>George Harris averred
>
>> A simulationist is someone that
>> prefers for a roleplaying world to act in a consistent manner, with the
>> various characters acting as actual humans (or whatever) would, and
>> resolutions be made solely with regard to what is the most likely outcome,
>> rather than what best suits the story, say.
>
>I'm not going to discuss your definition per se, but I will jump in with a
>comment as the term relates to Hero Wars.
Yay! Anyone who doesn't want to follow David's example is encouraged to check out rec.games.frp.advocacy, where abstruse discussions of role-playing typology are carried out with remarkable decorum. Alas, I lack his discipline.
>Until now, most RPGs have been simulationist. They attempt to model the
>real (or imaginary) world by simulating its processes. For example, RQ
>models combat by rules for the process of making an attack and the process
>of thwarting that attack. Each die roll generally simulates some
>easily-identifiable real world event or process. You may not agree that
>it's the best simulation, but the mapping is clear.
I don't really buy that. To my eye, most RPGs are have been dominated by gamist concerns, that is, game balance, presenting the players with a challenge, etc. That's certainly the case with the D&D family, and quite a few of its lineal descendents (RoleMaster, Palladium). Some have been concerned with simulationism, true, and I think RQ was one of the first of these, but many have been branded as 'wargaming' (such as, say, Phoenix Command or Aftermath), and many have been released with strong attention to narrative concerns (Ars Magica, Star Wars, the White Wolf group, Theatrix, Amber, OtE and Feng Shui). Overall I'd say that simulationist concerns have generally been the least well addressed over the history of RPGs, but I certainly haven't done a thorough survey of the literature.
>Hero Wars also models the real world, but by simulating its outcomes. A die
>roll in Hero Wars probably doesn't directly represent some real world event
>- -- notably rolls in combat. Advantage ebbs and flows, and only after the
>combat is over do you know the outcome. A winning die roll doesn't
>necessarily equate to a well-swung sword. But combat is still modelled -- a
>good warrior is more likely to defeat a poor warrior, just as in a
>simulationist game. And while Hero Wars doesn't tell you as much about the
>outcome as does RuneQuest, it's as detailed as Pendragon in this regard.
I would disagree fundamentally with your basic premise; at least from what I have read here (consider that caveat to be present for all my remarks, and that I'm not drawing any final conclusions about HW prior to its release), it seems that HW intends to simulate the genre of heroic (or high) fantasy, or at the least some manner of fictional narrative. Note, for example, that in descriptions of how combat mechanics work we have been urged to compare them to things like sword fights in movies, and that characters can earn (and spend) a game-mechanical construct called a 'plot point' which certainly conjures up ideas of narrative rather than simulation.
>Hero Wars also chooses a different world to model than does RuneQuest, a
>more literary (or adventure movie) view of Glorantha, but some
>simulationist games do this too (Star Wars being a notable example).
I would say that modeling a literary world is the mark of a game which is primarily concerned with non-simulationist concerns, and Star Wars is an excellent example of such a game.
>David Dunham <mailto:dunham_at_pensee.com>
- --
Doesn't the fact that there are *exactly* 50 states seem a little suspicious?
George W. Harris gharris_at_dur.mindspring.com ------------------------------
Powered by hypermail