Quote from: Chris24601 on March 09, 2023, 06:20:56 AM
All that processing power can crunch the rules

Why do you think simulationism is about crunching a detailed set of rules?

You are making the same mistake that so many make that what we do is about playing a set of rules. The rules are an aide, the point of what we do is to run campaigns, even if they are a single session, where players pretend to be characters having adventures in some imagined setting. The reason this works along with being fun and interesting is that a human referee is part of the process in a specific way. Namely, the referee describes the circumstance, the player describes what they try to do, and finally, the referee adjudicates and describes the changed circumstances. This loop is repeated through the life of the campaign.

Having a good system means running a campaign takes less work and the referee can use their limited time for other things involving the campaign. But what form it takes and how detailed it gets is a preference not a requirement.

Simulationism is about how one runs a tabletop roleplaying campaign not a description of the rules being used. I get that thanks to Ron Edwards there are some preconceived notions out there about what Simulationism is. That Edwards and others seem obsessed with the idea that the right system can magically fix the issues a campaign is having.

Simulationism means that as a referee your rulings and the system you use reflect the reality of the setting you described to the players. It means that the players can only do things within the campaign that their characters can do. But it also means that the players can do ANY thing their character can do within the setting. It doesn't matter if you never made a ruling on that type of action before or if it is not addressed in the system. If it something reasonable that a character can do then as the referee you figure out the mechanics of how to make it happen, rather than saying no you can't do that because it not in the rule.

Conversely, with simulationism, it is fine to say no you can't do that because characters existing in the setting can't do that. If you are playing in a medieval setting and there are no supernatural or fantastic elements in play then your character can't flap their arms and fly away.


The rulings and rules could be at a fine level of detail like with GURPS with all the sourcebook in play. Or it could be quite abstract like running a campaign with only the 3 LBBs of OD&D. You can run simulationist campaigns with either extreme or anything in between.

And I have personally done just that running my Majestic Wilderlands setting pretty much the same regardless of the system I used for 40 years with multiple groups of different individuals.

The systems that don't work out well for me, like Fate, are those that have metagaming as an integral part of their system. Mechanics that the players use not as their character but as themselves to influence the direction of the campaign.

Also more abstract systems that don't explain how they are tied to the reality of setting also don't work out well with my style. OD&D used to be in that category but after reading up on the various histories of how it was developed I can see how stuff like hit point and armor class grew out of miniature wargaming. So that no longer an issue.   Other more abstract systems are opaque to me. Some I haven't put the time in to understand others come off as a cute dice game rather than something that can be tied to the reality of the setting.

For me D&D 4e is a good example of cute dice and mechanics that are more a boardgame than something that can be tied back to the reality of the setting. The Fantasy Trip likewise I have issue with as well. But both are excellent game in of themselves. Just not good tools for someone who wants to run a simulationist campaign.

Finally, folks are deluding themselves if they think they can write a set of rules that completely describes a setting with all it possible nuances. CRPGs handling simulationism better is an illusion. Their ability to effortlessly crunch dozen of factors is hampered by big metagaming flaw. That you literally are unable to do anything unless the algorithm allows you do. See a cool mug in World of Warcraft? Unless they made it a movable item you can't grab it. Want to weave a basket out of some reed swaying next to a brook. Nope unless they coded that in.

With tabletop RPGs with a human referee, the answer to both especially with simulationism is yes. Yes, you can grab that mug, yes you can weave a basket out of those reeds. It may not a good basket gave how your character is described but certainly, an attempt can be made.

So yes humans can't compete with software algorithms when it comes to level of detail. But that not what simulationism is about. It is about what you do with the rules you do have.

P.S. I really dislike using simulationism to describe what I do. The term has so much baggage in the minds of the general hobby that in my opinion not worth trying to change. The term I prefer is sandbox campaigns. Which does have its own issues but not as bad as simulationism.
-Sorry Amacris

Social interaction is still much better done by a GM than by a computer I think. And simulation includes talking, hopefully.

Quote from: estar on March 09, 2023, 12:44:52 AM

Quote from: jhkim on March 08, 2023, 05:38:37 PM
It's the difference between "let's have a game like comic book superheroes" and a simulationist premise like "what would happen if people really did have superpowers?"

