The Impasse

[xechnao]

Emphasis Mine: I disagree here, Those that are concerned with world-immersion/simulationism definitely don't view it as a separate thing to actual gameplay. Again refer back to my example with Fable... certain choices in the game are made by some, not because they are optimal or because they are the best tactically... but because it is enjoyable to interact with those elements of the world in a pseudo-realistic (realistic for the fantasy world being simulated) way.

With mechanics that simulate one can make decisions based upon interacting with the world as opposed to interacting with the rules/mechaincs and it in fact it becomes inseperable from gameplay when the rules support this.

Only that 3e does not have these mechanics. It has the bricks but for every situation, for every instance the DM has to take them and build the structure himself. Building though needs to be correct so to not fall down. I do not know any human being that can achieve in this task on functional playability terms with the bricks 3e provides and the structures than need to be build.

4e does not bring just bricks. It provides walls. It is functional with walls because you can build things that do not fall down. In theory you can build fewer things with ready-made walls than you can do with bricks but not in practice if you consider the limits of the gametable.

If you want to be able to build whatever you wish in respectable playability terms you need a different model entirely. Neither bricks nor walls but relativistic principles: there can be a small house and a big house. To make the small house I need to pay X, to make the big house I need to pay Y. This is just an example. If this is what you want I believe you need to search for a different system than D20.

 

[catsclaw227]

For me and my group, immersion/simulation depend on the characters we meet in the game, the stories we get involved with, and through our actions, tell. The mechanics behind task resolution (ie, most of the rules) don't play a big part. Immersion is a product of story, not rules.

A game that hypothetically has a perfect physics engine, that modeled the world accurately, would be non-immersive if the DM didn't populate it with interesting NPC's and believable plot hooks.

This. For our group, immersion is more about the fluff part of the game world and not the mechanics. We can still be immersed in the game world and not feel stress of how/why damage and healing surges work in 4e. The mechanical level of immersion is not as important as the way the game rules flow. The story immersion is much more important to us than the need for the rules to reflect every possible circumstance. In times when the rules "don't work", such as with craft or profession skills, we just give the PCs this information as a fluff item and RP it accordingly when we play. We don't necessarily need a game mechanic to represent this.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

1. Simulationist mechanics are not inherently more complex and cumbersome than ones that are not. It depends on what one is trying to simulate and how one goes about it. As an example, BRP is a very simulationist style game that is more elegant and less complex than 4e.

I'm not familiar with that game, so I can't comment on this. That being said, I find this statement hard to believe, since in my experience in 15+ years of RPG gaming, simulationism has always equalled complex and cumbersome. It was certainly true for 3.5E compared to AD&D 1E/2E and 4E.

2. If simulationism is important to a given player (and/or roleplaying game system, since you fail to acknowledge this possibility) they are again... subjectively good or bad depending on the player and rpg, not objectively.

I never said simulation was good or bad, I said it was unnecessary and came with consequences.

3. Something being important to a particular player, again supports a subjective thing as opposed to an objective one.

I still say the fact that simulationism can be completely unimportant to a given player goes a long way to showing that objectively it isn't necessary.

Oh, I see what you did here. I'm sorry but taking such a broad category as "RPG gaming as a whole" makes any and every possible parameter "not objectively integral". I mean what exactly is objectively integral to RPG gaming as a whole? I'm sure almost (and only because I haven't played every rpg out there) any thing you list here I can find an rpg that doesn't conform to it...especially when speaking about simulationism, gamism and narrativism. If being a non-issue for some people is the standard of whether something is objectively integral or not to an RPG... then it becomes meaningless.

I really don't get your point here. I'm not talking about RPG gaming as a whole, just simulationism and its relation to that. Simulation is a subjective consideration, you either care or you don't. Much of the RPG and D&D community don't care, and therefore simulation isn't integral to either on the whole. Simulation is integral to certain players however. This isn't hard.

I am more concerned with taking a particular game on it's own and deciding what is integral to that game, since simulationism can certainly be integral to the gameplay for a particular rpg. I think this narrows it down enough that suddenly there are distinct things that become integral to that rpg's style and gameplay. Thus now we can have an actual meaningful discussion of whether something is integral or not, as well as if it is objectively good or bad vs. subjectively good or bad.

