D&D is not a world simulator

[Talakeal]

To me - and I am no expert on "GNS Theory" - "narrativism" is about "the story," yes, but not telling a pre-set one. All narrativism means is that you're primarily interested in the story. You want to play the characters and build the narrative around what they're doing and how the world reacts around them.

In a sense, to me, a GOOD simulationist game will also cater to a narrativist view, because the simulation will include rules that guide how the world reacts to character actions and choices. The story evolves from the simulation as the players push the buttons and pull the levers that represent what their characters' choices would be.

And that, too, factors in with a good gamist game - the gameplay IS the development of the narrative through the simulation.

Which is what I look for in an RPG.

I agree with you 100%, but I don't think that is what people mean by "narrativist" games.

The problem with that is that if you are simulating a "real world" you are going to different results than a strict narrative.

For example, in a movie extras who get shot once fall over and quietly die in an instant, heroes, on the other hand, typically just shrug it off as only a flesh wound and continue doing badass things. This would make sense in a narrative game, but not in one that is trying to simulate anything but a Hollywood action movie.

Even if a game was, say, trying to simulate a far out setting like Power Rangers, the players wouldn't behave properly from a narrative perspective. The show follows a formula, minions attack, they fight as humans, monster attacks, they morph, monster grows, they summon zords, they merge into the Megazord, they get beat up, they use the Mega Sword to end the fight. Whereas the players would ignore the formula and just start out with the Mega Sword.

More narrativist games actually need rules to keep things running along the expected narrative rather than just concluding in the most logical manner. Then you get things like the 4E AEDU power system which works all right from a narrative perspective but when looked at from a simulationist perspective leaves a lot to be desired. Honestly I think the main cause of "edition wars" is that previous editions had run on simulationist logic and assumed that a good story would emerge from the simulation where as 4E took a more narrativist approach and tried to have rules that forced a more coherent story structure on the mechanics.

[Cluedrew]

Frankly I'd be happy if the "R" was removed, and we called them something like "table top Adventure games (when I was young, I saw the acronym "FRP" more than "RPG").

You would like them to be called "playing games"?

Sorry, I just felt that should be said out loud. Really adventure games would be a nice term for it, although it is probably too late to change now. I agree that roll-playing is not quite as fundamental to roll-playing games as one might expect from the name. At least as I understand roll-playing, I have seem people play (Computer & Table Top) RPGs while doing very little roll-playing and roll-play in things that are not roll-playing games.

The part I agree most with is of course "However it is played, the primary purpose is to have fun." Which I hope we don't lose sight of.

I agree. Sometimes it seems it is just another thing that exists so people can be right about it.

[Max_Killjoy]

Roll or role?

[Cluedrew]

...

... ... ...

How did I pull that off?

That was not on purpose. And thinking about what I meant to say, its not a Freidan slip either.

[Max_Killjoy]

...

... ... ...

How did I pull that off?

That was not on purpose. And thinking about what I meant to say, its not a Freidan slip either.

Given what you were saying, I didn't think you meant "roll", but given the discussion and everything, it's too funny anyway.

[Cluedrew]

I know, and roll-play is a (semi-ironic) term on its own I did not mean to use. I did mean to say role-play in every case (I re-read just to make sure) but I'm leaving it there now.

[2D8HP]

I know, and roll-play is......

I'm not going to touch that, even with a ten foot roll um role er pole (whoo finally).

l'm leaving it there now.

Thanks!



Oh I realized that I should walk back some of my "setting matters more than rules" ranting.
I think Pathfinder's "Inner Sea" setting looks much cooler than 5e D&D's "Forgotten Realms", but despite it being the basis of my favorite web comic, I just don't like the 3.x rules.

[Cluedrew]

Well I'm glad everyone is having a laugh.

Anyways, I need to go back and acknowledge a reply way back on page 7. Man this thread moves fast.

Yes it does. The fact that it simulates things poorly (or not at all) doesn't make it "not a simulation" it just makes it "less accurate of a simulation". Weather simulations still simulate weather even though they don't have defined interactions at the quantum mechanical level. For any thing in a simulation, having it not happen is a totally valid simulation. You may not like it, but no one is saying you have to like it.

