SPECIAL NOTICE
Malicious code was found on the site, which has been removed, but would have been able to access files and the database, revealing email addresses, posts, and encoded passwords (which would need to be decoded). However, there is no direct evidence that any such activity occurred. REGARDLESS, BE SURE TO CHANGE YOUR PASSWORDS. And as is good practice, remember to never use the same password on more than one site. While performing housekeeping, we also decided to upgrade the forums.
This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.

Simulationism

Started by amacris, March 07, 2023, 10:56:40 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Vestragor

Genre emulation (and yes, "emulation" is not the same thing as "simulation").
Blades in the Dark emulates heist fiction in a fantasy setting: you can't do anything else, anything that is not included in the genre "standard" simply cannot happen.
A proper simulation sets the world in a starting state, provides rules to interact with it in any possible way and leaves everything else at the players' mercy: for example, you could replicate any BitD campaign with D&D (how well and with how many house rules needed depends on the edition chosen), but you cannot use BitD to handle non heist games.
PbtA is always the wrong answer, especially if the question is about RPGs.

Itachi

#76
I never said Blades in the Dark is a simulationist game, and if my use of words implied that I apologize. I mean to say it features a degree of simulationism in it's elements: the factions relationships tracking, the vices and traumas of characters, the Heat score of crews, etc. could be ported as-is to most simulationist games out there (and were probably taken from those in the first place).

Is Blades in the Dark simulationist, narrativist, gamist, dramatist, whatever? I don't know, all I know is that I see elements from all those "pillars" while playing it and find the experience fun. Would I find it as fun if it was purely a simulation in all it's complex minutia and exception-based rules glory? Probably not, and that's the point I've been making here. Games that mix sim- elements with other "pillars" elements have seen more success than the games that go all-in on simulation, in the last decade or so.

Steven Mitchell

True simulation is often process-based.  Effects-based often indicates emulation.  It's not definite, because the continuum of simulation is extremely wide, plus in a given game some sim elements probably run deeper than others.

That's one axis. Another is the level of abstraction the thing operates on. Abstraction tend away from simulation (sometimes passing through emulation on the way out) while concrete elements tend towards simulation (sometimes passing into overwhelming detail that swamps the boat). 

"Emulation of genre" is only simulation to the extent that the genre is itself a simulation. Trying to pin all of that under simulation is casting the net so wide as to make "simulation" a useless term. 

In fact, the purpose of an effects-based abstraction that maps to genre is usually to take that part of the simulation out, but leave its output in other parts of the system that may still be simulation.  Consider various encumbrance systems:

- List of equipment. Has encumbrance values.  Character has limits based physical capabilities.  When you try to carry too much, you get penalties that feed into other processes (e.g. combat, travel times, etc.)  Fairly concrete in many cases, only abstract in how physical capabilities are modeled (e.g. Strength score) and equipment "weights' substitute for mass, size, weight, etc.  It tends towards the concrete.  You handle encumbrance by managing the list and doing the calculations.  It's accounting, but the process is analogous to the thing simulated.

- Slot-based system that only tracks bigger or key items, the rest rolled into a convenient "bag" that is kind of rough and ready.  There's still some detail, but not to the granularity of the previous system, and it is not consistent.  The simulation model deliberately has gaps to make the accounting easier.  Still feeds into those other processes, though, in a fairly concrete way.  It resolves to something concrete.  That bag is there for emulation.  It's still got one foot in the sim door to make it feel right.

- Resource system where you roll to see if you have it.  Resources are maybe mapped somewhat to your physical capabilities in the mechanic.  Big strong fighter type has better chances to have a heavy item than scrawny wizard type.  Scrawny wizard has better shot at some more delicate things, perhaps.  Very abstract, concrete is almost non-existent, until we resolve to "fighter guy has a spare dagger or he doesn't".  Highly effects-based.  We are firmly in emulation mode now.

- And of course you can keep going to move right through emulation and out the other side, eventually dropping encumbrance altogether.

All of those options above are almost orthogonal to an encumbrance system built as "GM decides if you can carry all that stuff or not." Depending on how the GM decides, it might map fairly closely to one of those system, but it can also spring off in some other direction entirely.   

