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

[Reynard]

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.

This thread is about how (general) you defines sim gaming, so I won't argue with anyone's preferences or perspective. But man, some definitions blow my mind.

 

[GobHag]

This thread is about how (general) you defines sim gaming, so I won't argue with anyone's preferences or perspective. But man, some definitions blow my mind.

Do note that I consider it on a spectrum, and my view on 'System Matters' is that it's a big pressure but not the sole thing that matters. A practically rules-less game whose only mechanic is 'if you're unsure if they succeed or not, flip a coin. Heads they succeed, tails they fail' is perfectly able to play Sim if there's a lot of trust going around the table.

It's more important that the players on the table want to play Sim(or have wants that don't conflict with the Simulation) than a system that does Sim,

 

[AlexofBarbaria]

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.

Ron Edwards says (I know this sounds lame) in the Sim essay that exploration of the shared fiction must be sincere. To me that means you care about getting it right. You're at least curious about what's beyond verisimilitude. Otherwise, why are we playing sim in the first place? Verisimilitude is good enough to support other creative agendas, but the point of Sim is exploration for its own sake. You don't explore that which you already know. I don't think GNS would consider your attitude acceptable on the social contract level for a sim game.

 

[Argyle King]

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.

Conan himself has a bit of plot armor due to being the main protagonist, but, even so, REH writes in a way that makes it at least seem as though Conan could die or be hurt. There are also limits to what even Conan can do. While he might be able to fight several foes and win, he's still not tanking armies. In some ways, Conan himself is a plot device to help illustrate how serious of a threat other things are. He's described as this muscled man of immense strength, so when a demonic creature or beast threatens to overpower him, it helps to illustrate the seriousness of the danger posed.

Even so, there is a sim aspect to REH's writing because a lot of things just kinda make sense. Even Conan needs an army to fight an army. It's not uncommon for a wizard trying to cast some elaborate and time-consuming spell to just be stabbed as a way of stopping it; in contrast, when powerful magic does actually happen, it carries a lot of weight.

 

[AlexofBarbaria]

There are also limits to what even Conan can do. While he might be able to fight several foes and win, he's still not tanking armies.

He does kind of tank an entire army in The Scarlet Citadel, until the dark wizard Tsotha-lanti hits him with a Hold Person.

 

[Willie the Duck]

Conan himself has a bit of plot armor due to being the main protagonist, but, even so, REH writes in a way that makes it at least seem as though Conan could die or be hurt. There are also limits to what even Conan can do. While he might be able to fight several foes and win, he's still not tanking armies. In some ways, Conan himself is a plot device to help illustrate how serious of a threat other things are. He's described as this muscled man of immense strength, so when a demonic creature or beast threatens to overpower him, it helps to illustrate the seriousness of the danger posed.

Even so, there is a sim aspect to REH's writing because a lot of things just kinda make sense. Even Conan needs an army to fight an army. It's not uncommon for a wizard trying to cast some elaborate and time-consuming spell to just be stabbed as a way of stopping it; in contrast, when powerful magic does actually happen, it carries a lot of weight.

Conan is regularly defeated, even if he can't die for plot reasons. Sometimes even just he's sneaking down the corridor and some mook guard sneaks up on him and knocks him out -- so he can wake up in a prison cell and romance the evil king/warlord/necromancer's beautiful daughter/assistant/etc. I don't know if I'd call it Deus ex machina, but it definitely qualifies as protagonist-centric-outcome (unimportant people in the same situation would be executed before they woke up).

 

[soviet]

Ron Edwards says (I know this sounds lame) in the Sim essay that exploration of the shared fiction must be sincere. To me that means you care about getting it right. You're at least curious about what's beyond verisimilitude. Otherwise, why are we playing sim in the first place? Verisimilitude is good enough to support other creative agendas, but the point of Sim is exploration for its own sake. You don't explore that which you already know. I don't think GNS would consider your attitude acceptable on the social contract level for a sim game.

I think it means you care about trying to get it right. You care that it feels right. You think 'maces are better against platemail while polearms are better against horses' or something and so you have rules that create that effect, or you play in some way as though it's correct within the fictional world: 'Horsemen eh? I'll run and get my halberd'.

I don't think it necessarily means 'I will now exhaustively research primary sources on medieval combat to make sure my assumption matches the data'. If I think it's right, and you think it's right, and it seems to make logical sense that it's right, and we play on the basis that it's right... I don't think that's insincere, even if a medieval cavalryman would say we were wrong.

Also I'm not sure that 'exploration of the shared fiction' necessarily means 'exploration of whether it's realistic'. An example might be again in a medieval game where sincere exploration of medical treatment might involve leeches, humours, and so on, but definitely won't involve germ theory. Here what's real and what seems to the characters to be real are entirely different.

 

[Lanefan]

If a person declares they are standing stock still while an ogre is swinging a club at them then they are not actively attempting to avoid the blow. I may call to adjust their AC, I may deem a successful hit to be a critical hit, I may impose a condition with the successful hit with or without a saving throw or I may determine it is a Coup De Grâce.
At my table I'd likely put this to the floor and get the rest of the players' input.

I think the only thing getting put to the floor here, and in a rather messy fashion, is the recipient of that Ogre's blow.

 

[Lanefan]

Having to have a book with you is not an inhuman level of required system mastery.

Having to actually read that book, on the other hand...

 

[Lanefan]

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.

Which is fine, except a video game very rarely if ever has to narrate what that loss of hit points looks like in the fiction. The little red-green bar is enough.

In a TTRPG, however, we don't often have a red-green bar equivalent, expecting instead that the effects from taking hit point damage will be verbally narrated or described somehow, be it by the GM or a player or a combination of both. And that's IMO where a lot of the meat/not-meat debate comes from, the questions of a) what does this actually look like in the fiction and b) how does one narrate it.