... How come people seem to assume that just because I can point out a game's faults means that I don't like it over all? I mean you may not be doing that but it sort of looks like that to me.

Anyways, my point is (which is to say my interpretation of post #1 is) that it is about intent and goals. D&D can be used to simulate word but if you do the simulation is inaccurate and incomplete. In fact all D&D worlds would be created and than become barren as there are rules for dying and aging (although I'm not sure about dying from aging) but none about child birth. Maybe there is in the Book of Erotic Fantasy, haven't read it.

So you can do it, but that's not the point. It is a game that you play, not a mathematical model you analyze for data as with the weather forecast.

I agree. Shadowrun presents a great solution to the problem of "make high level Wizards and Fighters equal". But that's not the problem which the poster I responded to claimed had been solved. He wants a solution that also satisfies "Fighters have abilities that are believable in the real world."

Spoiler: The Post in Question

Show

Which, by the way, is from page 4. It's quite a chain of replies.

"Mundanes must not be out of genre or unrealistic" VS "Mundanes should be as competent as spellcasters who are pretty much always stronger in the genre, and are utterly unrealistic"

Pick one.

And all of the games which are not D&D and have managed to solve this problem are wrong.

Now, this little back and forth hinges on what Talakeal's interpretation of Vitruviansquid's post, but what I believe what Talakeal is saying is that it is not necessarily out of genre to have fighters and wizards be on equal footing. Lord of the Rings had some pretty nasty spell casters but in the Chronicles of Narina almost all the major casters are brought down by martial power. Usually a normal human being with a metal stick.

Now if we take "realistic" to mean "as in real life" and not "reasonable or plausible" or "appears to be like reality at first glance" or "no, you mean internal consistency" then... yes you can't do it without holding wizards to the same standard. (In which case Anderson Silva will beat up David Copperfield no problem.) I think those are both who I think they are.

OK, this took me much longer than expected. Done for now.

[Max_Killjoy]

Is it just me, or is there a dismissal of rules with a sim basis because, supposedly, they need to sim the growing of grass and the currents of the ocean, or they're an utter failure -- and since that level of detail is pretty much impossible, why even try?

Where does this notion of a "world simulator" come from?

[Batou1976]

You're going to have to explain why the PCs should be killed off more than they are. There's a word for "people trying to kill you so you don't amass wealth" in D&Dland and that word is "adventure".

What I meant was, if people IRL tried to murderhobo their way through life like a D&D adventurer, they wouldn't last very long. Hence D&D not being a world "simulator", but merely an "adventure simulator".

The piles of loot thing actually makes more sense if you accept that the rules govern the operating of the world. That castle full of wights? It's not there because the DM said so. It's there because there used to be a castle full of normal people, but the Wightpocalypse happened and now it's full of wights.

I get that. But that doesn't make practical sense (as I originally stated)- wightpocalypses (and trollpocalypses, and whatnot) happen so often in a D&D world that if said world did work like the really-real one.... there'd be nobody left but the monsters.

[2D8HP]

But that doesn't make practical sense (as I originally stated)- wightpocalypses (and trollpocalypses, and whatnot) happen so often in a D&D world that if said world did work like the really-real one.... there'd be nobody left but the monsters.

But the most interesting people are the monsters!

Spoiler: Bugs Bunny!

Show

"Uh oh. Think fast, rabbit!"

"My stars! Where did you ever get that awful hairdo? It doesn't become you at all. Here, for goodness' sake, let me fix it up. Look how stringy and messy it is. What a shame! Such an interesting monster, too. My stars, if an interesting monster can't have an interesting hairdo, then I don't know what things are coming to. In my business, you meet so many interesting people. Bobby pins, please. But the most interesting ones are the monsters. Oh, dear, that'll never stay. We'll just have to have a permanent."

[ComradeBear]

Is it just me, or is there a dismissal of rules with a sim basis because, supposedly, they need to sim the growing of grass and the currents of the ocean, or they're an utter failure -- and since that level of detail is pretty much impossible, why even try?

Where does this notion of a "world simulator" come from?

