The myth of the simulation or the model.

[Jack Spencer Jr]

In the thread Engaging New Worlds with New Imagination
I had struck upon something which, I think, warrants it's own thread.

It's the idea of, for lack of a better term, the simulation or possibly the model. The myth states that an RPG's mechanics and rules sets up this model, much like a computer model that will allow the players to move around freely to do whatever they want and the model will say what they find or can do and such. This may (but not necessarily) include, but is not limited to, things like what is behind that door or things like realistic bullet trajectories and the like.

I am thinking this is a myth because in the second instance, we are talking about realism again, which has prooven before on the Forge to be a highly subjective, and threrefore not especially helpful item to discuss.

The main item of myth about the model is that it will work for anybody and that everybody can agree with it. The thread I linked about has some comments that show that this is most likely not the case.

[Christopher Kubasik]

Hi Jack,

Good points.  I would offer this, though.  There's a great deal of pleasure to be had hashing out differences and trying to reach a consenus.  I think people do this all the time in RPGs -- whether it's about how a sword "really" swings, or working out the exploration of a thematic premise among disagreeing players in a Sorcerer game.

You're point still stands though: that pleasure is only found when there are differences.  The model itself is seldom, if ever, actually finished.

(I think this is why so many people keep buying new sim game rules: the holy grail search for the game that finally "gets it right" this time.)

Take care
Christopher

[Marco]

In the thread Engaging New Worlds with New Imagination

The myth states that an RPG's mechanics and rules sets up this model, much like a computer model that will allow the players to move around freely to do whatever they want and the model will say what they find or can do and such. This may (but not necessarily) include, but is not limited to, things like what is behind that door or things like realistic bullet trajectories and the like.

The first part I agree with--if the game rules will give a plausible rendering of a world with any sort of cause and effect then they're working for that.

The second is GDS terminology, right (simulation meaning ... an accurate rendering)? Not GNS (a game whose rules promote Exploration as a primary choice)? yes?

Under GDS, I think that the term throws reality out the door right away for a 'simulation of the game world.' (With mythos creatures and magic and everything).

In other words, while an accurate statement ('reality' is hard for us to agree on as term) I think it's a case of pointing out that the Emperor has no clothes at a nudist colony ("he has no clothes!" "yeah, we knew that.")

Now, I might like one set of rules over another because at their given level of abstraction I find the way they perform more in line with my expectation ... and they may meet my standards for falsifibility ("A normal person can punch through an engine block? Let me go try that!") but none of that is reality.

And all of that is a personal criteria for quality.

-Marco

[Jack Spencer Jr]

Under GDS, I think that the term throws reality out the door right away for a 'simulation of the game world.' (With mythos creatures and magic and everything).

In other words, while an accurate statement ('reality' is hard for us to agree on as term) I think it's a case of pointing out that the Emperor has no clothes at a nudist colony ("he has no clothes!" "yeah, we knew that.")

Well, yeah. One of the reasons why "realism" has been a dodgy term over the years. Does it mean realism as in reality or does it mean realism as per the game world or genre expectations or what? So it may be saying the Emperor has no clothes at the nudist colony, but there's also a bit of "He has green eyes" "Oh? I wasn't looking at his...eyes."

And all of that is a personal criteria for quality.

WHich was, more or less, was what I was trying to say. Thanks.