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

[TwoSix]

I don't know what it's simulating, though. The GM could make up whatever they like, and it would count.

A simulation has some sort of correctness condition, in that either it produces the right outcomes (like a free kriegsspiel referee, based on their expertise) or that it models a process in some fashion.

But what do we call it if a Dunning-Kruger effect GM thinks they're simulating because they're an "expert", but is actually just making things up? Do we categorize by intent or result?

 

[Reynard]

But what do we call it if a Dunning-Kruger effect GM thinks they're simulating because they're an "expert", but is actually just making things up? Do we categorize by intent or result?

Oh my, if we could count the times so called "medieval experts" made bad rulings or argued with the GM...

 

[TwoSix]

Oh my, if we could count the times so called "medieval experts" made bad rulings or argued with the GM...

"That's not how a katana works, Steve! I've been to Japan!"

 

[Maxperson]

Or maybe I've been the forever GM most of my life hearing horror stories like this about the abuse players have had to endure at other tables. I've sat in on other tables or been in campaigns that sometimes lasted years, but I never had a DM as bad as the one described. If our profession was licensed, his should be revoked.

I have a simple rule. Always try to be the GM I'd want as a player. Not a lot of players out there I imagine want their GM to change the rules of the game in response to an action declaration that results in the death of a PC. I know I wouldn't. That seems to me like logic that applies pretty broadly.

Are you imagining that DMs wait until the players have their PCs do something suicidal and then say, "Gotcha! Your character is going to die now. Muahahahahaha!"? Because in my experience the DMs, including myself, inform the players in advance and if the players then make the decision to do it anyway, it's no one else's fault. They were fully informed in advance.

 

[Maxperson]

Doesn't he say the opposite? I'm thinking of an article, Realism and Game Logic, from Dragon #16. Quoting from a secondhand source:



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.

Gygax said in the 1e DMG that so long as it doesn't make the game unfun, the highest levels of simulation should be strived for.

 

[Micah Sweet]

"That's not how a katana works, Steve! I've been to Japan!"

Who's wrong in this sentence: Steve or the person talking to him? I can't tell.

 

[Reynard]

Who's wrong in this sentence: Steve or the person talking to him? I can't tell.

If it is about a katana, they likely both are.

 

[TwoSix]

Who's wrong in this sentence: Steve or the person talking to him? I can't tell.

If the katana isn't doing at least 2d20 damage, they're both wrong.