Vestragor

Quote from: Itachi on March 10, 2023, 11:28:31 AM
Games that mix sim- elements with other "pillars" elements have seen more success than the games that go all-in on simulation, in the last decade or so.
D&D 5th edition (a game that has practically nothing of the "N" of GNS....) is the name to beat in the industry by a huge margin, pure narrativist games are not even in the top 10, and FitD games barely reach, combined, one tenth of the market share of D&D.
They seem a huge hit if your main source of information is the rpg subreddit or other places hugely infested by forgies, but the real world disagrees.
PbtA is always the wrong answer, especially if the question is about RPGs.

Itachi

Yep, which only corroborates my point, seeing as D&D 5e is far from a purely simulationist game (like Gurps, Rolemaster, etc). So we're in agreement here.

Itachi

#80
Quote from: Steven Mitchell on March 10, 2023, 11:54:35 AM
True simulation is often process-based.  Effects-based often indicates emulation.  It's not definite, because the continuum of simulation is extremely wide, plus in a given game some sim elements probably run deeper than others.
Great definition, and I agree. But in the end of the day, isn't both emu- and sim- about mimicking or modeling patterns? And wouldn't this mimicking all fall under the "pillar" of Simulationism both on the GNS and GDS models? In other words, mimicking genres or worlds is all mimicking patterns in the end, right?

Just to be clear, I agree that genre-emulation and world-simulation are different things, but I see them falling under the umbrella of simulationism on the models cited (since both are about mimickry/modeling), while gamism is about gamification & strategizing, etc. and dramatism/narr being about character-driven drama and all that. (I could be wrong though, never gave much thought to those theories).

jhkim

Quote from: amacris on March 09, 2023, 06:31:35 PM
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.

Hey, Alexander. I'm generally in agreement with you -- but this part feels off. I haven't played your games yet, but I've enjoyed other simulationist games like Traveller and HarnMaster - so I think I might. But I also enjoy a bunch of gamist games and dramatist games including story games and others. Those include some of my favorite games, like Monster of the Week and others. I don't like all games -- there are some that are definitely outside my taste range, but I can enjoy a pretty wide variety.

But here, you're effectively dumping on other RPGs in order to promote your style. There are a lot of different things that make RPGs special, I think. And to me, one of the things I hated about Ron Edward's GNS was how he disparaged games that other people liked, and made it out that his preferred games were somehow objectively superior and doing what RPGs are supposed to. I think you're edging too far in that direction here.


Quote from: amacris on March 09, 2023, 06:31:35 PM
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.

I agree that agency is important, and that it can be expressed through simulationism. But there are a lot of situations where if properly simulated, the players do *not* have much agency -- like if they are on a one-way path, or they are given a magically-enforced quest, or they are prisoners with only one choice of escape. It's important for simulationist agency that players have both knowledge and power to make significant choices. That is mostly on the GM, but I think it is important to recognize how rare that is, and support it in advice and preparation.

Some story game advocates suggest that the only way to have real agency is GM-like power over background, and while it's wrong, railroading continues to be a big problem in TTRPGs.

jhkim

Quote from: estar on March 09, 2023, 06:50:22 PM
Appreciate your post.

Thanks, and likewise.

Quote from: estar on March 09, 2023, 06:50:22 PM
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 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."

The bolded part here is what I would call player buy-in to the genre. The players' choices aren't fixed because there are a lot of choices even within the genre, but they limit their choices to those that are within the genre. And I think that's a good way to run genre RPGs. I'm a big player of Call of Cthulhu which depends a lot on this. Players buy into the genre.

But let's be clear that those genre-based limits are based on them acting like they know they're in a story of the given genre. They are aware of stories of the genre and they are choosing to stay within the bounds of such stories. Those bounds can be seen as a nod to dramatism.

Taking off those bounds can also be interesting, though, which would be more pure simulationism.

---

About your metagame aside -- I enjoy some games with metagame rules like hero points or player authorship, but it is definitely a different sort of fun. At the extreme, it is similar to more avante garde plays where there is less effort in getting real-looking sets or costumes, so one can see the artifice of the staging more plainly. That isn't just being cheap, though, because it lets you do things that would be impossible in a more traditionally staged play.

