Quote from: Hakdov;1130902That book pissed me off so much.  There's no damn way you could design a ship with the rules without having it on a spreadsheet or computer program.  I just wanted to build stuff for a game not make things that would work in real life.

When I had it in 1993 or so, I lacked a computer that could handle it. I did have a graphing calculator, but that never made it the gaming table.

Quote from: robiswrong;1130933Wha?

By GNS terms (barf, puke) it would seem to be gamist more than anything?

I always thought that it was simulating a certain genre eg Fantasy Roleplaying.

Quote from: Shasarak;1130844According to the GNS theory the most simulationist system that I have run would probably be DnD 4e.

Then you weren't paying attention to GNS theory. 4e would clearly be gamist by that theory.

Quote from: Shasarak;1130938I always thought that it was simulating a certain genre eg Fantasy Roleplaying.

Think you mean sumulating MMOs with all its MMO terms and mechanics.

Quote from: trechriron;1130939Then you weren't paying attention to GNS theory. 4e would clearly be gamist by that theory.

You can play 4e as a Game.

The problem with the term "simulationist" as a category: GNS theory was about system (aka system matters...). You can simulate something with rulings. The term has somewhat skewed to mean "realistic". Most people are asking - "what game have you played with the most complex rules designed to pursue realism as the creator envisioned it?"

It's not hard to simulate something with rulings.

Scenario: The Germans have advanced much quicker than anticipated. Their heavy artillery will be in range in the next 30 mins. All the special teams have to dig in if they hope to survive. You have 30 mins to build the best foxhole you can.

GURPS: We have rules for how fast a human of a certain STR can dig a hole with certain tools. Appropriate rolls could speed it up or excavate more dirt. To make it fun, the GM breaks down the task into 5 min intervals, giving all the players 6 chances before adjudicating the results. If the foxhole is at least 3ft deep, it provides 90% cover while prone. For each 1ft shallower, the cover is reduced by appropriately (see cover rules).  Direct hits offer no protection. The barrage will last for 3 mins with random attacks in the area with the appropriate weapon and damage (see High-tech).

OSR D&D Clone: We don't have specific rules for digging and likely no rules for WWII artillery. We could assume the group is playing a WWII OSR game with some details. The DM decides that artillery fire will consume the area with 4d8 shrapnel explosions every turn for 10 turns. The players will make a save vs. death to determine if they take full, half or no damage. They give the players a +2 to the save for the 30 mins of foxhole preparation.

In both cases we are simulating the fear, terror, and incredible danger of being caught unprepared in a barrage of German heavy artillery fire. In both cases the players will likely fear for their character's lives. In both cases we are trying to be "realistic" about the consequences.

In GNS theory, D&D was considered gamist while GURPS would be considered simulationist. Which is why GNS theory was complete bullshit and shouldn't be used as a measuring stick for anything except the bottom of a septic tank. We can simulate in both systems. Reading the intent of GNS, it was clear that Ron Edwards was just shitting on traditional games. Knowing that someone hates you, your games, and your play-style immediately disqualifies any diarrhea coming from their mouths as propaganda. Sure, he was well written/spoken. He has good standing in the academic world. It sounded sweet. But it was a bunch of bullshit that did way more harm than good.

Suggestion: Mean what you say and say what you mean. What are you really asking? Are you trying to determine the level of enthusiasts at particular levels of complexity? Who likes the crunchy games vs. who likes the light games? How important is simulating reality to you? Ditch the GNS theory wank and ask specific questions using plain language. We're just gamers here, not pretentious self-absorbed ivory-tower masturbating agitators. Happy to discuss game theory as long as we use English, real terms, and a sincere desire to make our games better vs. shitting on games we don't like.

Quote from: Shasarak;1130941You can play 4e as a Game.

You can also use it for simulation as I demonstrated in my previous post. Still doesn't change how the GNS theory-wankers would categorize it. They don't care about your opinion Shasarak.

Quote from: trechriron;1130944You can also use it for simulation as I demonstrated in my previous post. Still doesn't change how the GNS theory-wankers would categorize it. They don't care about your opinion Shasarak.

GNS Theory is about as valid as my new GNS theory for RPGs. Grapes, Nettles, and Spinach.

Quote from: Omega;1130940Think you mean sumulating MMOs with all its MMO terms and mechanics.

Eh, maybe.

Imagine you wanted to play a scene from a movie where all of the guards jump on top of Arnold and then he stands up and throws them all off.  I think would be pretty difficult in every other version of DnD without getting the DM buy in and yet you can do that by the book in 4e.  Come and Get It is definitely simulating that movie scene.

Quote from: trechriron;1130944They don't care about your opinion Shasarak.

Thats just, like, my opinion man.

Quote from: Shasarak;1130949Eh, maybe.

Imagine you wanted to play a scene from a movie where all of the guards jump on top of Arnold and then he stands up and throws them all off.  I think would be pretty difficult in every other version of DnD without getting the DM buy in and yet you can do that by the book in 4e.  Come and Get It is definitely simulating that movie scene.

I have a weird feeling that in GNS theory terms, Shasarak is right!

GNS Gamism is 'challenge the player' orientation, where Simulation is "exploring the dream" and covers movie-emulation as well as what most people would call simulation.  So OD&D is Gamist but there is certainly an argument 4e is primarily Simulationist per GNS.

(GNS is a really bad 'theory').

Quote from: S'mon;1130958(GNS is a really bad 'theory').

Not the least of the charges against it is that it abuses the hell out of some perfectly fine words, making them difficult to use by a normal person in any kind of conversation about gaming.  GNS is one of those rare cases where it would have been preferable for the makers of the jargon to have made up their own words instead of abusing existing ones.

Quote from: Hakdov;1130902That book pissed me off so much.  There's no damn way you could design a ship with the rules without having it on a spreadsheet or computer program.  I just wanted to build stuff for a game not make things that would work in real life.

Funny, I was able to design ships using just pencil, paper, and calculator with Fire, Fusion, and Steel.

Yeah, me too, and GURPS Vehicles for that matter.  Neither one of them is as bad as people say.

Aftermath! Or maybe Delta Force.