We're talking about D&D here, and D&D has never been a simulationist RPG. AD&D was a hodgepodge of arbitrary and unrelated mechanics that didn't add up to any coherent whole, but on the whole it was a simple, rules lite, gamist enterprise. 4E is unashamedly and admittedly non-simulationist. 3E added a veneer of simulationism over a very solid gamist core(and the simulationist nods conflicted with the gamist core, making the game slower, more combersome, and unnecessarily complex), and this appealed to people who didn't like their games without it. Its never been integral to D&D as a whole.

 

[Scribble]

Emphasis mine, I just wanted to ask you a question... do you believe there is a difference between immersing oneself in the game and immersing oneself in the game world? As an example, I can play DC vs. Mortal Kombat on my Xbox and be immersed in the game (rememebering and deciding what combos to use at a particular moment, for a particular character in a particular scene)... but I am not immersed in the pseudo-world that DC vs. Mortal Kombat takes place in during this time, or really anytime I am playing the game (even the storyline). It doesn't in anyway affect my decisions or reactions.

As a counterpoint (so no one claims I'm using videogamey to only describe 4e.) I find Fable, a game with some nods to simulationism much more enjoyable on a game world immersion level (though less so in the game immersion category). I make decisions in Fable (beyond the main storyline) dependent upon how I wish my character to interact with the world around him as opposed to what is mechanically the best choice.

My players and I can readily immerse ourselves in the game of D&D 4e, and (this is even fun at times, though it often feels lacking in a way I cannot fully explain at this time) in fact this is particularly easy... what we find less so is immersing ourselves in the game world that is created with the rules of D&D 4e. YMMV of course.

Imaro that's kind of an unfair comparison. The DC vs Mortal Kombat Universe really doesn't allow you to in any way explore the universe of the game.

This has nothing to do with gamism vrs simulationism.

You can have a "gamist" game where your actions effect the universe, and where you explore the world around you and meet new people, and become imersed in the game world.

For some the "simmulationists" the game system needs to show them HOW things can happen. How one is able to make a trip attack, how one is able to craft a bow, how a goblin can summon acid storms. If it's not there this type of player feels like he can't imerse himself in the game. It feels artificial.

On the other hand:

For others, the "gamists" (which I guess I am) only want to know what happens AFTER the trip attack is made, after the bow is crafted, after the goblin summons the acid storm. We don't need or even want it to tell us how it's possible, because we already know it is. In fact if the game concentrates too much on the HOW the world feels too clockwork, and we feel like we can't immerse ourselves in the world. It feels artificial.


It always confuses me when people talk about how "gamist" style games feel like videogames... Because to me it's the exact opposite. The more simmulationist the game is to me, the more I feel it looses that thing that makes TRPGs great, and the more it starts to feel videogamey to me. But that's just my personal thoughts.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

It always confuses me when people talk about how "gamist" style games feel like videogames... Because to me it's the exact opposite. The more simmulationist the game is to me, the more I feel it looses that thing that makes TRPGs great, and the more it starts to feel videogamey to me. But that's just my personal thoughts.

I think the biggest problem with "simulationismn" is that I have to resolve it mechanically. I have to go through every step of the simulation, determine bonus and DC, roll dice, tick of whatever resource it needs. It's (in its extreme) like having every subconsciously made move being moved to concious activity.

The number-crunching for example required to determine at my current attack bonus after several buffs and debuffs cast on my character means a lot of handling the details - what type of bonus is this, does it stack, what's my new modifier. It is logical, but it reminds me: "You are playing a game."

But also every adventuring day, there is a time where it comes to cast the big buffs. The fact that every spellcaster is announcing his prepared buffs or asks which buffs to prepare reminds me I am operating on a very mechanical, level. It reminds me that I am in a very mechanical environment, playing a game, because I do not feel immersed if I think so consciously about the precise number of spell slots and buff types I could do. I mean, if the D&D world was "real", that might be what it is, but it also reminds me it is a world I can't relate to, a world where people basically know all the detailed numbers on how they affect the world. In my real life, I don't even know my IQ, and I certainly couldn't tell me whether it would help if coffee followed by pepsi would help me stay awake or not and what other side effects it might have. I wouldn't know if it the effects lasts 10 minutes or one hour (so should I drink it now for breakfast or when I arrived at work?)


