Quote from: estar on March 09, 2023, 01:51:14 PM

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."

What I mean by "genre emulation" is exactly what you say in my bolding of your post -- getting the feel of being in a four-color comic book. This is a subjective experience, so different people may have different answers about what gives them that feel. One person might like Game X for this feel, and another person might hate Game X and like Game Y instead. They can both be right for themselves, because such feeling is subjective.

You suggest Superman's player chooses how to gaslight his friends Lois and Jimmy.

To me, one of the more interesting takes about simulationist games is that as a player, I don't have to follow that script. I could choose to have Superman be honest with his friends instead. He might give up being a lawless vigilante and go public instead. That could have huge consequences for the world, which could be interesting to explore. However, it likely wouldn't feel like a four-color comic book.

Quote from: jhkim on March 09, 2023, 05:34:15 PM

Quote from: estar on March 09, 2023, 01:51:14 PM

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."

What I mean by "genre emulation" is exactly what you say in my bolding of your post -- getting the feel of being in a four-color comic book. This is a subjective experience, so different people may have different answers about what gives them that feel. One person might like Game X for this feel, and another person might hate Game X and like Game Y instead. They can both be right for themselves, because such feeling is subjective.

You suggest Superman's player chooses how to gaslight his friends Lois and Jimmy.

To me, one of the more interesting takes about simulationist games is that as a player, I don't have to follow that script. I could choose to have Superman be honest with his friends instead. He might give up being a lawless vigilante and go public instead. That could have huge consequences for the world, which could be interesting to explore. However, it likely wouldn't feel like a four-color comic book.

Depends on what day of the week it is...

We're really back to arguing GNS?

Nostalgia for the early 00s?

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

Videogames have of course captured market share that used to belong to tabletop games. That's true of wargames as well as RPGs. So I don't think you are wrong -- but I think your attitude towards simulation is different enough that we are talking past each other.

I define a role-playing game as one in which you play from the stance of a particular character, and interact in the world as that character. I think story games (where you have an authorial stance) are their own genre, as different from RPGs as RPGs are from Wargames (where you manage pawns). This is a sharp disagreement with Ron Edwards and GNS, which I think is entirely wrong about stance.

I believe what makes RPGs special is their ability to afford their players the experience of agency in the world, an experience which is in short supply in most people's real lives. I call this the Agency Theory of Fun and wrote an entire book explaining how it is the basis of good gamemastering (Arbiter of Worlds).

I believe the best way to create agency is to set up a self-consistent world with clear causality that offers players of the game all of the choices they could make were the world the game is simulating real. For the choices to be meaningful, they have to carry have meaningful consequences that persist in the world state. To the extent that they cannot do things that their character could do in the world were it real, they've lost agency.

The ideal RPG is one that has sufficiently robust rules to reliably handle 80% of the action and has an intelligent, experienced GM to handle the 20% of the action that's outside the rules. Videogames can do the 80% better than any tabletop rulebook, but they cannot do the 20% at all. You need an RPG to do it.

Hence, by my definition, a videogame affords me far less agency than an RPG, because it circumscribes my choices far too narrowly. That is why I *don't* play videogames much anymore. I don't want to choose from a menu of options given to me by a designer. I feel like I'm stuck on a train on rails in even the most "open" RPG. What I'm interested in simulating isn't the ballistic penetration of Pz IV vs JS2 tanks. I want to simulate the free choices of a panzer commander, including the choice of switching to Team Russia, abandoning my tank to become a bandit, etc., whatever.

(For similar reasons, the majority of wargames that the US Army War College and RAND use to simulate future conflict are pen-and-paper wargames with rules that are played on the tabletop under the supervision of a GM. That way, the players have reliable rules while the GMs can make sure that the players can do all the things an actual commander can do, even if it's something no one thought of when the game was designed. Many of the most important outcomes of wargames have come from this dynamic.)

Anyone who dislikes my definition of RPG or doesn't agree with  me about what makes RPGs special, won't like my games at all. I'm OK with that. My games aren't for everyone. But the design goals I have espoused above are the accepted standard of what makes a good RPG on the Autarch discord. There *IS* a movement or group that values this, I make my living from catering to them. And they are not abandoning ACKS for, e.g. Dwarf Fortress. They complain that Dwarf Fortress doesn't let them do stuff that ACKS does.

I'm happy to accept that mine is a niche audience, but that doesn't mean it's not a real one with real preferences that differ from what other gamers want.

Appreciate your post.

Quote from: jhkim on March 09, 2023, 05:34:15 PM
To me, one of the more interesting takes about simulationist games is that as a player, I don't have to follow that script. I could choose to have Superman be honest with his friends instead. He might give up being a lawless vigilante and go public instead. That could have huge consequences for the world, which could be interesting to explore. However, it likely wouldn't feel like a four-color comic book.

To digress for a second. I only started relatively recently started to use "trash the setting" as my ten cent summary of what I focus on with what I run and what I share.  Way back in the day, I was known at the DM who let players "trash" his setting. Kill the king, no problem. It won't be easy but I won't get bent and it will a fair challenge.