I imagine that the dearth of simulation-based rpgs exists for the same reason there is a dearth of 747 flight simulators at your local arcade: they are an incredibly niche market.

Most people buying a game want a game, and a game is fundamentally different from a simulator. Even games like Eurotruck Simulator have game elements and are actually quite far from being accurate simulations of their subject matter. (Running over a sedan with a semi truck in real life causes more problems than a small deduction in pay.)

Simulation is meant to create the illusion that you are really doing it. (This might explain LARP as a thing, since it is probably as accurate a simulation as you'll get for traipsing in the woods fighting monsters. Maybe try LARPing?)

There is also the fact that a lot of the things we talk about wanting to model better are incredibly intricate, and making the system for handling it more intricate BY NECESSITY makes gameplay more complicated, and thus slower. The more steps you add between "I attack Jim" and "Jim takes X damage," the more time it takes to resolve. Eventually you're best off having a very in-depth system just for duels, where a single 1 minute duel takes up the full 4 hour session. (Wargames often run in the 3+ hours for exactly this reason, among others.)

Essentially, the demand for Pure Sim TRPGs is incredibly low. The amount of money being missed out on is also incredibly low, and the cost (actual or opportunity cost) for creating such a system would be higher than the money that would be made from it. Hence, nobody makes them because they're better off making less sim-heavy games, which have a higher demand.

[Cluedrew]

To Max_Killjoy: I don't follow the "rules as simulation" mindset myself but that is just because I don't find it very useful. It is valid but at the same time I don't feel like that was the mindset that the designers of D&D had either. The designers of GURPS on the other hand might have.

Similarly if you want to use the rules as a simulation, you are going to have to step outside that box quite often. For instance the rules might state which spells my wizard can cast, but it doesn't say which one she will. That is up to me, although I could simulate my character's decision making process in my head to do so. That would even be role-playing, but it is entirely outside the rules.

There are also more physical things that the rule set doesn't cover, so although it can be a simulation, the world is not the focus of that simulation, the adventurers and the combats are.

As far as the idea of a world simulator, as far as I'm concerned, this thread. I had never heard the term before.

[Quertus]

CRPGs are not misnamed nor are they any less "Actually rpgs" than trpgs. They are less flexible, yes, and a very different kind of game. But implying they're secretly not REALLY RPGs is both factually inaccurate and elitist af.

And the reason making an arbitrary cutoff between CRPGs being "not really rpgs" and TRPGs being "actual rpgs" is that it justifies saying really crappy things like:
"Oh, you like RPGs? Which ones?"
"I like Final Fantasy and Fallout"
"Those aren't actual RPGs."

And guess who is never going to want to play a trpg with you since you just laid a steamer on their favorite games?
And guess who just made their hobby even harder to get into for someone?
And guess who's now partially responsible for people thinking tabletop games are hard to get into?

That's why you don't do it. The implications don't just piss off fanboys. They hurt the hobby. Just distinguish between CRPG and TRPG and you're less likely to push someone away from the hobby.

Consider it like a job interview. Claiming that you have experience with RPGs when you've "only" had experience with CRPGs is like claiming to have experience with raids when you've "only" had experience playing D&D.

They utilize different skill sets. Claiming that they give you equivalent experience is disingenuous, and detrimental to the hobby.

HERO 4th and 5th have come closest (the broader system of which Champions would be a subset). However, I've found that HERO doesn't handle characters below a certain point on the "power scale" as well as might be claimed, because there's just not that much "room" down there. I've become less enamored with the segments/phases/SPEED setup, and the focus on grid movement, over the years.

I like Mutants & Masterminds better than Heroes, in general - with the expression of Heroes segments/speed system. What has made you dislike that party of the system?

[Segev]

I'm not going to touch that, even with a ten foot roll um role er pole

How about a ten foot poll?

(That'd be a lot of questions!)

[ComradeBear]

Consider it like a job interview. Claiming that you have experience with RPGs when you've "only" had experience with CRPGs is like claiming to have experience with raids when you've "only" had experience playing D&D.

They utilize different skill sets. Claiming that they give you equivalent experience is disingenuous, and detrimental to the hobby.