They are two different setting. The world of comic book superheroes is one where where wearing a domino mask and glasses are effect disguises. It may not make sense in regards to real world logic but it make sense in terms of comic book logic. And if you know the genre then you can run a campaign where players play characters having adventures in a world of four color superheroes WITHOUT TRYING TO REPLICATE THE STORY STRUCTURE OR NARRATIVE BEATS OF COMIC BOOKS. If the referee does their job then the campaign will naturally unfold in a manner we see how comic book unfold. It won't replicate a comic book story but rather like D&D and epic fantasy it will feel like you were adventuring in a four color world.

In constrast it is a different thing to imagine a setting where people really did get superpowers. You get Marvel New Universe or Watchman but it won't be a four color world of superheroes.

I'll admit that my example might not be the best one, but I can suggest other examples. You cited Watchmen, but that wasn't something I was thinking of. I was thinking simulationist RPGs that I played in with superpowers. I'd point to many Astro City comics as examples of different genres within a more four-color world, where one comic might be about a girl moving to live with her cousins in the country and getting to see rural superheroes, while another is about someone trying to decide between a big city career versus getting involved in the local neighborhood.

I still maintain that there's a difference between an RPG that is set in a four-color superhero world and an RPG that emulates four-color superhero comics. For example, I could run a police procedural RPG in a four-color world where the PCs are non-superpowered police - like the Mutant City Blues RPG that uses the GUMSHOE system. Or I could run a professional wrestling RPG campaign in a four-color world, either taking a wrestling RPG and adding in powers or using a superpowered RPG and add in framework from such games.

These are genuinely set in the same world, but they won't have the same feel as a game that emulates superhero comics.

I think the example of D&D supports my point. There are a lot of different ways to play D&D, and not all of them produce the feel of an epic fantasy story -- and that's fine. Some D&D games are challenging dungeon crawls of working through tactics and puzzles while collecting treasure, while others have characters tied into the setting with trees of NPCs and political machinations, while others are about epic quests and hilarious quips while fighting.

Quote from: jhkim on March 09, 2023, 12:20:42 PM
These are genuinely set in the same world, but they won't have the same feel as a game that emulates superhero comics.

Yeah, I agree with jhkim and disagree with estar, I think. You can have non-superhero comic style games in a superhero comic universe.

Goblin Slayer is a great example - the protagonist is very much NOT the 'main character' of the setting. The setting is a standard epic questing fantasy world with Japanese MMORPG elements and has demon lord smashing epic heroes. But all the protagonist wants to do is kill goblins. It has had a lot of influence on my Faerun Adventures D&D campaign, where the PCs are low fantasy protagonists in a high fantasy world. While Gareth Dragonsbane & the NPC Heroes of Bloodstone are Saving the World, the PCs are squabbling with goblins and ghouls over gold coins.

Quote from: Chris24601 on March 09, 2023, 06:20:56 AM
One observation on a likely reason for simulation as defined here largely falling away from ttrpgs may simply be that it is one of the areas where video games just flat out do it better even in an open world sandbox. All that processing power can crunch the rules and give it to the players via an easily digestible UI.

MegaMek, for example, handles all the environmental physics of Battletech (including any advanced rules you want to use) such that all the players have to input are their movement (with the program accounting for terrain effects automatically) during the movement phase and the targets of their weapons during the attack phase.

Quote from: S'mon on March 09, 2023, 11:29:19 AM
Social interaction is still much better done by a GM than by a computer I think. And simulation includes talking, hopefully.

I agree with S'mon, but it goes a lot farther than just social interaction. The computer simulation will tend to be extremely bounded. In a computer game, you can't do things that are outside the rules -- but humans can try to do so many things that it's impossible to cover in a ruleset. To me, one of the great strengths of RPGs is that you can try things that aren't in the rules.

Even if we're talking about just environment physics, there are a lot of questions that aren't covered. A long time ago, I played in a paired MechWarrior RPG / Battletech wargame. In the RPG, one of the things we considered was whether we would try to set traps or similar to deal with an impending attack. (I can't remember exactly what happened - I think we didn't do it, but we considered it.) An interesting question might be how battle mechs deal with such improvised traps - but it's likely not covered in the rules.