And the reason I digress is to highlight the "don't get bent" part.  Because in my experience people do get bent about folks trashing a setting.

To continue with the Superman example, to me that not a problem that you decided instead to be honest playing as Superman. To put what I said earlier in a different an important appeal of the RPG it ability to explore the "what ifs" about a setting. In Silver Age parlance, this is only an imaginary story. And as a I recall some of those "imaginary" stories were pretty good, especially the send-off for the original Earth-1 Superman "Whatever happened to the Man of Tommorrow?" by Alan Moore.

However some folks in the hobby don't enjoy that kind of flexibility for a given genre so they build systems that try to "load the dice" by metagaming. Which I dislike as a creative choice as I feel metagaming is one of the few ways of cheating in RPGs. It is the easy route out of the problem.

The better way in my opinion, is as an design or a referee is to paint a compelling enough picture of the setting that the players would naturally choose, for the most part, to follow along with how thing normally work out. Again with the example with the gaslighting over secret identity. to make it compelling I would put out the good stories that had that particular trope. Why they were good in a fun and interesting way. Paint a good enough picture that make a player (or a referee) go "Huh, I OK I see it now."

And if you choose to go public while playing Superman that OK too. And I would go into the different way that was an interesting choice in a four color world.

But the focus wouldn't on creating a specific narrative. Rather explain how character four world reacted and how that can be handled for different circumstances. Because in the original stories that how it manifested, a situation came up, character reacted in various ways. The strength of RPG is in its ability to take that information and use as part of bring a setting to life.

Unlike story game Simulationism would focus more on how character motivations interact for a given genre whether it is something ground or more fantastic like a four color comic world.

Quote from: Wisithir on March 08, 2023, 03:19:08 AM
The rules are not the game. The rules are tool for the GM to create a game with.

I agree with this. Like, alot.

Quote from: amacris on March 09, 2023, 06:31:35 PM
The ideal RPG is one that has sufficiently robust rules to reliably handle 80% of the action and has an intelligent, experienced GM to handle the 20% of the action that's outside the rules.

This seems close to the concept of the Semi-Free Kriegsspiel, which I think was the main inspiration for the Braunstein type play that led to modern RPGs?

I think I agree, but within the 80% you still often do need some GM adjudication. Eg the rules may say DC 10 for an Easy task, DC 15 for a Moderate task, DC 20 for a Hard task, but they may not tell you whether climbing that tree is Easy or Moderate, whether climbing that wall is Moderate or Hard. I generally find I am most comfortable with GMing a system where
(1) There is an established task-resolution mechanism, such as D20+Mods vs Difficulty Class/Target Number.
(2) I am expected to use my adjudication in implementing it, eg applying guidelines I set the DCs/TNs. (I like to keep myself honest & inform the players by announcing the DC pre-roll, which again fits the paradigm).
Which I think is the Semi-Free Kriegsspiel paradigm.

Quote from: Spinachcat on March 09, 2023, 06:21:51 PM
We're really back to arguing GNS?

Nostalgia for the early 00s?

No, most of the discussion is GDS - mid-90s!

GNS was always so silly/extreme that sensible people tended to misunderstand/misinterpret it as GDS, anyway. 

Quote from: S'mon on March 10, 2023, 02:48:49 AM
No, most of the discussion is GDS - mid-90s!

GNS was always so silly/extreme that sensible people tended to misunderstand/misinterpret it as GDS, anyway. 

That's what always happened to me — I've spent a decade thinking of GNS as affine-transformed Threefold. Regardless, I've always considered myself a Simulationist, as well.

While I think the labelling of the styles of play has borne some fruit, I think that as a theoretical basis, Justin Alexander's concept of Game Structures is a better theoretical framework: at least it (pace Edwards) is able to explain the success of (early) D&D (it taught dungeoncrawling to novice DMs, who could then branch out from there and fall back if their experiments on other modes of play didn't work). Also, his concept of "associated mechanics" is a very important concept to nail down the concerns of Simulationist players, in that too much focus on dissociated mechanics will send a Simulationist player packing.

That being said, I do think that Macris's ACKS is a very solid playing system (I have several of the books) and it does scratch several itches I had with other fantasy systems — I mean, rules for magical research and creating hybrids right there on the core book? Great! A good adaptation of the Traveller trading structure to fantasy? Awesome! Actual rules for chases? Phenomenal! Unfortunately, recently the dollar has decided to shoot off into the stratosphere, so I'm going to have to wait for it to come down a bit until I can get my hand on Ascendant. In any case, I appreciate how those principles articulated in the manifesto are evidenced in his design work. Really solid stuff.

Quote from: Wtrmute on March 10, 2023, 07:30:28 AM
While I think the labelling of the styles of play has borne some fruit, I think that as a theoretical basis, Justin Alexander's concept of Game Structures is a better theoretical framework: at least it (pace Edwards) is able to explain the success of (early) D&D (it taught dungeoncrawling to novice DMs, who could then branch out from there and fall back if their experiments on other modes of play didn't work). Also, his concept of "associated mechanics" is a very important concept to nail down the concerns of Simulationist players, in that too much focus on dissociated mechanics will send a Simulationist player packing.

