The Death of Simulation

[apoptosis]

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.

Except for most cRPGs are really gamist, because that is what people like in cRPGs. They are not trying to simulate a world at all but are pretty much trying to make a game where the players overcome challenges.

I just reread what you wrote and you didnt really talk about cRPGs so i pretty much discussed a non-existent statement.

 

[tomBitonti]

Straw!

I'm gonna have to disagree with much of the presentation in this thread. I'm finding the arguments to be strawmen. They are trivializing a point of view which has merit. I don't think that narrow "simulationism" or "realism" are the issues that folks who want these features in their game are really talking about.

Roleplaying, generally speaking, is <b>all</b> about conveying a scenario based on real-world mechanics. The details vary, but the basic mechanics say that you can stick someone with a sword, they'll get hurt. The rules still convey that basic mechanic, and if it failed to do so players would not buy into the game. D&D, as a role playing game, still tries to describe scenarios which, vaguely, make sense from a real-world point of view.

There are issues where the mechanics stretch far from what is possible using known physics. 100' falls should be fatal in nearly 100% cases for a human doing the falling. Falling 30' and not breaking any bones is not very realistic. So the game takes away those details. But the underlying idea of "causing harm" is still there, and is still generally realistic.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I still play old rolemaster. Its a terrible system. It may be more realistic, but after one solid blow from a goblin with a club, you are out of combat. And 2 weeks later you can go on with your adventure, if you want to fight again.
And a fight takes forever. I rather have a simple combat system with most obvious hazards like drowning and suffocation supported by the rules, so that i actually have time to roleplay. That said: if no rules for suffocation and getting drunk etc are in, i am very displeased... although making some up is not that difficult.
BTW: rules for drowning and marching more than eight hours are bad in 3.5... i prefered to ignore them and made up my own... atually I would be glad if there were just one rule: DM should make const checks as he seems fit... written somewhere in the Players handbook...

 

[Reynard]

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.

Simulation doesn't necessarily imply complexity -- it implies consistency and an attempt model some other thing. I think most people who are suggesting that D&D has never supprted sim play don't actually know what the term means.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

There are issues where the mechanics stretch far from what is possible using known physics. 100' falls should be fatal in nearly 100% cases for a human doing the falling. Falling 30' and not breaking any bones is not very realistic. So the game takes away those details. But the underlying idea of "causing harm" is still there, and is still generally realistic.

what about: the DM can break legs after a fall as desired? (an attack vs fortitude defense at +1/10ft)

 

[Silent Cartographer]

Nail, meet hammer, heheh...

I agree that 4E is going to upset a lot of closet simulationists this spring.

The design architecture for 4E clearly a vision of gamist flexibility and power, and supports narrative play mainly through the abstraction provided by that architecture. That same level of abstraction is what drives some simulation fans nutty.

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. So I think there will be 3E fans who are disappointed that 4E is "moving backward" in that regard.

However, I do think there is room for 'sandbox' style simulation. There may not be 'support' from the rules, but there are layers of gameplay above the rules layer (the so-called 'meta-game') that is free to be shaped in any way the GM and players choose. Grand Theft Auto is hardly realistic from a nitty-gritty POV, but it's a classic example of sandbox gameplay, and still has a consistent (if very silly) framework of cause and effect.

I recently became aware of Ben Robbin's West Marches D&D campaign articles, which I think are brilliant. I believe this is a classic example of a low-narrative, sandbox-style D&D sim campaign that would work with any edition, including 4th.

 

[apoptosis]

I'm gonna have to disagree with much of the presentation in this thread. I'm finding the arguments to be strawmen. They are trivializing a point of view which has merit. I don't think that narrow "simulationism" or "realism" are the issues that folks who want these features in their game are really talking about.

Roleplaying, generally speaking, is <b>all</b> about conveying a scenario based on real-world mechanics. The details vary, but the basic mechanics say that you can stick someone with a sword, they'll get hurt. The rules still convey that basic mechanic, and if it failed to do so players would not buy into the game. D&D, as a role playing game, still tries to describe scenarios which, vaguely, make sense from a real-world point of view.

