Once again, I find myself almost entirely in agreement - but it's interesting how you've come at your conclusions from a different angle than I have. I find myself using the term 'simulation' with regard to tabletop RPG design, simply because in the tabletop RPG design community its become common to categorize mechanics as either 'narrativist' vs 'simulationsit'. In that context 'simulationist' doesn't mean 'especially detaailed" or even "especially realistic'. It only means, "when determining what happens in the game, this set of rules cares more about what plausibly *should* happen in that world as represented by its mechanics, than it cares about what outcome would 'make a better narrative'. In that sense, original D&D is a staunchly simulationist RPG because its mechanics, vague and unrealistic as they may have been, were still a model of the way things were supposed to work in the world of D&D. At no point did the original D&D rules grant players the ability to control game events *directly through their narration*, like story-tellers. If you think the term should be "modelist" rather than "simulationist" I have no real problem with that, other than that the term "simulationist" is already widely used and changing it up may make it harder to clearly communicate with other people in the hobby.
The video is primarily about board games. I'm using "model" in a broader sense than RPGs (which are a small part of tabletop gaming). I must say I'm not entirely convinced by the simulationist - narrativist - gamist framework. Nor do I see it referred to much these days even within RPGs, and never elsewhere. I don't understand how one differentiates the first two terms, at least in terms of game mechanics. (I wasn't active in the RPG hobby when it was proposed and discussed.) I dislike the word "simulation" in relation to games, but *especially* in RPGs. So why would I adopt a specialized term (simulationist) used in a part of the hobby to apply to the whole? I think people understand "modeling" more than "simulation," I'll stick with model.
@@LewisPulsipher As I said, I don’t personally have a problem with talking about ‘modeling’ rather than ‘simulation’. What’s important to me is distinguishing between RPGs that are about placing the PCs within an objective, immersive world and ones that are about players directly dictating what happens in that world, like a writer would.
A&A is just what would come out of a bunch of geeks wishing RISK was about WWII and with fighters and carriers. But yeah... I agree ... making believable models and avoiding obvious historical inaccuracies is nice, but first and foremost a game has to be good as a game - and fun to play. The best designs are those what also are great games... not those which get the colors on the uniforms right. IMHO the GMT game Sekigahara is a perfect example of good design. It's a simple elegant game which also is great fun with a lot of strategic depth.
A simulation game is a game that shows the reality with a certain amount of accuracy, but not not with 100% accuracy. Because perfect simulation in never possible, not even with the help of the largest computer. So a simulation game helps understand the reality with a degree of accuracy but not 100% accuracy. A non simulation game, as most euro games are with a pasted theme to a game that sometimes can be totally opposite in mechanics to the way the reality is. So here we are not talking about understanding a field of life with a certain degree of accuracy. Here are talking about distorting reality, for the sake of incorporating some fancy mechanics, so much that we can talk about negative accuracy. Negative accuracy means that the user would understand better that field of reality if he completely avoids that game. The term “simulation games” should be used to differentiate between games that reflect reality with a certain accuracy from the ones with pasted theme where there is no accuracy in reflecting the reality in the mechanics of the game and instead is more distortion rather than accuracy.
Much of the discussion of games revolves around semantics, as different people use the same word for different things. "Model" is the proper word for what you call simulation, because "simulation" implies much more accuracy than we can achieve with commercial tabletop games (and video games, generally).
Once again, I find myself almost entirely in agreement - but it's interesting how you've come at your conclusions from a different angle than I have.
I find myself using the term 'simulation' with regard to tabletop RPG design, simply because in the tabletop RPG design community its become common to categorize mechanics as either 'narrativist' vs 'simulationsit'. In that context 'simulationist' doesn't mean 'especially detaailed" or even "especially realistic'. It only means, "when determining what happens in the game, this set of rules cares more about what plausibly *should* happen in that world as represented by its mechanics, than it cares about what outcome would 'make a better narrative'. In that sense, original D&D is a staunchly simulationist RPG because its mechanics, vague and unrealistic as they may have been, were still a model of the way things were supposed to work in the world of D&D. At no point did the original D&D rules grant players the ability to control game events *directly through their narration*, like story-tellers.
If you think the term should be "modelist" rather than "simulationist" I have no real problem with that, other than that the term "simulationist" is already widely used and changing it up may make it harder to clearly communicate with other people in the hobby.
The video is primarily about board games. I'm using "model" in a broader sense than RPGs (which are a small part of tabletop gaming). I must say I'm not entirely convinced by the simulationist - narrativist - gamist framework. Nor do I see it referred to much these days even within RPGs, and never elsewhere. I don't understand how one differentiates the first two terms, at least in terms of game mechanics. (I wasn't active in the RPG hobby when it was proposed and discussed.)
I dislike the word "simulation" in relation to games, but *especially* in RPGs. So why would I adopt a specialized term (simulationist) used in a part of the hobby to apply to the whole? I think people understand "modeling" more than "simulation," I'll stick with model.
@@LewisPulsipher As I said, I don’t personally have a problem with talking about ‘modeling’ rather than ‘simulation’. What’s important to me is distinguishing between RPGs that are about placing the PCs within an objective, immersive world and ones that are about players directly dictating what happens in that world, like a writer would.
A&A is just what would come out of a bunch of geeks wishing RISK was about WWII and with fighters and carriers.
But yeah... I agree ... making believable models and avoiding obvious historical inaccuracies is nice, but first and foremost a game has to be good as a game - and fun to play.
The best designs are those what also are great games... not those which get the colors on the uniforms right.
IMHO the GMT game Sekigahara is a perfect example of good design. It's a simple elegant game which also is great fun with a lot of strategic depth.
From what I've heard the 2023 Kingmaker does include the original game as a B-side.
Original English version. Not the American (Avalon Hill), I think.
A simulation game is a game that shows the reality with a certain amount of accuracy, but not not with 100% accuracy. Because perfect simulation in never possible, not even with the help of the largest computer.
So a simulation game helps understand the reality with a degree of accuracy but not 100% accuracy.
A non simulation game, as most euro games are with a pasted theme to a game that sometimes can be totally opposite in mechanics to the way the reality is. So here we are not talking about understanding a field of life with a certain degree of accuracy. Here are talking about distorting reality, for the sake of incorporating some fancy mechanics, so much that we can talk about negative accuracy. Negative accuracy means that the user would understand better that field of reality if he completely avoids that game.
The term “simulation games” should be used to differentiate between games that reflect reality with a certain accuracy from the ones with pasted theme where there is no accuracy in reflecting the reality in the mechanics of the game and instead is more distortion rather than accuracy.
Much of the discussion of games revolves around semantics, as different people use the same word for different things. "Model" is the proper word for what you call simulation, because "simulation" implies much more accuracy than we can achieve with commercial tabletop games (and video games, generally).