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

[soviet]

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?

My answer is that it doesn't matter even slightly if it's right. It matters if it feels right, or feels like it might be right. It generates a result that gives an impression of verisimilitude.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Aren't these "skill hit points" then? The very thing you are arguing against?

I was arguing against the idea that "skill" was a meter that could be reduced by being attacked. Hit points are an abstract thing that can represent a lot of aspects of potentially being damaged. One aspect is fatigue from working hard to avoid greater injury. One is luck. One is determination. All those waveforms collapse in my game when you lose your last hit point and someone checks to see what happened to you. Until then, you suffer pretty minor damage that, in the heat of battle, fails to significantly impact your activity most of the time (there are always exceptions for certain kinds of attacks).

So no, I don't see myself as a hypocrite.

 

[Micah Sweet]

My answer is that it doesn't matter even slightly if it's right. It matters if it feels right, or feels like it might be right. It generates a result that gives an impression of verisimilitude.

Exactly right, which is why if I have a dispute with a player over whether or not a given circumstance in the game makes sense in the setting, we discuss it and make changes as needed for both of us to feel good about it.

 

[pemerton]

A simulationist design/writing is an approach where the designers/writers make rules and design content as if they were diegetic in the world. Not necessarily one-to-one all the time but works as if 'it exists' in the world

<snip>

A simulationist playstyle is one where the GM and group focuses on the interaction and exploration of the 'game world' itself. The players at the table want to act as if their characters actually do exists in an imaginary space-time location

Most people can probably agree that RQ, and RM, are designed to support a simulationist approach to RPGing. But they contain plenty of rules that are not "diegetic" - rules like *each player, to prepare for their participation in the game, must create (or otherwise obtain) a player character"; and rules about how the GM is in charge of framing scenes and establishing certain consequences of declared actions; etc.

If we focus just on action resolution rules, then we do find many rules that are intended to represent processes or events that occur in the fiction. But not all of them: for instance, Rolemaster has rules about open-ended rolls. These rules, which are rules for generating random numbers with no upper bound although an increasingly low probability, don't represent anything in the fiction.

If we focus on PC build rules, we can see a difference between RM and RQ that is quite interesting. The principle mode of PC progression in RQ is via the method of use a skill, roll over the skill rank on % dice at the end of the session, increase the skill bonus by a modest amount. This represents an in-fiction process, of getting better by doing.

In Rolemaster, PC progression is via (i) allocating a level's worth of development points across various skills, with costs determined by character class (ie the character's entrenched disposition and capability, based on aptitude and training), and (ii) actually earning a level's worth of XP, so that the planned improvements actually crystalise. There are various XP rules to be found, but the core ones are what I call learning based on hard field training - ie you earn XP by putting your skills to the test in real challenges (and mechanically, this is expressed as gaining XP by giving and receiving hits in combat, using your skills to overcome challenges, and even dying and returning to life).

The representational character of the RM PC progression rules is clearly weaker than in RQ. For instance, no more effort or success in fighting is required for a player to advance their PC's weapon skill by two ranks rather than by one rank.

When it comes to the notions of interacting with the game world, and/or players acting as if their character do exist in an imaginary place, for me that is different again. For me that is just roleplaying in a serious way. I've done RPGing which isn't serious in this sense - mostly pretty light-hearted AD&D play - but most of my RPGing fits under this description. For instance, when playing AD&D dungeon crawling in a less light-hearted way, the players and GM are pretty closely focused on the "game world" (that is, the fiction of the dungeon); though the characters are generally just pawns/ciphers. When I play Burning Wheel, I am very much acting as if my PC is an (imagined) person in an (imagined) time and place.

If this is sufficient for play to count as "simulationist", then nearly all my RPGing is simulationist. My group's play of 4e D&D, for instance, would count as simulationist by this particular measure.

 

[pemerton]

My answer is that it doesn't matter even slightly if it's right. It matters if it feels right, or feels like it might be right. It generates a result that gives an impression of verisimilitude.

Related to this: when it comes to RM attack table, it is as much about the relationship between them. For instance, if changes were made to the club table, but not the mace table, such that clubs became comparable to maces when fighting metal-armoured foes, that would be a hit to verisimilitude (and hence to simulationist character).

 

[Aldarc]

And this is why HP are not a sim tool: they change what they represent from moment to moment, monster to monster, encounter to encounter. They are just a measuring tool: how close am I to going down?

Yeah, I tend to think of HP in most TTRPGs simply as a "pacing mechanic," which is generally how they operate in video games too.

 

[thefutilist]

When it comes to the notions of interacting with the game world, and/or players acting as if their character do exist in an imaginary place, for me that is different again. For me that is just roleplaying in a serious way.

Yeah a lot of sim priorities just seem to be describing role-playing. (for me the sim part is the disclaiming decision making bit, which might have nothing to do with the notions you just listed)

 

[Reynard]

Yeah a lot of sim priorities just seem to be describing role-playing. (for me the sim part is the disclaiming decision making bit, which might have nothing to do with the notions you just listed)

I think that ignores the most important aspect of sim: the rules are serving as (for lack of a better term) the physics of the world, and are unconcerned with either the fun inherent in play, or genre or narrative concerns.

 

[Hriston]

I laughed; but as I reflected I thought this is a really interesting reply that implicates a whole lot of assumptions that are present in D&D.

For instance, if hit points are really divine favour in the sense you describe, then is it possible to play REH-esque S&S?

I haven't read REH, so it's difficult for me to answer. I mean, would Conan ever just let himself be executed? (I've heard Crom wouldn't care, but if he's never tested?) On the other hand, according to this Wikipedia article, S&S has been criticized for over use of Deus ex machina.

 

[GobHag]

If this is sufficient for play to count as "simulationist", then nearly all my RPGing is simulationist. My group's play of 4e D&D, for instance, would count as simulationist by this particular measure.

Perfectly possible yes, playing in a simulationist way doesn't require a simulationist game. Playing with a toy car doesn't mean you have to race, games/systems put pressure so that the games are a certauin way but that pressure can be ignored or overpowered depending on the players.