Quote from: PencilBoy99 on March 08, 2023, 02:47:02 PM

What about the One Ring game. I ran it and it's corruption/shadow mechanics combined with long time frames, etc., produced a game story/feeling that was very much like the movies/books. Like WW veterans, the characters had sacrificed for their community but were worn by care. That seems to me like its simulating Tolkien fiction.

Simulating Tolkien fiction is not exactly the same as simulating playing a character in Middle Earth. Naturally, there will be some overlap. 

Likewise, any "feel" will operate on multiple levels, sometimes with radically different sources and outcomes.  You can, for example, have a very simple combat game where most participants in a fight of any seriousness either die or are seriously injured. It will "feel realistic" in that sense, even though the simplicity means that it grossly glosses over distinctions in fighting techniques, equipment, etc.  That's due to limitations in the model introduced by making it fast paced.  Or you can have a more complex combat game where it takes 30-240 seconds per decision in game time to represent 5 or less seconds of combat, accounting for shock, adrenaline, fatigue, etc.  It will lose some of the tense and terror feel while gaining some other feel aspects in a "movie in slow motion".  Do you want the feel of sudden death or the feel of seeing the trainwreck coming and nothing you can do about it, like a viewer of said slow-motion fight scene?   

Quote from: amacris on March 08, 2023, 03:26:43 AMBUT -- and this is, I think, the important part -- there is no *inherent* reason that Simulation has to be rules-heavy. ...it's a big tent and there's room for Simulationists who, like a free kriegspiel referee, use their expertise and judgment to run a rules-light game whose commitment is towards simulating its fantasy world.

Is there an example you can think of where a game is both rules-light and explicitly Simulationist in intent?

The challenge of running a game on the "Free Kriegspiel" model is that the referee has to be knowledgeable and quick-witted enough to make necessary judgement calls reliably, accurately and consistently -- the whole point of a high-volume rule set is to lower the number of situations where the referee has to make a judgement call that players may dispute.

Quote from: Stephan TannhauserIs there an example you can think of where a game is both rules-light and explicitly Simulationist in intent?

Maybe something like The Regiment?

http://www.onesevendesign.com/regiment/the_regiment_alpha_2_1.pdf

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser on March 08, 2023, 03:25:43 PM

Quote from: amacris on March 08, 2023, 03:26:43 AMBUT -- and this is, I think, the important part -- there is no *inherent* reason that Simulation has to be rules-heavy. ...it's a big tent and there's room for Simulationists who, like a free kriegspiel referee, use their expertise and judgment to run a rules-light game whose commitment is towards simulating its fantasy world.

Is there an example you can think of where a game is both rules-light and explicitly Simulationist in intent?

The challenge of running a game on the "Free Kriegspiel" model is that the referee has to be knowledgeable and quick-witted enough to make necessary judgement calls reliably, accurately and consistently -- the whole point of a high-volume rule set is to lower the number of situations where the referee has to make a judgement call that players may dispute.

I can't think of any mass-published examples, but I've played in a few games that were like this. I agree that it puts a burden on the GM to make reliable and accurate calls, like Free Kriegspiel. On the other hand, in a game for fun between friends, it's fine if the GM doesn't live up to some ideal.

In tabletop RPGs, small-scale simulationist games have tended to use at least semi-complex mechanics like BRP, GURPS, HarnMaster, etc. - though these aren't necessarily more complex than many other RPG systems used for gamist or even dramatist games.

-----

The two big tabletop examples like Free Kriedspiel I can think of were for cases where the scale was so big that normal RPG mechanics couldn't handle it.

One was a campaign in undergrad run by my friend Craig that he called "The God Game" in the late 1980s. It was set on modern-day Earth, where some two dozen people get superpowers on the level of Superman. It was specifically intended as a "what if" about how these characters would change the world, which would highlight how simulation is very different from comics. There were NPCs from different cultures and countries - including some from Soviet Russia and India. He used some of the stats and definitions from the DC Heroes game, just to give concrete numbers -- but everything was diceless.

Just a year or two ago, I had another friend running a similar "what if" game -- this one being about a rush into space. The game premise was that an astronomical event was going to make the surface of the Earth completely devoid of life in five years. Humanity's only chance for survival is to colonize space. The premise was far-fetched, but the idea was we were going to role-play different world leaders, scientific leaders, and astronauts in how we would try to accomplish this. Everyone had 2 to 4 characters - some as small-scale types in space, and some as world leaders on Earth. Again, everything was diceless with the GM judging the failure and success of different actions.