And now I'm picturing the Ewok's traps in Return of the Jedi.

Quote from: S'mon on March 09, 2023, 11:29:19 AM
Social interaction is still much better done by a GM than by a computer I think.

I'm not so sure of that, myself.

See, single-player videogames (Fallout 2, Arcanum, Planescape: Torment, etc) have your PC's charisma, intelligence, alignment/personality traits, etc affecting dialogue options for some time now. So, for eg, having a dumb PC will reflect in your dialogue. Considering that world consistency is a desired quality in a simulation, it seems those games are better at representing your character characteristics in a more verossimile manner than the usual GM-fiat based alternative that tabletop RPGs offer, where many times the most persuasive player gains advantage on social situations irrespective of his/her character traits.

Further, online PvP games like DayZ, Tarkov and Hunt: Showdown have incorporated real-time dialogue for quite some time. In these, differente PCs/teams can speak directly to each other in-setting, with consequences that go from mere bartering of resources, temporary truces and alliances, to ugly shootouts ensuing. Quick example:

Quote from: jhkim on March 09, 2023, 12:20:42 PM
These are genuinely set in the same world, but they won't have the same feel

Yes you are correct they won't which will be the point of doing those kinds of campaigns. How things will go in a four color comic setting if the players are part of the police doing Law & Order type stuff.

Quote from: jhkim on March 09, 2023, 12:20:42 PM
but they won't have the same feel as a game that emulates superhero comics.

You are going to have to define what you are thinking of when you say "a game that emulate superhero comics". Otherwise we will arguing in circle.

I took it to mean a story game that has metagame mechanics in addition to others that ensure that the session flows narratively like it would in a comic book.

My point, which I admit I didn't fully explain, is that beyond the narrative beats, comic book characters have motivations and plans even in the more silly comic books stories. By roleplaying characters with similar motivations and plans in similar circumstances you will get something that feels like being a superhero in a four color comic book. Except you are making your choices on how to gaslight Lois Lane, Jimmy Olson, etc. again into not thinking that Clark Kent is really Superman.

Narratively the result will be different than a comic book story, but in terms of verisimilitude, it can be spot on. And plays into one of the big appeals of RPG "What would I do in similar circumstances."

Quote from: Itachi on March 09, 2023, 01:48:21 PM
verossimile manner than the usual GM-fiat based alternative that tabletop RPGs offer, where many times the most persuasive player gains advantage on social situations irrespective of his/her character traits.

What you are describing is a problem with the human referee. The solution is to teach folks to be better referees. Preferably without needing to have 40 years of life experience. Changing the rules will not fix problems like but just introduce new complications. Coupled with the fact it will become it own thing as the limitations of CRPGs force the games into becoming their own thing with their own conventions.

Quote from: Itachi on March 09, 2023, 01:48:21 PM
Further, online PvP games like DayZ, Tarkov and Hunt: Showdown have incorporated real-time dialogue for quite some time. In these, differente PCs/teams can speak directly to each other in-setting, with consequences that go from mere bartering of resources, temporary truces and alliances, to ugly shootouts ensuing.

See Dave Arneson's Blackmoor Campaign circa 1972. What you describe was solved in the very first roleplaying campaign ever ran. Tabletop roleplaying was developed from Dave Arneson's experience with many on many roleplaying style wargames starting with Wesely's Braunstein.

Quote from: estar on March 09, 2023, 01:59:23 PM
What you are describing is a problem with the human referee. The solution is to teach folks to be better referees. Preferably without needing to have 40 years of life experience. Changing the rules will not fix problems like but just introduce new complications. Coupled with the fact it will become it own thing as the limitations of CRPGs force the games into becoming their own thing with their own conventions.

Getting a better referee isn't even an option for many players outside of larger urban areas, particularly as FLGS continue to fold.

When your only options (unless you want to run something yourself, which isn't always practical) is a couple 5e games with mediocre GMs, a railroady GMPC-loving Vampire GM, and Magic the Gathering tourneys (which are what is actually supporting the FLGS)... and finding an online play group (or joining a guild on a simulationist online game); which of those is going to provide the instruction to produce these better GMs you speak of?

