possible by the fact that once in space, the ship's lack of weight put it within Mage Hand's limit.

Not only was this an interesting idea, but it had emergent properties. Just like many hypothetical space propulsion systems in science fiction, it didn't work within a gravity well, and thus required the ship to stay in space and send down shuttles to explore planets. This wasn't something added to the rules, it naturally occured from the interaction of existing components.

Now this couldn't have occured in a purely gamist system - it relies entirely on the kind of loopholes and secondary effects 4E is trying to stamp out. And it would only occur by pure chance in a storytelling system - if having a starship is part of the story, you don't need to figure out the cheapest way to construct it.


That kind of creativity - not just thinking of an interesting thing, but figuring out how to construct it within the game system; and emergent gameplay, where unexpected things that neither the players, DM, or game designer expected can turn up - that's what I'm looking for in simulationism.

And while 3E certainly isn't pure simulation, and 4E doesn't discard it entirely, the amount of it does seem noticably reduced, from what I've seen.

What he said. I actually ran a short campaign in which spelljammerish space travel was important. And was surprised to find the favored method of getting down to the surface past about 10th level was Otiluke's Resilient Sphere, it made a perfect re-entry "capsule". I don't think these sort of things are going to be possible with the new magic system.

 

[marune]

Simulationist doesn't have to mean realistic, in any way relating to the real world. A system with giant space hamsters where gravity fluctuated based on the day of the week could be highly simulationist, if it had internal logic and stuck to it.

It just means that the system has internal "laws of physics" (metaphorically speaking), and it sticks to them whether or not that's balanced, whether or not it makes a good story.

Yup, and there is a even more subtle variation called "high-concept simulationism" where the goal is to re-create a particuliar genre/theme.

Dread is a good example of this kind of game (nice use of a Jenga tower btw)

 

[Remathilis]

::golfclap::

Thank you for saying what must be said, CWG!

D&D has NEVER been about simulationism. It cannot be. It never tried to be. Oh, it had a brief, torrid affair with it in that dark time we call second edition, but like all bad marriages it ended and D&D and simulationism have gone their separate ways.

And really, how can you expect it to have? Wizards "memorize" spells during the day only to "forget" them later as they are cast, but to do that you first have to "learn" them. Right...

Oh, and defeating the dragon yielded a horde of magic, gold and treasure that could buy a small kingdom, but never seems to upset the local economy, let alone throw the aristocracy into turmoil.

Speaking of treasure, just where DID that weretiger keep those 12 gold pieces?

And lets not forget the grand-daddy of them all: a 10th level fighter puts on bulky metal full-plate armor to make him harder to hit in combat, can survive roughly x10 the amount of sword strokes a first level fighter with the same armor will, and fights perfectly fine until the final sword stroke kills him (0 or lower hp).

Oh, and a swashbuckler, a druid, a ninja and a warlock not only CAN adventure together, they make a balanced team.

So simulationism be damned. I welcome any changes to D&D that make the game more fun and easier to run.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

A while ago, in a thread not that far away, there was a discussion on how to visit other planets in a D&D setting, using existing material. Teleport requiring familiarity, a ship to actually fly around looking for them was needed. One of the proposals was, once the ship was in space, to use a large array of "Mage Hand" magical traps to propel the ship forward at high speed. This was made possible by the fact that once in space, the ship's lack of weight put it within Mage Hand's limit.

not to do nitpicking, but there´s a difference between "mass" and "weight" and you are mixing them: mage hand limitation is measured in [lbs] this is a mass unit. weight is measured in newton (kg*m/s^2) so the loss of gravity doesn´t put anything into the mage hand's limit.

on topic: I hope there are rules for drowning. And I hope those rules are not using hp damage. (Con checks vs DC seems appropriate)

 

[FourthBear]

If simulationism has as its central conceit using the game rules strictly to model the worlds "physics", then I think that computer aided systems will be increasingly the way to go, where the calculations can be offloaded onto a system that never gets tired, judges constantly and won't allow cheating.

 

[apoptosis]

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

The two concepts are largely unrelated. Simulationist arguments essentially mean that the rules are the game-world's laws of physics, and vice versa. So, essentially, what they are saying is that the rules should reflect the way things are supposed to work IC. You can run an absolutely simulationist game where a guy with a hundred hit points can fall a hundred feet onto a stone floor, take his 10d6, get back up, dust himself off, and be merely bruised. It doesn't have to reflect the real world at all. The simulationist, however, needs to have an explanation of why the game-world's physics feel like that, and the characters who live therein will be aware of it and know that that's how the world works. So, if someone who is known to be an all-star badass dies from falling off a horse, they're going to be rightly shocked and expect some deeper conspiracy, unlike in the real world where, to be frank, happens.

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.

Sounds good.

Simulation is about simulating some genre (even if the game makes up its own genre). Things happen that would happen logically even the world played-out based on its rules.

It has always been a style that is hard to define in terms of mechanics quite often but people know it when they see it.

HP have always had sim issues because what they represent are gamist mechanics but what they try to represent is how hard you are to kill based off of toughness, luck etc.

I used to love games the more simulationist they were (loved old rolemaster which could be very sim if you used enough optional rules...boy i got too dumb to keep doing that, senility and all).