Steven Mitchell

Quote from: Itachi on March 10, 2023, 12:09:41 PM
Quote from: Steven Mitchell on March 10, 2023, 11:54:35 AM
True simulation is often process-based.  Effects-based often indicates emulation.  It's not definite, because the continuum of simulation is extremely wide, plus in a given game some sim elements probably run deeper than others.
Great definition, and I agree. But in the end of the day, isn't both emu- and sim- about mimicking or modeling patterns? And wouldn't this mimicking all fall under the "pillar" of Simulationism both on the GNS and GDS models? In other words, mimicking genres or worlds is all mimicking patterns in the end, right?

Just to be clear, I agree that genre-emulation and world-simulation are different things, but I see them falling under the umbrella of simulationism on the models cited (since both are about mimickry/modeling), while gamism is about gamification & strategizing, etc. and dramatism/narr being about character-driven drama and all that. (I could be wrong though, never gave much thought to those theories).

Not really, though from my perspective GNS is a bad theory, and its treatment of simulation is the worst of a bad lot. Nor are dramatism/narrative exactly parallel.  (As an aside, part of the problem with GNS is that it wants them to be, in a "square peg, round hole" fashion.) 

I would suggest instead that both emulation and narrative (in the normal, useful sense of "narrative") cross all the GDS boundaries.  Or to confine it to emulation in particular, the simulation can emulate, the game can emulate, and the dramatics can emulate.  How each one goes about it is naturally somewhat different, but the result is similar.  Maybe not as satisfying for any specific individual in some specific case, but similar.  In fact, I don't think you can really approach satisfying genre emulation in  the meatiest sense of the phrase without having the emulation driven by all three.  (In some cases, the drama is being supplied by the groups' approach as opposed to the written, technical rules of the game, but in GDS/GNS terms, that's still the "system" being played.  Unwritten rules or even agreements/attitudes of the collective group are part of the overall RPG system in actual play.)

To more directly answer your point, though, an emulation mechanic isn't a model but the absence of one.  Or at least, it's the thing that is put in place because the simulation model is absent.  That's exactly where it gets complicated to discuss, though, because simulation is so wide and moves on those multiple axes of abstraction/concrete and process/effect and so on. So often some part of the emulation is simulation.  Teasing out where it ends is tricky.

A critical hit rule can easily be all three of GDS at once in the same package.  It's dramatic when it happens, and the uncertainty of when it will happen produces tension and surprise.  It's a game mechanic that the players can try to use to their benefit or at least take into account when deciding their optimum course.  It simulates that some blows are just that much nastier than others, and when that happens is not entirely under the attacker's control. (Your character could, for example, shoot to wound to capture a prisoner and end up killing with a head shot or an abstract equivalent.)  Certainly, the presence/absence of critical hits will have a direct effect on the emulation of the fight, and the details of how the critical hits work will push the emulation somewhere. 

Push it far enough, a critical hit rule will drop one or more of the GDS elements.  It's not enough to say that because critical hits are a model in Game X, that they are still a model in Game Y, when they no longer really simulate anything directly in the setting but simply add drama or game widgets to play with.  Maybe not the best example, because it is hard to conceive a critical hit mechanic that doesn't simulate at all, but I hope it clarifies what I mean.

Finally, there is a dilution threshold, where yes there may be some trace of a GDS element left, but not enough that most people would count it.  That can happen with any element.  With simulation, it often happens when all that's left is a vague name and some handwaving by the GM.   What others are calling "disassociated" is part of that, but I don't like the term for multiple reasons, not least because it blurs the details of what happens in that case and tries to collapse them down into a simple evaluation. 

S'mon

Quote from: jhkim on March 10, 2023, 01:06:42 PM
But let's be clear that those genre-based limits are based on them acting like they know they're in a story of the given genre. They are aware of stories of the genre and they are choosing to stay within the bounds of such stories. Those bounds can be seen as a nod to dramatism.

I remember running Call of Cthulu The Haunted House for my then-wife. As soon as the weird stuff started happening, she legged it and never looked back! Her attitude was Why the Hell Would I Go In There?!   ;D It really brought home to me the importance of genre buy-in.
Shadowdark Wilderlands (Fridays 6pm UK/1pm EST)  https://smons.blogspot.com/2024/08/shadowdark.html

Itachi

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on March 10, 2023, 01:25:15 PMNot really, though from my perspective GNS is a bad theory, and its treatment of simulation is the worst of a bad lot. Nor are dramatism/narrative exactly parallel.  (As an aside, part of the problem with GNS is that it wants them to be, in a "square peg, round hole" fashion.) 