Another, grossly exaggerated example:
"Oh, my eye itches. I raise my forearm and lower my head until my index finger is a the height of my eye. Now I carefully adjust my arm so that my index finger touches the edge of my eye. Now I move my index finger backwards and forwards until the itch stops..."

That's not how I "really" works for me. It itches, I scratch myself, I don't think about the individual things that happen. I am not aware of how I am doing it exactly, I just know I am doing it. I can figure out if it worked, but not how, unless I stop myself and go through my actions step by step.

But this is actually not the "Gamist" vs "Simulation" part, in my opinion.

I think the difference might be better described as something like "imperative or procedural" vs "declarative". That would be the terms one might use for programming languages. One explains the step-by-step process, and the other just describes the outcome. The "how" is implemented hidden from the developer.

 

[Thasmodious]

For others, the "gamists" (which I guess I am) only want to know what happens AFTER the trip attack is made, after the bow is crafted, after the goblin summons the acid storm. We don't need or even want it to tell us how it's possible, because we already know it is. In fact if the game concentrates too much on the HOW the world feels too clockwork, and we feel like we can't immerse ourselves in the world. It feels artificial.


It always confuses me when people talk about how "gamist" style games feel like videogames... Because to me it's the exact opposite. The more simmulationist the game is to me, the more I feel it looses that thing that makes TRPGs great, and the more it starts to feel videogamey to me. But that's just my personal thoughts.

I agree, completely. A video game requires internal consistency and player knowledge of the working of the game world (the rules) because your choices are so limited and your interaction with that game world defined. I love turn based strategy games and am playing a lot of Galactic Civilizations 2 lately. A good strategy game has lots of options because, in a video game, options stand in for freedom of action. You choose your civilizations government, but that choice has a defined set of results. You choose your alignment and it has specific game system results, things you can do with this alignment that you can't do with the others. You choose how to allocate your economic resources to achieve consistent adjustments to the overall resources of your empire. If you have enough options, the game feels very open when it really isn't.

For me, this is what 3e attempted to do. A lot of fans of that edition trump its "open" character design as a feature and attack 4e for its lack of "freedom". That's not the way I see it. 4e, like previous editions, does not insist that the system fully define your character and class is just one choice of several. With 3e, if you wanted your character to do something, you had to pick an option from the menu. It was a large menu, 175 base classes, 782 prestige classes, 3304 feats (according to WotCs indexes), but it had to grow large because there was little real freedom of character, everything had to be defined. You couldn't just say - "my dwarf fighter is a talented blacksmith" and have that be part of your character. You had to justify it mechanically, and that meant a trade off in your effectiveness at your class. In the end, if you really wanted that option and didn't want to be gimped (not that fighter wasn't already gimped), you have to search through the options like it was a multiple choice test with thousands of possible answers to the question "how can I make a character that is a strong melee fighter and a master crafter?" and find a viable set of options.

I'm with scribble, in that this is much more videogame like to me than the way 4e handles it, which is "write it down and we'll come up with something if it comes up in the game in a manner in which the results need to be randomly determined." 4e embraces (within a D&D system anyway) freedom both for players, who mechanically define their characters abilities as adventurers but are unrestricted elsewhere and don't have to give up effectiveness as adventurers to color their character; and for DMs in putting the game world back in their hands as opposed to the "hands" of the rules system.

That's not to say 3e is "videogamey", just that video games, by necessity, are all about the simulationism, so when a game system makes simulationism its goal, to me, it feels forced and restrictive to me.

 

[Sammael]

I think a lot of people in this thread haven't got the slightest idea what the term "simulationism" means.

And no, I am not going to define it in detail. Suffice it to say, simulationism does not mean that every single aspect of the world needs to be defined in game terms. It merely means that the game logic must follow some sort of internal consistency and map (at some level) to the world logic.

For instance, to me, removing craft skills from the game is perfectly acceptable. But you cannot write down "bestest blacksmith in the world" and then have a character with a Strength 4 and Dexterity of 5. Or, rather, you can, but it will be a lie. That's really all simulationism entails - internal consistency. Which 4E does not have and, according to its designers, does not need. Fine for some people, not fine for me.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Can you describe in detail how 4E lacks this internal consistency?