Quote from: estar on March 09, 2023, 01:59:23 PM

Quote from: Itachi on March 09, 2023, 01:48:21 PM
Further, online PvP games like DayZ, Tarkov and Hunt: Showdown have incorporated real-time dialogue for quite some time. In these, differente PCs/teams can speak directly to each other in-setting, with consequences that go from mere bartering of resources, temporary truces and alliances, to ugly shootouts ensuing.

See Dave Arneson's Blackmoor Campaign circa 1972. What you describe was solved in the very first roleplaying campaign ever ran. Tabletop roleplaying was developed from Dave Arneson's experience with many on many roleplaying style wargames starting with Wesely's Braunstein.

The point you seem to miss is not "TTRPGs have always had that" its that "Computer games can now do it too (and have for a while), with more realistic simulations including near photorealistic video and ambient sounds in real time" which is just one of the reasons you don't see nearly the focus on simulationism in ttrpgs that you used to; because its never going to be the draw you want it to be compared to its computerized competition.

The majority of people with a hardcore interest in simulationist play who aren't ttrpg diehards have long since moved on to video games that provide all the simulation they desire right up to and including realtime communication with squadmates and proximate enemies in multiplayer environments. Younger players will never even be looking at ttrpgs for simulationist play because the type offered is never going to come close to competing except with a master-tier GM (who are exceedingly rare).

People who come into the ttrpg hobby these days are coming for the things that video games can't do better... and these days that's not simulation.

Which is why I say again, these days simulationism in rpgs only really matters to the degree its absence breaks player immersion. Basic hand-wavium techniques even average GMs can pull off are generally are good enough to handle most of the simulationist concerns of most players so long as the fluff text is descriptive enough.

Quote from: Itachi on March 09, 2023, 01:48:21 PM

Quote from: S'mon on March 09, 2023, 11:29:19 AM
Social interaction is still much better done by a GM than by a computer I think.

I'm not so sure of that, myself.

See, single-player videogames (Fallout 2, Arcanum, Planescape: Torment, etc) have your PC's charisma, intelligence, alignment/personality traits, etc affecting dialogue options for some time now. So, for eg, having a dumb PC will reflect in your dialogue.

I guess that matters to you. It doesn't matter to me. I care about the NPC's motivations & personality, not whether the PC has INT 8 and should talk in pidgin English like in Neverwinter Nights 1. I tend to treat PC attributes as player resources, not limitations.

Quote from: Chris24601 on March 09, 2023, 02:37:00 PM
which of those is going to provide the instruction to produce these better GMs you speak of?

For my efforts? I am starting with the 13,000+ folks who downloaded Blackmarsh. A drop in the bucket in terms of the larger hobby but you have to start somewhere.

Plus there is the tool that ignited the recent burst in popularity for D&D, youtube, and other video services. I have a plan after my initial release for a series of videos showing and explaining how this stuff works. It not a shortcut by any means but it will make what I do far more accessible to a greater number of folks.

Quote from: estar on March 09, 2023, 01:59:23 PM
The majority of people with a hardcore interest in simulationist play who aren't ttrpg diehards have long since moved on to video games that provide all the simulation they desire right up to and including realtime communication with squadmates and proximate enemies in multiplayer environments. Younger players will never even be looking at ttrpgs for simulationist play because the type offered is never going to come close to competing except with a master-tier GM (who are exceedingly rare).

People who come into the ttrpg hobby these days are coming for the things that video games can't do better... and these days that's not simulation.

Which is why I say again, these days simulationism in rpgs only really matters to the degree its absence breaks player immersion. Basic hand-wavium techniques even average GMs can pull off are generally are good enough to handle most of the simulationist concerns of most players so long as the fluff text is descriptive enough.

You are making the assumption that simulationism is about the detail, it isn't. Which is why I call what I do sandbox campaigning. Amacris may call it simulationism but his goal is basically the same, running campaigns where players are free to trash the setting in whatever manner they see fit.

You are missing the point of why he doing this. It is not to revel in the details. The point of having rules consistent with the setting results in one less thing a player has to worry about when making plans. If they have read or experienced the rules then they have a sense of what the odds are. The rules do not have to be at the Nth level of detail to accomplish this goal.

