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

[gnarlygninja]

In my experience simulation means I'm going to find the game tedious.

 

[Basic Expert]

Simulation in gaming means an attempt to a realistic or at least consistent model of a world, given a set of assumptions or premises. In GNS theory, the simulation advocates are the ones that want to use the game to be transported to a virtual-reality world of understandable rules and interactions.

Simulation-based rules can help a game make internal sense, by keeping the interactions consistent. Say you have a strong barbarian that casually moves boulders aside one day with a good roll of the dice, but struggles to lift his ale tankard the next due to a poor roll. Immersion is broken, so a look at the strength and lifting rules for your game might be in order.

On the other hand, some situations are so complex that anything close to an accurate simulation is next to impossible. We have hit points in D&D because the body's response to trauma is so varied, with so many variables, that any system that takes a truly simulationist approach collapses under its own weight. Even the lengthy critical hit tables of some systems, while having more varied results than D&D's lose hp/drop at 0 mechanic, rely on compressing tons of variables (wound location, depth, etc.) and even the effects of shock to more simplistic results.

There are enough rulesets out there for everyone to pick their favorite amount of simulation. And, if not, go ahead and make your own! For me, I like just enough simulation to tie the world together and then get out of the way of the fun stuff. I will always take quick and dirty over belabored and accurate.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Immersion is broken...

Might be more accurate to say, "Some might find this immersion-breaking..."

 

[Reynard]

Might be more accurate to say, "Some might find this immersion-breaking..."

Right. it depends on how you might frame that failure.

First of all, why were we making a roll to lift a tankard? Why wasn't this an automatic success (or failure, I suppose)?

Whatever the reason, the failure doesn't mean "Lol, the barbarian is too weak to lift his ale!" The description of the failure must emerge from the circumstances of the fiction. And if that happens, "immersion" (I am not sure that is even the right word here) is preserved.

 

[Lanefan]

The same could be true in simulation of reality, not just a genre simulation.

Here's an example to demonstrate the difference between two ways the word is being used: a the player of a high-level character wins a contested strength check to break free of a flying dragon, and a result falls thousands of feet. He takes the maximum of 20d6 damage, and lives. Which was part of his plan; he knew 20d6 couldn't kill him. The GM frowns, says "that's not realistic" and rules the character dies.

The GM broke the simulation in order to simulate reality.

I'd put it more that the GM found a major flaw in the simulation and corrected it on the spot.

"On the spot", however, isn't exactly the best time to be making corrections to how the simulation works. Ideally, big things like this get caught and fixed well ahead of time.

 

[Celebrim]

The GM broke the simulation in order to simulate reality.

I disbelieve that was the motive. And for that matter, equivalent falls have been survived in real life.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I disbelieve that was the motive.

Gonna need an INT check to successfully disbelieve.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I'd put it more that the GM found a major flaw in the simulation and corrected it on the spot.

Why is it a major flaw? A simulation does not have to simulate reality. And changing it on the spot definitely "broke" the simulation as the player was counting on it to remain consistent, and not be arbitrarily changed mid-simulation.

EDIT: I'm going to step back now. This is a + thread and I fear where this going.

 

[Reynard]

I disbelieve that was the motive. And for that matter, equivalent falls have been survived in real life.

There's a difference between "could survive" and "no chance of dying" at least if some attempt at modeling reality is the goal. There are other ways to do it than rolling hit point damage, of course, so we don't have to toss the baby out with the bathwater. But if the player says "20d6? I've got 200 hp! No problem." you are not likely to be calling that part of the game "sim."

 

[Reynard]

EDIT: I'm going to step back now. This is a + thread and I fear where this going.

+ doesn't mean "no dissent." It just means, "be productive and civil in your debates."