I would suggest instead that both emulation and narrative (in the normal, useful sense of "narrative") cross all the GDS boundaries.  Or to confine it to emulation in particular, the simulation can emulate, the game can emulate, and the dramatics can emulate.  How each one goes about it is naturally somewhat different, but the result is similar.  Maybe not as satisfying for any specific individual in some specific case, but similar.  In fact, I don't think you can really approach satisfying genre emulation in  the meatiest sense of the phrase without having the emulation driven by all three.  (In some cases, the drama is being supplied by the groups' approach as opposed to the written, technical rules of the game, but in GDS/GNS terms, that's still the "system" being played.  Unwritten rules or even agreements/attitudes of the collective group are part of the overall RPG system in actual play.)

To more directly answer your point, though, an emulation mechanic isn't a model but the absence of one.  Or at least, it's the thing that is put in place because the simulation model is absent.  That's exactly where it gets complicated to discuss, though, because simulation is so wide and moves on those multiple axes of abstraction/concrete and process/effect and so on. So often some part of the emulation is simulation.  Teasing out where it ends is tricky.

A critical hit rule can easily be all three of GDS at once in the same package.  It's dramatic when it happens, and the uncertainty of when it will happen produces tension and surprise.  It's a game mechanic that the players can try to use to their benefit or at least take into account when deciding their optimum course.  It simulates that some blows are just that much nastier than others, and when that happens is not entirely under the attacker's control. (Your character could, for example, shoot to wound to capture a prisoner and end up killing with a head shot or an abstract equivalent.)  Certainly, the presence/absence of critical hits will have a direct effect on the emulation of the fight, and the details of how the critical hits work will push the emulation somewhere. 

Push it far enough, a critical hit rule will drop one or more of the GDS elements.  It's not enough to say that because critical hits are a model in Game X, that they are still a model in Game Y, when they no longer really simulate anything directly in the setting but simply add drama or game widgets to play with.  Maybe not the best example, because it is hard to conceive a critical hit mechanic that doesn't simulate at all, but I hope it clarifies what I mean.

Finally, there is a dilution threshold, where yes there may be some trace of a GDS element left, but not enough that most people would count it.  That can happen with any element.  With simulation, it often happens when all that's left is a vague name and some handwaving by the GM.   What others are calling "disassociated" is part of that, but I don't like the term for multiple reasons, not least because it blurs the details of what happens in that case and tries to collapse them down into a simple evaluation.

Interesting point. I'll have to reflect some more on it later but it does make sense that emulation is achieved by all three factors (game, drama and sim) working in consonant, yes.

Perhaps this is another failure of the GNS model, that it never managed to fit the genre-emulation playstyle firmly in any of it's agendas. Which is weird considering it's one of the most celebrated playstyles among forge-inspired games.

Steven Mitchell

#86
Quote from: Itachi on March 10, 2023, 01:40:49 PM
Interesting point. I'll have to reflect some more on it later but it does make sense that emulation is achieved by all three factors (game, drama and sim) working in consonant, yes.

Perhaps this is another failure of the GNS model, that it never managed to fit the genre-emulation playstyle firmly in any of it's agendas. Which is weird considering it's one of the most celebrated playstyles among forge-inspired games.

I think it can't fit it in because to do so sweeps the legs out from under the whole shebang.  There's nothing particularly controversial behind the idea that to emulate some genres, you'll need to back away a little from simulation and game in favor of drama, maybe even to the point of adding mechanics for drama.  After all, Hero Points have been around a long time.  I'm not a huge fan of story games, so I can't speak from experience.  Having read Dungeon World and read about it, I'd hazard a guess that part of its success compared to other PBTA games is that it snuck a tiny bit of simulation back into the emulation--which strengthened the emulation.  Though it's kind of an odd case, given that what it emulates is something of a simulation game. :D

Burning Wheel, which I have run, is not entirely a story game.  It's trad game that pushes the mechanics as abstract as it can stand (and then pushes them some more), in order to chase drama all the time, to emulate a very definite feel.  So its using story game tricks in key spots but then reverting to traditional play elsewhere.  Then it drenches the whole things in tons of detail, some for pure simulation and some to fake it.

estar

Quote from: jhkim on March 10, 2023, 01:06:42 PM
The bolded part here is what I would call player buy-in to the genre. The players' choices aren't fixed because there are a lot of choices even within the genre, but they limit their choices to those that are within the genre. And I think that's a good way to run genre RPGs. I'm a big player of Call of Cthulhu which depends a lot on this. Players buy into the genre.