That would be a really good point if I had suggested they were equivalent experiences. Unfortunately, I never did.

I habe only noted that saying one was "actual" ie, "more legitimate" is a crappy thing to do for the reasons I listed.

[Max_Killjoy]

I imagine that the dearth of simulation-based rpgs exists for the same reason there is a dearth of 747 flight simulators at your local arcade: they are an incredibly niche market.

Most people buying a game want a game, and a game is fundamentally different from a simulator. Even games like Eurotruck Simulator have game elements and are actually quite far from being accurate simulations of their subject matter. (Running over a sedan with a semi truck in real life causes more problems than a small deduction in pay.)

Simulation is meant to create the illusion that you are really doing it. (This might explain LARP as a thing, since it is probably as accurate a simulation as you'll get for traipsing in the woods fighting monsters. Maybe try LARPing?)

There is also the fact that a lot of the things we talk about wanting to model better are incredibly intricate, and making the system for handling it more intricate BY NECESSITY makes gameplay more complicated, and thus slower. The more steps you add between "I attack Jim" and "Jim takes X damage," the more time it takes to resolve. Eventually you're best off having a very in-depth system just for duels, where a single 1 minute duel takes up the full 4 hour session. (Wargames often run in the 3+ hours for exactly this reason, among others.)

Essentially, the demand for Pure Sim TRPGs is incredibly low. The amount of money being missed out on is also incredibly low, and the cost (actual or opportunity cost) for creating such a system would be higher than the money that would be made from it. Hence, nobody makes them because they're better off making less sim-heavy games, which have a higher demand.

I think I failed to get my question across -- why do people think that "sim rules" means getting lost in the minutia, or creating an illusion of actually doing something? "Immersion" and "illusion" are not the same thing.

Maybe this is part of why I use the term "map" rather than "simulate". A map doesn't have to show every blade of grass to be useful, and in fact there's a level of fine detail where a map can become less and less useful. What a map needs to do is accurately show the level of detail needed to get around without constantly questioning the map.

Rules, setting, and atmosphere that don't map together well, too often result in repeated instances "wait, if A just happened, that implies B would happen, but instead C happened" moments.

[Max_Killjoy]

To Max_Killjoy: I don't follow the "rules as simulation" mindset myself but that is just because I don't find it very useful. It is valid but at the same time I don't feel like that was the mindset that the designers of D&D had either. The designers of GURPS on the other hand might have.

Similarly if you want to use the rules as a simulation, you are going to have to step outside that box quite often. For instance the rules might state which spells my wizard can cast, but it doesn't say which one she will. That is up to me, although I could simulate my character's decision making process in my head to do so. That would even be role-playing, but it is entirely outside the rules.

There are also more physical things that the rule set doesn't cover, so although it can be a simulation, the world is not the focus of that simulation, the adventurers and the combats are.

As far as the idea of a world simulator, as far as I'm concerned, this thread. I had never heard the term before.

Yeah, I had not either.

I've never thought of "simulation based rules" as determining character decisions -- especially PCs' decisions -- via rolls or other rules. That sort of thing would take the game entirely out of role-playing and into the realm of a literal simulation, inefficiently conducted with dice and whatnot.

If that's what other people think "pure sim rules" means, I can see why they'd object strenuously to the idea.

[ComradeBear]

I think I failed to get my question across -- why do people think that "sim rules" means getting lost in the minutia, or creating an illusion of actually doing something? "Immersion" and "illusion" are not the same thing.

Maybe this is part of why I use the term "map" rather than "simulate". A map doesn't have to show every blade of grass to be useful, and in fact there's a level of fine detail where a map can become less and less useful. What a map needs to do is accurately show the level of detail needed to get around without constantly questioning the map.

Rules, setting, and atmosphere that don't map together well, too often result in repeated instances "wait, if A just happened, that implies B would happen, but instead C happened" moments.

Then stripped down rulesets will generally be more helpful than more specific ones, since they can adapt a lot more readily to the weird situations.

