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

[Pedantic]

Oh, I definitely think the result of an arbitrary algorithm still counts as a simulation.

Any one of the 5 billion planets generated for No Man’s sky is a simulation. Creating a survival mode world off a random seed in Minecraft is a simulation.

That’s why I don’t think the “modeling” aspect of the term “simulation” is very useful for what “simulation” means in the specific context of TTRPGs. It’s why I’ve been more focused on the absence of mechanisms driven by contrivance in my own personal definitions.

I agree with your point here, and I think it points to divergence about whether the antecedents of a system, or the system itself matter toward "simulation" in this sense; is simulation a design goal that can underlie your whole mechanical architecture, or is it method for fulfilling a specific design goal? Falls should be like this, so I'm modeling them this way, vs. falls work in this consistent, understandable way, and that is harmoniously accounted for in the rest of the rules structure.

I like your point about contrivance, I've been wracking my brain for a situation it fails in and I'm coming up blank. Fundamentally, I think simulation is resistance to storytelling, or maybe just "story."

I don't think the calls for a prior goal to system, having a specific thing that is modeled are necessarily constituent. It doesn't have to be realistic, it just needs to be taken seriously. If falling damage is trivial, people jump off walls. If the stealth rules are poorly designed and hiding is essentially impossible, then no one is ever ambushed, and so on.

 

[dbm]

That said I've seen that article cited as proof Gygax didn't like simulationism, but he had a way of taking strong stances that make isolated quotes unrepresentative. Certainly he is more interested in simulationist combat than modern d&d.

That sounds more like a specific counter-punch to Runequest (subject to the exact publication dates) which brought in mechanics similar to what the quote mentions. Runequest’s pitch was essentially ‘more realistic than D&D’ and this is a pitch of ‘yeah but D&D is more fun to play’.

 

[dbm]

I think it is useful to remember George Box when thinking about simulation: “all models are wrong, some are useful”. It’s often applied to physical laws like Newtonian Physics versus General Relativity - both will tell you what effect gravity will have on a body and while General Relativity might give you a more ‘accurate’ result it is much more complex to generate and the Newtonian calculation is adequate for most people’s application.

That’s why the complexity of rules isn’t a decider for ‘simulation or not’ in my book. There is another deciding factor and for me that is whether a character can extrapolate meaningfully from what they are experiencing or have presented before them. That starts with non-controversial things like objects fall, fire is hot and builds up to whatever extreme or novel circumstances they may find themselves in.

For me, the benefit of this as a player is that I can take all the evidence my character knows from the game world and then make meaningful choices when presented new things. A big monster is likely to be tough, strong and hopefully slow as big things usually are, for example. This is what makes simulationist systems particularly useful for exploratory games about going out, finding new things, and interacting with them.

Critically, when I make a choice I feel that it was mine to make and I’m not relying on the GM / table thinking ‘that’s cool - let’s go with it to make a great story’. That’s perfectly fine for a system which is aiming for genre emulation, but that is different from world simulation.

 

[Micah Sweet]

That sounds more like a specific counter-punch to Runequest (subject to the exact publication dates) which brought in mechanics similar to what the quote mentions. Runequest’s pitch was essentially ‘more realistic than D&D’ and this is a pitch of ‘yeah but D&D is more fun to play’.

Seems like more of Gygax putting on his salesman hat again, yeah.