But let's be clear that those genre-based limits are based on them acting like they know they're in a story of the given genre. They are aware of stories of the genre and they are choosing to stay within the bounds of such stories. Those bounds can be seen as a nod to dramatism.
Sounds good. The only thing I will add is that I really dislike creative coercion, no scratch that, I hate creative coercion. When I am a referee I feel resorting to that is cheating. In fact, the worst part creatively when I ran LARP events is the fucking railroading I was forced to do because of the real-life logistics. Staff needed to rest and east, getting stuff from one side of the camp to the next. But even there for my events, I tried to make it as much of a sandbox as I could given the constraints.

So being forced to railroad, I learned how to run a good railroad where the action and circumstances were compelling enough that the players will want to follow the rails.

Which brings me back to my approach to what we are calling genre buy-in. Rather than some metagaming convention. I work at creating a compelling enough situation and setting that in combination with the initial interest is enough to get the players to want to act as characters within the genre.

But more in support of your point the situation with genre buy-in it is like if players roll a 3 Charisma in OD&D. There isn't much in the way of mechanics around the OD&D attributes. So the effects that a 3 Charisma has is up to the player when they decide to roleplay. Some would ignore it, and some, like me, will incorporate that into how the character roleplaying despite the fact the mechanical nuances are minimal.

The first approach I mention is really for the players who are indifferent or on the fence about roleplaying in a different style.


Quote from: jhkim on March 10, 2023, 01:06:42 PM
Taking off those bounds can also be interesting, though, which would be more pure simulationism.
I ran a succession of Majestic Wilderlands campaigns in the mid 90s where the players played all mages, then all thieves, then all low powered city-state, then a campaign where they were all low powered characters living in a neighborhood of the City State of the Invincible Overlord.

---

Quote from: jhkim on March 10, 2023, 01:06:42 PM
About your metagame aside -- I enjoy some games with metagame rules like hero points or player authorship, but it is definitely a different sort of fun. At the extreme, it is similar to more avante garde plays where there is less effort in getting real-looking sets or costumes, so one can see the artifice of the staging more plainly. That isn't just being cheap, though, because it lets you do things that would be impossible in a more traditionally staged play.
(shrug) Sure and I get it but metagaming mechanics are so antithetical to how I run things that I despise them. And understand this is not a result of the debates around the Forge and storygames.

No it started in the mid 90s when Whimsy Cards came out. At first, it was kinda fun, then it became... kinda of silly and lame and finally came to the infamous Whimsy War session (infamous for our group) and while it was a lot of fun, in the end we all looked at each other and agreed to put the cards away. 



Then I tried Fate, Blades in the Dark with folks who knew their stuff as well trying it for myself as referee. And I found both (and others) to be lame and constricting. The game kept me from thinking about what I am going to be doing as my character to play some kind of dice game.






Daddy Warpig

Quote from: amacris on March 07, 2023, 10:56:40 PM
I wrote a manifesto today, proclaiming the return of Simulationism. I'm sharing it today because the essay references a lot of folks I first met here at TheRPG site, including Brian Gleichman and John H. Kim, and bashes on Ron Edwards a bit, who is of course the ancient foe of our own RPG Pundit.

If anyone is interested, you can check it out here: https://arbiterofworlds.substack.com/p/a-manifesto-in-defense-of-simulationism

Great article.
"To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield."
"Ulysses" by Alfred, Lord Tennyson

Geek Gab:
Geek Gab

amacris

Quote from: S'mon on March 10, 2023, 02:44:38 AM
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.

Yes, I agree completely. And I think it is no coincidence that Semi-Free Kriegspiel -> Braunstein -> RPG.