Quote from: estar on March 09, 2023, 09:45:56 AM
You are making the same mistake that so many make that what we do is about playing a set of rules. The rules are an aide, the point of what we do is to run campaigns, even if they are a single session, where players pretend to be characters having adventures in some imagined setting. The reason this works along with being fun and interesting is that a human referee is part of the process in a specific way. Namely, the referee describes the circumstance, the player describes what they try to do, and finally, the referee adjudicates and describes the changed circumstances. This loop is repeated through the life of the campaign.

Having a good system means running a campaign takes less work and the referee can use their limited time for other things involving the campaign. But what form it takes and how detailed it gets is a preference not a requirement.

Simulationism is about how one runs a tabletop roleplaying campaign not a description of the rules being used. I get that thanks to Ron Edwards there are some preconceived notions out there about what Simulationism is. That Edwards and others seem obsessed with the idea that the right system can magically fix the issues a campaign is having.

Simulationism means that as a referee your rulings and the system you use reflect the reality of the setting you described to the players. It means that the players can only do things within the campaign that their characters can do. But it also means that the players can do ANY thing their character can do within the setting. It doesn't matter if you never made a ruling on that type of action before or if it is not addressed in the system. If it something reasonable that a character can do then as the referee you figure out the mechanics of how to make it happen, rather than saying no you can't do that because it not in the rule.

Conversely, with simulationism, it is fine to say no you can't do that because characters existing in the setting can't do that. If you are playing in a medieval setting and there are no supernatural or fantastic elements in play then your character can't flap their arms and fly away.


The rulings and rules could be at a fine level of detail like with GURPS with all the sourcebook in play. Or it could be quite abstract like running a campaign with only the 3 LBBs of OD&D. You can run simulationist campaigns with either extreme or anything in between.

And I have personally done just that running my Majestic Wilderlands setting pretty much the same regardless of the system I used for 40 years with multiple groups of different individuals.

The systems that don't work out well for me, like Fate, are those that have metagaming as an integral part of their system. Mechanics that the players use not as their character but as themselves to influence the direction of the campaign.

Also more abstract systems that don't explain how they are tied to the reality of setting also don't work out well with my style. OD&D used to be in that category but after reading up on the various histories of how it was developed I can see how stuff like hit point and armor class grew out of miniature wargaming. So that no longer an issue.   Other more abstract systems are opaque to me. Some I haven't put the time in to understand others come off as a cute dice game rather than something that can be tied to the reality of the setting.

For me D&D 4e is a good example of cute dice and mechanics that are more a boardgame than something that can be tied back to the reality of the setting. The Fantasy Trip likewise I have issue with as well. But both are excellent game in of themselves. Just not good tools for someone who wants to run a simulationist campaign.

GET OUT OF MY BRAIN! (and stop relating my thoughts better than I do!)

Seriously, though, you are spot on with your explication of the role of simulation in RPGs.  Spot on!  I couldn't agree more.

I think part of the issue is, as you mentioned, people think of the game rules as the fundamental determinant of simulationism.  It has more to do with the applicability of the rules to the concrete actions and results the rules are meant to adjudicate.  To try to be more clear: how closely the rules and their results can be translated into events within the game world determines the level of simulation the rules provide.  For example, many early editions of RPGs were focused on directly asking questions about what happened in the game world physically, based on character actions ("How much can I lift?"  "How far can I throw this?"  "How  far can I jump?").  More narrative games elide those questions into more general results ("Can I jump the pit?"  "Did I open the safe?"), leading to the most narrative games which only address the narrative effect of character choices, and not the process that would have had to happen in the game world to achieve the effect ("Did I get the information on the castle?" or: *rolls*  "Did I persuade the king?").

I think there are two undersold issues.  The first is the effect that unified mechanics has on simulation (does 1d20 + skill, roll over, always provide a in-world description of what has happened within the fiction for an action to be accomplished?).  The second is the expectation that character actions will advance or contribute to a recognizable or identifiable (in the moment) "plot" or "story."  But I'll have to elaborate further... I'm already late for a meeting... LOL!