For instance in Apocalypse World you have Armor which is flat damage reduction, but it specifically states that if the situation in the fiction would indicate that the armor wouldn't actually help any, then the damage should be converted to AP damage. Every rule in Apocalypse World is subject to the fiction, not the other way around. Even in the case of PCs using social manipulation rules against one another, a successful roll doesn't force one PC to act a certain way, but rather provides an incentive for the character to be convinced (xp, in this case) or a consequence if they choose not to be (they have to Act Under Fire, which can invite problems if not successful.) The reason for this is that having a character be powerless to convince another character simply because the player can't convince the other player through their own words defeats the purpose of having any social skills at all. (And makes it so that only people who are naturally convincing can play silver-tongued characters.)

So in the regard of "what makes sense is more important than what the rules say," you want something more stripped down.

So the question becomes: How much of the little details matter for the sake of verisimilitude?

For instance, is it sufficiently Verisimilitudinous for someone who's character has a whole lot of throwing knives to be considered to have an arbitrarily high but not literally infinite amount of knives because counting out each individual knife is less important than them having a metric crapton of knives? Or is knowing the exact number of knives the more important of the two for verisimilitude?
(Noting that having a crapton of knives can and will be used to cause this person problems later on when it makes sense)

Is it more important to know exactly how often someone is drinking water or is it sufficient to have everyone roll at the start of the game to determine if they'll be properly hydrated for this game or not? (With the addition that finding water during the session will remove any downsides thus acquired)

Is it crucial to know exactly how long a round is, exactly how many bullets get fired per round, and how much damage each bullet does and where they all hit, or is it sufficient to have a single roll dictate the general flow of things and the description remains sensical? Ie "There's a brief pause in the tide of bullets headed your way thanks to Dremmer acting as a distraction, giving you time to come over the hood of the truck and squeeze a few rounds into one of Smokey's henchmen...."

Because no amount of rules will force the fiction to stay sensical if the GM desires otherwise except for strict, close-in simulation rules that remove such things from the GM's power. So there's a chance you have a GM problem rather than a system problem.

[kyoryu]

Yeah, rules-light systems handle the "unrealistic" bits by substituting GM judgement.

This is more Fate-oriented, but I think it's generally applicable:

https://plus.google.com/+RobertHanz/posts/iGBaeXT7PKw

[Max_Killjoy]

Then stripped down rulesets will generally be more helpful than more specific ones, since they can adapt a lot more readily to the weird situations.

For instance in Apocalypse World you have Armor which is flat damage reduction, but it specifically states that if the situation in the fiction would indicate that the armor wouldn't actually help any, then the damage should be converted to AP damage. Every rule in Apocalypse World is subject to the fiction, not the other way around. Even in the case of PCs using social manipulation rules against one another, a successful roll doesn't force one PC to act a certain way, but rather provides an incentive for the character to be convinced (xp, in this case) or a consequence if they choose not to be (they have to Act Under Fire, which can invite problems if not successful.) The reason for this is that having a character be powerless to convince another character simply because the player can't convince the other player through their own words defeats the purpose of having any social skills at all. (And makes it so that only people who are naturally convincing can play silver-tongued characters.)

So in the regard of "what makes sense is more important than what the rules say," you want something more stripped down.

So the question becomes: How much of the little details matter for the sake of verisimilitude?

For instance, is it sufficiently Verisimilitudinous for someone who's character has a whole lot of throwing knives to be considered to have an arbitrarily high but not literally infinite amount of knives because counting out each individual knife is less important than them having a metric crapton of knives? Or is knowing the exact number of knives the more important of the two for verisimilitude?
(Noting that having a crapton of knives can and will be used to cause this person problems later on when it makes sense)

Is it more important to know exactly how often someone is drinking water or is it sufficient to have everyone roll at the start of the game to determine if they'll be properly hydrated for this game or not? (With the addition that finding water during the session will remove any downsides thus acquired)

Is it crucial to know exactly how long a round is, exactly how many bullets get fired per round, and how much damage each bullet does and where they all hit, or is it sufficient to have a single roll dictate the general flow of things and the description remains sensical? Ie "There's a brief pause in the tide of bullets headed your way thanks to Dremmer acting as a distraction, giving you time to come over the hood of the truck and squeeze a few rounds into one of Smokey's henchmen...."

