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

[AnotherGuy]

@AnotherGuy 's response to me reflects that, their reasoning is because it 'doesn't make sence' even though there's nothing in the rules that prevents me from depicting an attack roll that didn't overcome my AC as me glaring at the Ogre as its club sends splinters of woods from hitting my gloriously solid body. But since their table's/'game world' doesn't fit that kind of depiction because of verisimilitude(A non simulationist denial of the same thing could be that since I'm a Fighter is should describe it by expression of skill because the Fighter is meant to represent a 'skilled warrior', or that it's too goofy and not cool enough)

I think I understand your point better now. Sorry slow day.
So the majority of us are like-minded at the table where the mechanics need to match what is being narrated in the fiction.
If the mechanics need adjusting then we are not hesitant to make the necessary adjustments.

 

[GobHag]

I think I understand your point better now. Sorry slow day.
So the majority of us are like-minded at the table where the mechanics need to match what is being narrated in the fiction.
If the mechanics need adjusting then we are not hesitant to make the necessary adjustments.

Both of our narration match the mechanics because the mechanics doesn't demand a specific form of narration but in that empty space we both show our goals and preference. I want spectacle, You want something that's believable.

 

[AnotherGuy]

Both of our narration match the mechanics because the mechanics doesn't demand a specific form of narration but in that empty space we both show our goals and preference. I want spectacle, You want something that's believable.

That's a nice way of putting it.
Often it is my players who tend to drive the spectacle and if it passes the table's general sense of realism it is accepted into the story.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Great post.
I think Rolemaster is massively underappreciated as a genuinely well-designed and evocative sim game. To my mind second edition from 1984/1989 is the platonic ideal of such an RPG. I constantly see threads here along the lines of 'D&D hit points are realistic actually, you can only do so much' and I shake my head and think about what they did to my boy while muttering 'Rolemaster solved this in 1984'.

It has this really unfair reputation as an uber-complex 'Chartmaster', but aside from chargen/levelling and keeping track of some status effects in combat it's mostly less complex than modern D&D. It has more maths, but that isn't the same thing. What seems to have hurt it reputationally is that they published I think seven or so Companions full of much more complicated, largely unplaytested optional rules that combined poorly, and that in 1994 they published a new edition called RMSS that escalated the complexity way too far and created a sort of 4e D&D-like schism.

First Rolemaster is second in my sim game list (behind, of course, GURPS) and is definitely underappreciated. But the problem it has in terms of complexity is that due to the required tables for the combat you can not master Rolemaster to the point you can run without looking things up in the books. And there are far too many weapon attack tables to stick them on a GM screen equivalent. The level of difficulty to not have the other players not have to carry you is low - but the level of difficulty for system mastery is probably inhuman. And that's why it's deservedly considered complex and other games don't try to emulate its method.

For illustration the Arms Law table from the 1989 edition for clubs. There are separate ones for fists, warhammers, maces, morning stars, and whips - and that's just in the one handed concussion group.

 

[GobHag]

That's a nice way of putting it.
Often it is my players who tend to drive the spectacle and if it passes the table's general sense of realism it is accepted into the story.

Thank you, I'm very well-versed in simulationism because I have a passionate hate for it.

 

[The Firebird]

First Rolemaster is second in my sim game list (behind, of course, GURPS) and is definitely underappreciated. But the problem it has in terms of complexity is that due to the required tables for the combat you can not master Rolemaster to the point you can run without looking things up in the books. And there are far too many weapon attack tables to stick them on a GM screen equivalent. The level of difficulty to not have the other players not have to carry you is low - but the level of difficulty for system mastery is probably inhuman. And that's why it's deservedly considered complex and other games don't try to emulate its method.

So this raises an interesting question--if we are trying to design a simulationist game, how do we know we've succeeded? In that the simulation is accurate, not necessarily in that the game is fun.

When Rolemaster says 'a club does this well against plate armor', how do we know if that's right? If I shifted the entries all down by 10, would that be more or less true to reality?

 

[GobHag]

So this raises an interesting question--if we are trying to design a simulationist game, how do we know we've succeeded? In that the simulation is accurate, not necessarily in that the game is fun.

When Rolemaster says 'a club does this well against plate armor', how do we know if that's right? If I shifted the entries all down by 10, would that be more or less true to reality?

IMO, Three metrics:

1. If an expert/someone trained uses those rules and have little to no complaint.

2. When your most dedicated player generally fits that simulation with minimal 'banning'/'house rules'

3. When your general players generally fits within that simulation.

 

[Neonchameleon]

So this raises an interesting question--if we are trying to design a simulationist game, how do we know we've succeeded? In that the simulation is accurate, not necessarily in that the game is fun.

When Rolemaster says 'a club does this well against plate armor', how do we know if that's right? If I shifted the entries all down by 10, would that be more or less true to reality?

If it's not fun it's not a good game. And I you've put your finger on an issue with simulationism - all we have is guesses backed by some research.

 

[Aldarc]

Someone oriented towards Sim can rightly call that out as a weakness in the rules that should be patched.

This pretty much was the reaction of the more Sim-oriented approaches of RuneQuest and BRP. BRP basically exists because people thought D&D was more gamist than simulationist. So when I think "sim," my first thought is never D&D; it's RuneQuest and Call of Cthulhu. (Not to mention games like Hârn and Traveller.)

 

[Neonchameleon]

The thing they represent in the fiction is damage.

How they work in the simulation depends entirely on how we choose to construct our simulation. If we assign size as a modifier to hit points, then size affects hit points in the simulation. If we don't, it doesn't. There's no correct way to simulate any concept, and simulation doesn't mean refers to real life. It can't, since spells and dragons are simulated.

Except that hit points don't represent damage. Things and people that are damaged are weaker and less capable. Hit points represent your ability to ignore physical consequences.