That being said, I do think that Macris's ACKS is a very solid playing system (I have several of the books) and it does scratch several itches I had with other fantasy systems — I mean, rules for magical research and creating hybrids right there on the core book? Great! A good adaptation of the Traveller trading structure to fantasy? Awesome! Actual rules for chases? Phenomenal! Unfortunately, recently the dollar has decided to shoot off into the stratosphere, so I'm going to have to wait for it to come down a bit until I can get my hand on Ascendant. In any case, I appreciate how those principles articulated in the manifesto are evidenced in his design work. Really solid stuff.

I also like ACKS for the subsystems. I tend to have it around as a reference for when running 5e D&D etc.

Re Alexander, I think his concept of complete vs incomplete play structures was very important & insightful. The dissociated mechanics discussion (mostly re 4e D&D) was good too.

Quote from: jhkim on March 09, 2023, 05:34:15 PM

Quote from: estar on March 09, 2023, 01:51:14 PM

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."

What I mean by "genre emulation" is exactly what you say in my bolding of your post -- getting the feel of being in a four-color comic book. This is a subjective experience, so different people may have different answers about what gives them that feel. One person might like Game X for this feel, and another person might hate Game X and like Game Y instead. They can both be right for themselves, because such feeling is subjective.

You suggest Superman's player chooses how to gaslight his friends Lois and Jimmy.

To me, one of the more interesting takes about simulationist games is that as a player, I don't have to follow that script. I could choose to have Superman be honest with his friends instead. He might give up being a lawless vigilante and go public instead. That could have huge consequences for the world, which could be interesting to explore. However, it likely wouldn't feel like a four-color comic book.

I don't know if I am using the term the same as you but I do a lot of genre in my campaigns and use the term genre emulation to describe it sometimes. The way my campaigns tend to run is fairly sandbox, character driven, and prioritize player choice, but I freely throw in genre elements. But I am also not overly precious about things like not breaking the fourth wall (I will often let players see beneath the hood specifically so they know their choice mattered in a given a situation). I would say these days my two big priorities are player choice and doing what works at the table (and not thinking too much about having a GM philosophy). I tend to view being a GM a bit like being a stand up comedian (where they hone what techniques work, through experience with crowds, learn to shape what they do towards different audiences, etc).

For genre emulation to me that can mean anything from using a system that is built with genre elements (one example of this is using grudge tables for a wuxia game), to doing things that make sense in a genre setting (I would never have soldiers pop out of the walls, seemingly out of thin air, in a game inspired by I, Claudius, but I would do so in a game inspired by Five Elements Ninja or the Crippled Avengers). I wouldn't say my games are particularly narrative, but I do include dramatic elements (and even give players dramatic ties at the start of play that I key to my grudge tables). I also will often try to have a cosmology that reflects the logic of the genre at times. System physics can matter here too. If I am trying to play a very gritty real world crime thriller campaign but my mechanics feel more like they belong in a game emulating Doctor Who, I am going to modify them.

Quote from: estar on March 09, 2023, 04:08:48 PM

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.

You're still missing the point. It's not that TTRPGs lack good GMs on average or something like that, it's that videogames as a medium surpassed anything the tabletop environment can do in terms of simulation. Because of this, simulationism in itself is not an attractive anymore to many people, specially younger audiences that come from videogames. Ergo, games that thrived purely on it as it's main thing are out of fashion (eg: Gurps). And maybe that explains why games that still use simulation to some degree but coupled with other aspects or attractives keep doing fine, like the very Amacris' ACKS (that mixes it with OSR), or John Harper's Blades in the Dark (that mixes it with narrativism).

Quote from: jhkim on March 08, 2023, 05:38:37 PMI think it's important to distinguish between simulation of a fictional game world, and emulation of genre fiction.

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?"

I agree 100%, but don't you think they should fall under the same pillar of Simulationism? The main thing with this pillar is the modelling of a fictional environment, be it according to story patterns (genre-emulation) or world patterns (world-sim). But aren't those simulations in the end?

Quote from: Itachi on March 10, 2023, 10:06:34 AM
....John Harper's Blades in the Dark (that mixes it with narrativism).

Blades in the Dark is not simulationist in the slightest, it's simpy a slighltly crunchier than usual storygame.

Are you sure? How would you classify these (Blades in the Dark) features then:

- simulation of your gang inner workings (hiring goons & specialists, aquiring assets like hideouts, better security, boats, training gear, etc)
- simulation of your gang outer workings (relationships tracks with other factions, rivalries, alliances, truces, hold & expansion, heat level with authority, informants, fixers, smugglers, etc)
- simulation of your characters spiral into misery due to the life of crime (stress tracks, trauma, vices & porveyours, downtime projects & complications, etc)

If those are not simulation elements, I don't know what they are. The fact the game has elements from other "agendas", like the narrativist flashbacks & framework, or the gamist PC & Crew abilities, doesn't exclude it's simulation aspects.