Quote from: S'mon on March 09, 2023, 02:50:05 PM

Quote from: Itachi on March 09, 2023, 01:48:21 PM

Quote from: S'mon on March 09, 2023, 11:29:19 AM
Social interaction is still much better done by a GM than by a computer I think.

I'm not so sure of that, myself.

See, single-player videogames (Fallout 2, Arcanum, Planescape: Torment, etc) have your PC's charisma, intelligence, alignment/personality traits, etc affecting dialogue options for some time now. So, for eg, having a dumb PC will reflect in your dialogue.

I guess that matters to you. It doesn't matter to me. I care about the NPC's motivations & personality, not whether the PC has INT 8 and should talk in pidgin English like in Neverwinter Nights 1. I tend to treat PC attributes as player resources, not limitations.

But those videogames are full of NPCs with motivations and personality, usually better realized than the average tabletop GM can do. See Irenicus in Baldurs Gate 2, Dak'kon in Planescape Torment, or Tiago in Disco Elysium.

Quote from: Itachi on March 09, 2023, 03:52:49 PM
But those videogames are full of NPCs with motivations and personality, usually better realized than the average tabletop GM can do. See Irenicus in Baldurs Gate 2, Dak'kon in Planescape Torment, or most NPCs in Disco Elysium.

Sure let's go with that.

• They were designed, written, and playtest by a group of professionals who honed their skills over the eyars.
• They were implemented by a different group of artists and software developers writing code and creating 3D Models
• The cycle between releases of games involving the same setting and same characters are years apart.

Versus
Tens of thousands of hobbyists who in the time they have for a hobby on a weekly basis manage to bring to life a world full of characters and adventure. Admittly the skills to do this on a bell curve so likely the average referee isn't doing something as compelling as Irencius, Dak'kon, etc.

But as it turns it is good enough. And while the bell curve of skill exist, I think it has been shifted thanks to internet and youtube. Because thanks to stuff like Critical Role, folks are thinking more about this. So the odds are your average referee is a more aware of this stuff than they were 20 years ago.

And that there is high end of the bell curve who are often share what they do. Which has never been easier than before. And there are the VTTs which work face to face to greatly expand the ability of a hobbyist to find new games and other hobbyists.

So you could only look that that middle part of the curve and throw up your hands and say "Oh it sucks. Why bother, just go back to computer games". I on the other hand look at the high end and think of ways to push that knowledge and skill down to the middle. Critical Role took major strides in that regard, other folks had their impact. It doable. Just hard work tho.

Quote from: Chris24601 on March 09, 2023, 02:37:00 PM

Quote from: estar on March 09, 2023, 01:59:23 PM

Quote from: Itachi on March 09, 2023, 01:48:21 PM
Further, online PvP games like DayZ, Tarkov and Hunt: Showdown have incorporated real-time dialogue for quite some time. In these, differente PCs/teams can speak directly to each other in-setting, with consequences that go from mere bartering of resources, temporary truces and alliances, to ugly shootouts ensuing.

See Dave Arneson's Blackmoor Campaign circa 1972. What you describe was solved in the very first roleplaying campaign ever ran. Tabletop roleplaying was developed from Dave Arneson's experience with many on many roleplaying style wargames starting with Wesely's Braunstein.

The point you seem to miss is not "TTRPGs have always had that" its that "Computer games can now do it too (and have for a while), with more realistic simulations including near photorealistic video and ambient sounds in real time" which is just one of the reasons you don't see nearly the focus on simulationism in ttrpgs that you used to; because its never going to be the draw you want it to be compared to its computerized competition.

The majority of people with a hardcore interest in simulationist play who aren't ttrpg diehards have long since moved on to video games that provide all the simulation they desire right up to and including realtime communication with squadmates and proximate enemies in multiplayer environments. Younger players will never even be looking at ttrpgs for simulationist play because the type offered is never going to come close to competing except with a master-tier GM (who are exceedingly rare).

People who come into the ttrpg hobby these days are coming for the things that video games can't do better... and these days that's not simulation.

Exactly this.

I'm an example myself, of a player who used to love simulationist RPGs in the past, but these days extract everything I want from simulationism from videogames. And I doubt my teenager son and his friends would prefer say, playing Harnmaster over Kingdom Come: Deliverance, or Gurps Swat over Rainbow Six Siege.