Because no amount of rules will force the fiction to stay sensical if the GM desires otherwise except for strict, close-in simulation rules that remove such things from the GM's power. So there's a chance you have a GM problem rather than a system problem.

This is specifically what I do not want.

[ComradeBear]

Yeah, rules-light systems handle the "unrealistic" bits by substituting GM judgement.

Indeed, and that's part of the reason why I find they tend to do a good job with verisimilitude. Most of the "What Happens When...?" questions are filtered through a human brain with all of the situational information rather than a written ruleset which does not (and cannot) account for all situations.

Granted, this should ALWAYS be the case when rules inconsistencies come up. The GM should be empowered to say "That wouldn't make any sense so instead we'll do X"

This is specifically what I do not want.

That gives 0 useful information. Allow me to explain why:
"What is most important to you among these options?"

"I don't want that."

This doesn't actually answer any of the questions. And since they are questions about preference in ways that present what are legitimate dichotomies, you're basically saying you dislike strawberries and dislike not having strawberries, to use an imperfect metaphor.

You're gonna need to communicate more than "I don't like that" in order for this conversation to be anything close to productive.

[Max_Killjoy]

Indeed, and that's part of the reason why I find they tend to do a good job with verisimilitude. Most of the "What Happens When...?" questions are filtered through a human brain with all of the situational information rather than a written ruleset which does not (and cannot) account for all situations.

Granted, this should ALWAYS be the case when rules inconsistencies come up. The GM should be empowered to say "That wouldn't make any sense so instead we'll do X"



That gives 0 useful information. Allow me to explain why:
"What is most important to you among these options?"

"I don't want that."

This doesn't actually answer any of the questions. And since they are questions about preference in ways that present what are legitimate dichotomies, you're basically saying you dislike strawberries and dislike not having strawberries, to use an imperfect metaphor.

You're gonna need to communicate more than "I don't like that" in order for this conversation to be anything close to productive.

Everything I tried to write after that, I deleted -- it kept coming out unintentionally confrontational-sounding. I'll go back when I'm in a more relaxed mood and explain.

[ComradeBear]

Everything I tried to write after that, I deleted -- it kept coming out unintentionally confrontational-sounding. I'll go back when I'm in a more relaxed mood and explain.

So long as you don't claim that something is objectively bad/wrong as opposed to not within your preference, then I'll not have any objection. I can't tell you your preferences are wrong, nor can you do similar to me.

My questions aren't meant to be accusational, but rather I'm trying to pick your brain on it.

[Tanarii]

Spoiler: my original post quoted hidden to save space but left in for context

Show

And Gygax even said at the beginning of the DMG "A few brief words are necessary to insure that the reader has actually obtained a game form which he or she desires. Of the two approaches to hobby games today, one is best defined as the realism-simulation school and the other as the game school. AD&D is assuredly on adherent of the latter school. It does not stress any realism (in the author’s opinion an absurd effort at best considering the topic!). It does little to attempt to simulate anything either. ADVANCED DUNGEONS 8 DRAGONS is first and foremost a game for the fun and enjoyment of those who seek to use imagination and creativity. This is not to say that where it does not interfere with the flow of the game that the highest degree of realism hasn‘t been attempted, but neither is a serious approach to play discouraged. In all cases, however, the reader should understand that AD&D is designed to be an amusing and diverting pastime, something which can fill a few hours or consume endless days, as the participants desire, but in no case something to be token too seriously. For fun, excitement, and captivating fantasy, AD&D is unsurpassed. As a realistic simulation of things from the realm of make-believe, or even as a reflection of medieval or ancient warfare or culture or society, it can be deemed only a dismal failure. Readers who seek the latter must search elsewhere. Those who desire to create and populate imaginary worlds with larger-than-life heroes and villains, who seek relaxation with a fascinating game, and who generally believe games should be fun, not work, will hopefully find this system to their taste."

