The Death of Simulation

[LostSoul]

We should start a new thread to debate these issues instead of putting it in here.

 

[Psion]

As far as design goes, I think I agree with you.

Do you buy into the idea that each of GNS are (pretty much) incompatable in actual play? I have a follow up question for you depending on whether or not you think that's true.

Not necessarily, no.

First off, as I have already said, I think those "isms" can overlap and leave gaps. Two techniques might conflict, but they also might complement each other or not interact appreciably at all. I see plenty of games that make compromises like "we'll model gun damage because gun enthusiasts appreciate the realism, but we'll give you this out to save characters because we think that will make for a better story."

In a different vein, I know it's common to write indie games as small pamphlet style games with a single over-arching style guideline. And that's fine. But I think it's possible and acceptable to design a game as a linked set of sub-activities which might follow different goals for the space of that particular challenge or interlude.

 

[Craw Hammerfist]

This thread really opened my eyes. I was so confused by the conflicting opinions of the very terms the OP was discussing that I went and read the GNS articles. That simplified everything. Holy cow! I'm a lawyer and used to dealing with terms that are defined specifically for the brief, but that is overkill. I am now confident that no two posters in this thread are talking about the same thing.

If you buy the GNS, then "simulationist gaming" is an oxymoron. If you are "in it to win it" it is a game and the players are gamist. ANY choice that allows one to mechanically alter a character begins to destroy simulation. "My character spends three months practicing archery, so her bow attack gets better." Sim? Not according to the GNS. It's gamist because the player implies his willingness to "Step on up" and meet a combat "Challenge" via the expenditure of "Currency" (time in game) to improve the character vis-a-vis the rule set. If this is the definition of gamist, then D&D is 100% gamist and always has been.

If the definition of "sim" is "internally consistent rules that make sense within the genre" then D&D is and always has been 100% pure "sim." The genre is "D&D." By definition, it is internally consistent with itself. The complaint has to be based on some other genre that the complainer is using as a base-line. The ring issue is a perfect example. The "I want a sim" camp complains that it isn't realistic that a ring can't be used until the 11th level. Compared to what universe? I'm wearing a ring right now and, try as I might, I can't get it to do anything magical (except guarantee that my credit cards are maxed). In what genre did the callow youth setting out on his first adventure have mastery over the power of a magic ring? (the one ring being an artifact for purpose of this discussion) How is it internally inconsistent for a 1st level character to put on a ring and be told "though you can sense great power untapped within, your efforts to reach it are thwarted by a powerful resistance?" If that same character were 10th level, would he not then be told, in perfect consistency, "the torrent of power contained in this ring is tantalizingly close. You press against the barrier with your will and feel the barrier stretch thin. . .but hold."

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

 

[marune]

2) They're dead wrong that games are worse when they mix GNS. It is, in fact, essential as WotC's market research demonstrated. This shows that there are several necessary features all players want from an rpg. Amongst these are tactical challenge and a good story which shows a game (by which I mean a period of units of play, not a published product) cannot succeed unless it has both gamist and narrativist elements.

Yeah, that's the problem with D&D, it always tried to please to all and that's impossible.

Gamist RPG can't promise a good story, because the meaningful choices of players (strategies, guts decision, etc.) can lead them to fail when a sucess would be better for the story and vice versa.

If you override those choices, you are infact removing the gamist elements.

However, some mix is possible using layers :

For example, Burning Wheel has a powerful narrative engine (Artha) even if the Fight! and Duel of Wits sub-systems have strong gamist elements.

 

[Psion]

For example, Burning Wheel has a powerful narrative engine (Artha) even if the Fight! and Duel of Wits sub-systems have strong gamist elements.

So, lost soul, do you agree with THAT analysis? (I know that BE is one of your favorite systems.)

 

[marune]

So, lost soul, do you agree with THAT analysis? (I know that BE is one of your favorite systems.)

I could add that Riddle of Steel has a simulationist combat system under the hood, but the main system (spiritual attributes) is narravist.

The players who fail to recognize it lose their characters in the firsts combats.

 

[HeinorNY]

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.

 

[marune]

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

Of course, more popular = better.

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

 

[pemerton]

I am now confident that no two posters in this thread are talking about the same thing.

Actually, Apoptosis, Skeptic, loseth and I are using the terms in the same way.

It's not surprising, however, that there are differences of nuances in the critical analysis of RPGs. Why should this domain of criticism be any different from literature, film etc?

 

[apoptosis]

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

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

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

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.