There are issues where the mechanics stretch far from what is possible using known physics. 100' falls should be fatal in nearly 100% cases for a human doing the falling. Falling 30' and not breaking any bones is not very realistic. So the game takes away those details. But the underlying idea of "causing harm" is still there, and is still generally realistic.

Most games are generally realistic but that is not what simuilationist is about. It is about making choices in game design.

What is more important that someone who gets stabbed several times will be severely wounded or killed or that they just lose some hp so that they can keep contributing to the fight.

One of those options are more simulationist - the rules are trying to simulate the gritty effects of combat (in a game that is say trying to simulate a true fantasy adventure...eg George RR Martin)

The second option is to provide the players with ways to enjoy the challenge and to contribute to the encounter and not have to sit out a large portion of the encounter because their character is busy being in shock and trying to stuff their innards back in.

We see a lot of options that D&D made to really improve gamism. The entire balance between spellcasters and warriors is pretty much about this and you see the battle that rages on.

Some people believe that wizards should be capable of things beyond the scope of non-magicusers as that what occurs in many types of novels (say wheel of time). The retort is that no player should have to play a characters that is weaker than another character.

If a game was trying to simulate Lord of the Rings, all of the characters would be WAY different in power levels. If a gamist version of Lord of the Rings came out, all the charactesr would have similar effectiveness.

I am simplifying the matter quite a bit. But it is really all about decisions during game design and what is being focused on.

The thief's backstab not working against say undead is an example. It didnt work against creature without 'vulnerable' parts because of a simulationist perspective. Some people, though, didnt like the fact that thieves might have to be involved in a combat where they are ineffectual so they wanted this rule changed so that backstab works against all creatures.

If they decided the thieve's backstab shouldnt work against undead to balance out the damage it does that would then be more of a gamist decision.

These decisions are the types that define sim vs gamism. It is why is this decision being made...to improve the simulation of that particular genre or setting, or is it to improve the ability of the participants to deal with a challenge.

 

[apoptosis]

I still play old rolemaster. Its a terrible system. It may be more realistic, but after one solid blow from a goblin with a club, you are out of combat. And 2 weeks later you can go on with your adventure, if you want to fight again.
And a fight takes forever. I rather have a simple combat system with most obvious hazards like drowning and suffocation supported by the rules, so that i actually have time to roleplay. That said: if no rules for suffocation and getting drunk etc are in, i am very displeased... although making some up is not that difficult.
BTW: rules for drowning and marching more than eight hours are bad in 3.5... i prefered to ignore them and made up my own... atually I would be glad if there were just one rule: DM should make const checks as he seems fit... written somewhere in the Players handbook...

I love Rolemaster..but not sure I could DM easily again, too much crunch for me....but some of the best games I played were in RM.

The criticals are what turned me onto the game. But you definitely cant approach it like you do D&D or the players will be a bit unhappy that they are stunned, bleeding and possibly missing some limbs.

 

[IceFractal]

As mentioned, falling 100' and walking away from it doesn't mean the system isn't simulationist.
Simulationist: You fall 100', so you die. Because falls that long will kill you.
Also Simulationist: You fall 100', take 10d6 damage, but you survived, as was expected. In this world, people who can fight dragons and win are known to be able to survive long falls.
Still Simulationist: You fall 100', and recieve 10d6 gold pieces. In this world, the god Zeppo personally rewards people who fall long distances.
Not Simulationist: Long falls are known to be deadly, and will kill most things. But when a PC, BBEG, or important NPC falls, they only take 10d6 damage, because otherwise pushing people off cliffs is unbalanced.
Not Simulationist: You fall 100', so you suffer whatever effects the DM and/or players deem best for the story.


Side note:

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.

You, know, that's right. But in my defense, Mage Hand uses it incorrectly as well - "Target: One nonmagical, unattended object weighing up to 5 lb.", so whether they really meant mass or weight is arguable.

 

[BASHMAN]

Dudes, 4th Edition is TOTALLY Simulationist... 4th Edition GURPS that is. I cannot imagine people were playing D&D-- a class & level based system where you magically got better at everything simultaneously-- thinking it was simulationist. Simulationists play GURPS-- where you can get killed in one shot to the eyeball, armor reduces damage, and every round of combat covers one second of time.