What Does "Simulation" Mean To You? [+]

[TwoSix]

Is there a difference to the players, do you think? (assuming they don't know whether the GM used a table or not)

How much of a difference depends on a lot of things, mostly player psychology and how much illusionism is used.

Probably not much, but I’m also probably not a pretty good judge, since hard sim is pretty low on my play priorities for most systems.

 

[Umbran]

Is there a difference to the players, do you think? (assuming they don't know whether the GM used a table or not)

Once? Almost certainly not. Rarely? Again, almost certainly not. If it is only the weather? Again, probably not really.

But, if we bring in, say, encounters? Political developments in the world? Setting economy? GM choice and some form of systematic simulation will probably create different play experiences for the players.

Whether the players care about the differences is a separate question.

 

[TwoSix]

To be clear, "arbitrary" means, to me: based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.

If it really is arbitrary, with absolutely no concern for things like, say, climate, season, and terrain, then it isn't really a simulation. But, I'm guessing that most GMs are not having it snow in tropical summer, so I expect there is at least a little thought into the sim when that table is created. No, it isn't like supercomputers doing hurricane predictions today, but a bit of actual simulation is going on there.

Sure, I would agree with most of that. But assuming those arbitrary choices still produce some kind of functional output, I still think the result would be something like a "simulation", certainly for the low granularity sim of a TTRPG.

Like, if I ask 20 random strangers to name a type of weather, and put those results in a d20 table, that's still a functional weather generation algorithm, and using that in the context of a TTRPG would still fall under the umbrella of "simulationism". Certainly in comparison to the GM deciding the weather based on the dramatic needs of the session.

The sticking point here is the use of mental heuristics to run these simulations, like a GM basing the daily weather based on their knowledge of the geography and climate of their world-setting. That's demonstrating an attachment to sim as a priority, but can be conflicting for sim-oriented players because there's no way to know whether the result of a mental heuristic is actually producing a narratively-contrived result.

 

[TwoSix]

I think one important part of the procedures of a game like RM is to disclaim decision-making: the dice (and associated tables, algorithms, etc) tell us what happens. And I think that is why the same sort of techniques can be used in a system like Torchbearer (which relies heavily on random events tables at many points in play): they disclaim decision-making.

I would make the argument that the disclaiming of decision-making, specifically authorial decision making (the creation of the next scene, event, framing, etc.) specifically for the reason of avoiding any artifact of possible contrivance, is the core motivation of modern sim-oriented play. (Although earlier sim play, specifically deriving from wargame-style motivations, is much more interested in the modeling aspect than I think modern sim play is.)

 

[soviet]

I would make the argument that the disclaiming of decision-making, specifically authorial decision making (the creation of the next scene, event, framing, etc.) specifically for the reason of avoiding any artifact of possible contrivance, is the core motivation of modern sim-oriented play. (Although earlier sim play, specifically deriving from wargame-style motivations, is much more interested in the modeling aspect than I think modern sim play is.)

I would go along with this. Part of the joy of Rolemaster is the sense of 'you input the factors of the situation, and it outputs 'what would happen'. It evokes setting through its own procedures.

 

[The Firebird]

Is there a difference to the players, do you think? (assuming they don't know whether the GM used a table or not)

You can make up a lot of things on the spot as the GM and pass it off, especially if you're skilled. The players won't know if you fudge the baddies spell list, or the weather table, or if you decide the NPCs had 4 guards instead of 2 because the fight felt too easy. You might be able to go whole campaigns without trouble.

However, if you push it, at some point enough stuff will happen that the players will 'get' that the GM is doing things for narrative reasons rather than following a procedure. As a player, I've had this experience. In one case we ambushed a dragon and did enough to kill it in the first round. And I could see them decide to give it some extra hps for the encounter they wanted.

When that happens, it can be a bad experience for some players. I checked out of the dragon game. I don't think I'd check out of a game over weather, but I wouldn't like it.

Not every player will have a negative response so the table matters.

No Man's Sky has random numbers in the generator on the back end, but those numbers are then folded, spindled, and mutilated with a plan, to shape them with intent. I am more than sure that they tweaked and tuned that process nearly forever to get it to give output they wanted.

I'm not familiar with the game. Is the point of the generator to make realistic planets, using data from observations, or is it to make a variety of worlds that will lead to interesting gameplay?

 

[TwoSix]

I would go along with this. Part of the joy of Rolemaster is the sense of 'you input the factors of the situation, and it outputs 'what would happen'. It evokes setting through its own procedures.

"Evoke setting through its own procedures" is a great phrase.