I'm guessing that the "realistic" FRP's (hah!) that Gygax was contrasting AD&D with were Chivalry & Sorcery, and Runequest which both came out in '78, as I doubt Gygax ment the other Swords & Sorcery FRP's out then, '75's Tunnels & Trolls, was regarded "as for for kids" (the irony!) by my circle and TSR's own Empire of the Petal Throne (basically D&D with an exotic setting).
While the older guys (teenagers) who I shared a DM with briefly tried Chivalry and Sorcery before deciding it was "too complicated", they really liked Runequest.
I have mixed feelings about Runequest, while I found the rules more intuitive than D&D, and I absolutely preferred it to the other non D&D RPG's we played, it was never quite as fun for me as D&D, but I often think when some list what they don't like about D&D, that Runequest is what their looking for.
(Arneson & Gygax were the creators of D&D, Andre of T&T).
OK that's from the game that mostly replaced (over my objections) D&D at the tables I played at years ago.The part I agree most with is of course "However it is played, the primary purpose is to have fun." Which I hope we don't lose sight of.

As I said earlier up-thread, having read on the context of what was going on at the time, my understanding was that "hobby games" meant wargaming, not table-top-based fantasy adventuring games. Even chainmail wasn't a simulation game, and his comments would have applied equally there as well. Comparing to many other wargaming-style games at the time, NO fantasy game I've make any significant attempts towards realism-simulation. Some of them may have been more simulation (Runequest is decent example), but certainly not realism.

Now, I'm basing this on things I've read on the history of the game, not personal my own personal experience with the hobby, which didn't start until 1985, well after it was all grown up and mainstream. So I could be off in my understanding.

Edit: fix quote tags

[kyoryu]

You're gonna need to communicate more than "I don't like that" in order for this conversation to be anything close to productive.

At the risk of speaking for someone else, I get the feeling that he wants a set of rules that is a neutral arbiter of situations, but one where the results are designed with realism and mind and achieve that goal the majority of the time, and are not designed to constrain play in a particular direction.

Rules-light games fail that test because they're not neutral arbiter of situations, but rather rely heavily on GM judgement.

[ComradeBear]

At the risk of speaking for someone else, I get the feeling that he wants a set of rules that is a neutral arbiter of situations, but one where the results are designed with realism and mind and achieve that goal the majority of the time, and are not designed to constrain play in a particular direction.

Rules-light games fail that test because they're not neutral arbiter of situations, but rather rely heavily on GM judgement.

The issue with that is that they would have to account for all possibilities to be truly neutral. Otherwise there will always be some inherent bias. There is also the fact that including a random element will make this harder. What is most likely is that a really buff karate master will beat the hell out of a small skinny guy with no training in hand-to-hand combat.
But including dice makes it possible for the latter to win at a rate higher than in reality. (It goes from virtually impossible to highly unlikely, which is a sizeable jump.)

The best mechanism we have for simulating cause and effect and holding a World Model in consistency is none other than The Human Brain.

Essentially, the goal of having the rules be Entirely Neutral and Able To Function All By Themselves In All Situations is impossible. Because any generalization of reality will miss important intricacies which prevent the outlandish from occurring. For instance, weather and its effects on things that happen. If it's sunny every day, then there's going to be problems with a lack of ability to grow crops. Now you're losing verisimilitude because crops apparently grow without rain. In a fantasy setting this might be very odd indeed.

Hydration would be another potential sticking point. Having no rule at all suggests that you don't need to drink at all. Having an arbitrary number of times you need to drink ignores the difference in water needs between people of various sizes and makes for ridiculous situations where Giants and humans can have equally sized societies built around water sources of equivalent size. Which is plainly not sensical.

Hence why I asked to what degree specificity is needed to create verisimilitude. Because every lack of specificity eventually breaks down. The question isn't "Do you want specificity," It's about HOW MUCH specificity is needed. With examples of what they feel needs to be specified AND what DOESN'T need to be specified.

[Max_Killjoy]

At the risk of speaking for someone else, I get the feeling that he wants a set of rules that is a neutral arbiter of situations, but one where the results are designed with realism and mind and achieve that goal the majority of the time, and are not designed to constrain play in a particular direction.

Rules-light games fail that test because they're not neutral arbiter of situations, but rather rely heavily on GM judgement.

That's not far off, really.