-----

I can think of live-action role-playing games that were similar. Some larps rely on a dramatic premise that the players have to buy into. However, some are what the Nordics call "immersionist" and have a strict "what if" premise, where the interesting part is what will happen to these characters. The intent is that there is no non-dramatic way out, and just playing your character is forced to interesting action. These are sometimes called a "cage" or "crucible" -- where the PCs are forced into a  difficult situation that they can't leave.

Quote from: S'mon on March 07, 2023, 11:36:30 PM
I really value immersion, something brain-damaged Edwards seemed incapable of, and incapable of comprehending. I think simulation is vital for that sense of you-are-there immersion. It does not need to be as robust a world-sim as ACKS, but there needs to be a simulation element.

I think that in some quarters "Simulation" gets a bad rap because a lot of people assume: Simulation = Real World Reality.

But that 's not the case. In my opinion: Simulation = Game World Emulation.

i.e. The underlying rules of the game world, whatever genre that may be.

I do not like kitchen sink settings precisely because they generally have no underlying rules other than the 'rule of cool', which I find to be very immersion breaking during play.

Quote from: Jaeger on March 08, 2023, 04:47:20 PM

Quote from: S'mon on March 07, 2023, 11:36:30 PM
I really value immersion, something brain-damaged Edwards seemed incapable of, and incapable of comprehending. I think simulation is vital for that sense of you-are-there immersion. It does not need to be as robust a world-sim as ACKS, but there needs to be a simulation element.

I think that in some quarters "Simulation" gets a bad rap because a lot of people assume: Simulation = Real World Reality.

But that 's not the case. In my opinion: Simulation = Game World Emulation.

i.e. The underlying rules of the game world, whatever genre that may be.

There's a huge difference between world and genre. A fictional world doesn't have an inherent genre. One can see this plainly by the variety of genres that are set in the real world. There's the true crime genre, historical romance, military action, scientific thriller, celebrity biopic, etc. -- all within the same world.

I 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?"

Quote from: jhkim on March 08, 2023, 05:38:37 PM
I think that in some quarters "Simulation" gets a bad rap because a lot of people assume: Simulation = Real World Reality.

But that 's not the case. In my opinion: Simulation = Game World Emulation.

i.e. The underlying rules of the game world, whatever genre that may be.

There's a huge difference between world and genre. A fictional world doesn't have an inherent genre. One can see this plainly by the variety of genres that are set in the real world. There's the true crime genre, historical romance, military action, scientific thriller, celebrity biopic, etc. -- all within the same world.

I 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?"

It would be literally impossible for me to agree with you more than I am agreeing with you in this moment! Emulation of genre fiction is I think Narrativism or Dramatism. Simulation of a fictional game world is Simulationism.

By the way, going back and re-reading all the work you did on the Threefold Model was really a pleasure. That era of Usenet discussion had ugly flame wars but in retrospect it was a golden age for internet debate. You've done the community such a favor by preserving it all in an easy to find format.

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser on March 08, 2023, 03:25:43 PMIs there an example you can think of where a game is both rules-light and explicitly Simulationist in intent?

This is one area where RPGs have fallen behind their boardgame and wargame cousins. If you look at some of the more recently designed miniature games like 02 Hundred Hours or board wargames like Skies Above the Reich, you will see some well designed simulations that are also easy to learn and play.

There's a general goal in wargaming today where a good design is one that provides maximum playability while still producing plausible results. You don't want M5 Stuarts taking out Tiger tanks from the front, but you also do need to match the exact probability 1:1.

RPG designers seem so adverse to making their games more simulationist that some will refuse to use the term "realistic" just to avoid being associated with the very concept of simulationism.

Quote from: amacris on March 07, 2023, 10:56:40 PMIf anyone is interested, you can check it out here: https://arbiterofworlds.substack.com/p/a-manifesto-in-defense-of-simulationism

One place where I disagree with this article is the assumption that Gygax's rant against simulationism was somehow a response to wargamers. It may not be obvious to readers today but in the late 1970s, there were other RPGs, such as Runequest and Chivalry & Sorcery, which were advertising themselves as being "more realistic than D&D" (and they did so in the very pages of Dragon Magazine!). So this paragraph in the DMG was Gygax just defending his design against his competitors by creating the impression that "realistic" games where automatically overly complicated and unplayable. In this he was hugely successful as that idea is predominant today.


This ad is from Dragon #41, 1980

Quote from: hedgehobbit on March 08, 2023, 06:56:42 PM
This ad is from Dragon #41, 1980

I'm attracted to that ad, and thank you for posting it, because I think the pleasure of realism is a very good goal for TRPGs.