 

[Imaro]

I agree, completely. A video game requires internal consistency and player knowledge of the working of the game world (the rules) because your choices are so limited and your interaction with that game world defined. I love turn based strategy games and am playing a lot of Galactic Civilizations 2 lately. A good strategy game has lots of options because, in a video game, options stand in for freedom of action. You choose your civilizations government, but that choice has a defined set of results. You choose your alignment and it has specific game system results, things you can do with this alignment that you can't do with the others. You choose how to allocate your economic resources to achieve consistent adjustments to the overall resources of your empire. If you have enough options, the game feels very open when it really isn't.

No, a videogame has a set of limited options, usually based around the type of videogame it is (fighting, shooter, etc.). Now the difference all rpg's have is that a human as GM/DM can modify, add to, trim or whatever those rules... so really 4e has the more limited out of the box options focused on one type of play. Take from that what you will.

For me, this is what 3e attempted to do. A lot of fans of that edition trump its "open" character design as a feature and attack 4e for its lack of "freedom". That's not the way I see it. 4e, like previous editions, does not insist that the system fully define your character and class is just one choice of several. With 3e, if you wanted your character to do something, you had to pick an option from the menu. It was a large menu, 175 base classes, 782 prestige classes, 3304 feats (according to WotCs indexes), but it had to grow large because there was little real freedom of character, everything had to be defined. You couldn't just say - "my dwarf fighter is a talented blacksmith" and have that be part of your character. You had to justify it mechanically, and that meant a trade off in your effectiveness at your class. In the end, if you really wanted that option and didn't want to be gimped (not that fighter wasn't already gimped), you have to search through the options like it was a multiple choice test with thousands of possible answers to the question "how can I make a character that is a strong melee fighter and a master crafter?" and find a viable set of options.

And here we disagree you could do exactly that ( just say - "my dwarf fighter is a talented blacksmith" and have that be part of your character.) in 3.5 and just like in 4e whatever effect it had would be up to the DM... now what's the difference again?

Yes if you wanted it to have the mechanical effects exactly according to the game rules for that skill, then you had to spend points (of course a DM could again change these rules as well)... however there was no rule that a DM couldn't institute a Blacksmith background and come up with his own rules for it (I actually think later supplements did come up with backgrounds.), ultimately it comes down to exactly the same as 4e... making some stuff up, but for those not comfortable with this option, 3e also gave a default method to integrate it into the game, a common basis beyond "mother may I" ... how again does 4e handle this in the rules, I mean is anything like a character being able to blacksmith even addressed in 4e or are you drawing from your own experiences to make things up ?

I'm with scribble, in that this is much more videogame like to me than the way 4e handles it, which is "write it down and we'll come up with something if it comes up in the game in a manner in which the results need to be randomly determined." 4e embraces (within a D&D system anyway) freedom both for players, who mechanically define their characters abilities as adventurers but are unrestricted elsewhere and don't have to give up effectiveness as adventurers to color their character; and for DMs in putting the game world back in their hands as opposed to the "hands" of the rules system.

Where does 4e state "write it down and we'll come up with something if it comes up in the game in a manner in which the results need to be randomly determined.". Seriously, I see fans of 4e state this like there is a section in the book that states this when there isn't. It is a houserule not a part of the actual game.

That's not to say 3e is "videogamey", just that video games, by necessity, are all about the simulationism, so when a game system makes simulationism its goal, to me, it feels forced and restrictive to me.

IMO, videogames are definitely more concerned with mechanics and how said mechanics affect and balance against whatever is the opposition than any type of simulation... unless it is specificly a sim-game. In Tekken why can Eddy Gordo fight for the whole round on his hands but my Law character can't attempt to learn or even try that? Or why can't any character if they fight another enough learn new counters or styles based on countering that opponenets style? IMO this is much more similar to 4e's specific combat "powers" and restricted multi-classing than 3e's learn anything mentality. YMMV of course.

 

[rjdafoe]

Where does 4e state "write it down and we'll come up with something if it comes up in the game in a manner in which the results need to be randomly determined.". Seriously, I see fans of 4e state this like there is a section in the book that states this when there isn't. It is a houserule not a part of the actual game.

Page 42 of the DM's Guide:

Under the section titled Actions the Rules Don't Cover.

If the action is related to a skill....... use that check

If it is not an obvious skill or attack roll, use an ability check. ​

The above pretty much states that. ​

Just the title pretty much says everything except "write it down".​