The issue with that is that they would have to account for all possibilities to be truly neutral. Otherwise there will always be some inherent bias. There is also the fact that including a random element will make this harder. What is most likely is that a really buff karate master will beat the hell out of a small skinny guy with no training in hand-to-hand combat.
But including dice makes it possible for the latter to win at a rate higher than in reality. (It goes from virtually impossible to highly unlikely, which is a sizeable jump.)

The best mechanism we have for simulating cause and effect and holding a World Model in consistency is none other than The Human Brain.

Essentially, the goal of having the rules be Entirely Neutral and Able To Function All By Themselves In All Situations is impossible. Because any generalization of reality will miss important intricacies which prevent the outlandish from occurring. For instance, weather and its effects on things that happen. If it's sunny every day, then there's going to be problems with a lack of ability to grow crops. Now you're losing verisimilitude because crops apparently grow without rain. In a fantasy setting this might be very odd indeed.

Hydration would be another potential sticking point. Having no rule at all suggests that you don't need to drink at all. Having an arbitrary number of times you need to drink ignores the difference in water needs between people of various sizes and makes for ridiculous situations where Giants and humans can have equally sized societies built around water sources of equivalent size. Which is plainly not sensical.

Hence why I asked to what degree specificity is needed to create verisimilitude. Because every lack of specificity eventually breaks down. The question isn't "Do you want specificity," It's about HOW MUCH specificity is needed. With examples of what they feel needs to be specified AND what DOESN'T need to be specified.

No one (here, that I recall) asserted that the goal was having written, published rules to cover every last situation out into infinity. This is why I asked several posts ago where people get his idea that "sim" rules have to cover everything and anything, and simulate all detail down to the grass growing...

Is there any game that's a "world simulator", or is that a canard?


One of the reasons to have rules that are based in, consistent with, and coherent with the setting, is that rules that clearly derive from a setting can be extended to cover novel situations in that setting. If your map is well-made, the same mapping system can be used to map new territory.

[ComradeBear]

That's not far off, really.

No one (here, that I recall) asserted that the goal was having written, published rules to cover every last situation out into infinity. This is why I asked several posts ago where people get his idea that "sim" rules have to cover everything and anything, and simulate all detail down to the grass growing...

Is there any game that's a "world simulator", or is that a canard?


One of the reasons to have rules that are based in, consistent with, and coherent with the setting, is that rules that clearly derive from a setting can be extended to cover novel situations in that setting. If your map is well-made, the same mapping system can be used to map new territory.

I'm speaking of the previously stated ideal of having the rules be a Neutral Judge that requires no GM judgement and will always behave as expected. That DOES require that the rules account for all possible situations.

As for the goal of having rules consistent with a single setting, that much is simple enough and has been done before. Of course, then you're reliant on how in-depth the setting in question is. Warhammer 40k might have a lot easier time with this than, say, Harry Potter. Because Warhammer has been around long enough to have an explanation for everything, including how Ork ships made of scrap metal can fly through space despite obviously not being spaceworthy, and how the Imperium manages to maintain a fighting force numbering in the trillions of troops.

Even the existence of melee combat can be logically explained within the lore.

The problem comes on trying to make rules for the entire universe as a whole, hence why Warhammer has multiple associated games. Each one deals consistently with its slice of the universe without really worrying about the other parts because they will not behave the same. (A game about being Inquisitors by necessity has different needs than a game for having large-scale battles.)

So in essence, we come back to the previous questions. What parts are important TO YOU that need to be modelled? Because if you answer "everything" then you need to make sure it covers Everything, which will by necessity be a complicated system. If what is vitally important to model well is combat and magic, and we don't care if there is any rules for social interaction of any sort, then that will change the approach.

Do my questions make more sense now? If you want it to model everything well then it either needs to be extremely far-reaching or extremely flexible, but something in the middle will be insufficiently flexible AND insufficiently specific, and ends up worse than the other two options. (Hence why D&D struggles to be both. Because it isn't particularly great at either end due to trying to be between them.)

[Cluedrew]

OK, since people are starting to argue about this: What does it mean for a system to be a neutral judge?

As far as I am concerned almost every rule set ever is a neutral judge because they do not care about who is using them.