Realism is the only possible source of meaning. We can see this with virtually any film or television programme. Imagine if it were filmed upside down, reverse polarity, lacking 1 gravity, where the characters are replaced by stick figures, and the dialogue is in reverse pig latin. Sounds pretty stupid, doesn't it? The opposite of realism would be television static and noise, total meaninglessness.

Even a space opera like Star Wars only works because it taps into the reality of mythic archetype and plausible human behaviour. Deduct those two and what value is Star Wars? Something to distract toddlers?

All genres depart from realism in one sense, but approach realism in another. Genres envelope real human feelings that associate with and are elicited by certain tropes and cues. I agree that genre sim = emulationism, while realistic sim = simulationism are good nomenclature, so as to distinguish these two types of play.

In my terms I'd say that a simulation is what I'd call an Agenda: a set up of a particular circumstance grounded in realistic physics, politics, and psychology, for the purpose of determining how that circumstance will evolve over a set period of time, and in whose favour. Simulationism therefore apes science, even if it requires artistry.

Quote from: hedgehobbit on March 08, 2023, 06:56:42 PM

Quote from: amacris on March 07, 2023, 10:56:40 PMIf anyone is interested, you can check it out here: https://arbiterofworlds.substack.com/p/a-manifesto-in-defense-of-simulationism

One place where I disagree with this article is the assumption that Gygax's rant against simulationism was somehow a response to wargamers. It may not be obvious to readers today but in the late 1970s, there were other RPGs, such as Runequest and Chivalry & Sorcery, which were advertising themselves as being "more realistic than D&D" (and they did so in the very pages of Dragon Magazine!). So this paragraph in the DMG was Gygax just defending his design against his competitors by creating the impression that "realistic" games where automatically overly complicated and unplayable. In this he was hugely successful as that idea is predominant today.



This ad is from Dragon #41, 1980

Thanks for pointing out, that's a great insight.

Quote from: silencio789 on March 08, 2023, 02:59:15 PM

Quote
I'm sure someone who wanted to be contrary for the sake of contrarianism could use a wargame to tell a story, but that seems to miss the point of wargames

Many wargamers do exactly that, to varying degrees.
Even a very simulationist wargame is exploring 'what if' stories.. otherwise the battles would play out exactly the same.
With imagined battles, there is often a narrative, indeed military wargames are often exploring potential future narratives.
To the extent that our hobby comes from Braunstein wargames that became fantasy roleplaying, we are all here because of stories from wargames..

P.S. It's really good. I'm having a lot of fun with it.

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser on March 08, 2023, 03:25:43 PM
Is there an example you can think of where a game is both rules-light and explicitly Simulationist in intent?

My Majestic Fantasy RPG. Although I dislike using Simulationist as a label. But my focus is in the same ballpark as Amacris describes in his article. I prefer to call what I do as running a sandbox campaign with a focus on players trashing my setting.

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

Given the example below, I don't think it is important to make a distinction.

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.

The crucial element of Amarcris is getting at that instead of trying to make rules that make a story or play out as a decent wargame/boardgame. You focus on the setting first, make sure your rules fit the envisioned setting at the level of detail that interests you. That the campaign is focused on pretending to be character within that setting having an adventure. Not focused on metagaming as players to create a particular story with a particular narrative structure.

This approach works with any type of setting no matter how fantastical it is. It could work with Toon. It is not about running a campaign with GURPS with all the options as the ideal.

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.

Or as a much larger example, Minecraft. Sure the physics of mining out a 1 meter cube of stone in seconds isn't that of our world and you can carry ridiculous amounts, but it's rules engine essentially generates the biomes of a literally Earth-sized area down to 128 meters beneath sea level, populates it, accounts for weather and day/night cycles, hunger, the need for light sources, crafting, combat, trading, etc. and it never forgets or resets any changes the player(s) make to the world within the confines of its own physics.

Basically, the simulation aspect is one of the areas where ttrpgs really cannot offer a superior product to what a computer game can... whereas ttrpgs still can outdo video games in free form narrative/dramatist (no constraining dialogue wheel; wide open chargen), social (being at the same table looking across at friends is a vastly different experience than chatting with them over a headset as you stare at a screen) and even gamist aspects (say what you will about smooth video game play, there's just something viceral about miniatures you can actually touch and physical dice you hold in your hands... that physicality... that video games just can't match).

Thus, since they can't really compete on simulationism, there's less motivation to really push those elements. Instead you just get the bare bones simulationism needed to support the areas ttrpgs can compete at.