For myself, I've been going towards simpler rules (for the most part) over time. I have run Rolemaster, which frankly is not that bad, especially not with a bit of houseruling. It tries to simulate some effects of armor and weapons and such. That other games ignore some such complications is understandable, although it can be fun.
So some games are fairly complex but doable, like Harnmaster I suppose? (correct me if I'm wrong). But I have heard of games that go almost all-out, with calculations of projectile trajectories etc.
I have also heard murmurs about Phoenix Command, but it doesn't sound like a full game to me? So a followup question would be; which complex "simulation" game actually worked for you?
Runequest and GURPS probably are the most towards simulation I've done. Though even then I tended to run them somewhat away from their center--i.e. ignoring some of the simulation aspects.
Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1130768Runequest and GURPS probably are the most towards simulation I've done. Though even then I tended to run them somewhat away from their center--i.e. ignoring some of the simulation aspects.
I see what you mean; if I remember correctly GURPS does have those damage-increase-as-in-penetrates-armor-in-various-ways rules for instance.
I've played a fair bit of HarnMaster. I think there's a difference between a more simulationist system and more complicated mechanics, though. I've been in a number of games using Fudge, Basic Roleplaying, and/or freeform diceless that were very simulationist in the sense of the GM aiming to use their judgement to simulate the game world.
In my experience, added complexity of mechanics often doesn't make the game better at simulation. It's often a case of losing the forest for the trees. So, for example, HarnMaster has pretty good mechanics for individual swings in combat, but I felt that the progress of combat as a whole still didn't match what I've read of real-world combat.
Twilight 2000 is probably the closest. Probably the only games where we counted ammo, rations, gas in the car, etc. When I switched over to Traveller as our TW2k rules, we handwaived more and went more action movie which is what the group wanted. Not superhero action movie, but gameplay with less minutiae.
However, I run the non-Mythos part of any Lovecraftian horror game VERY "simulationist". The mundane world is VERY mundane and if the PCs "act up" in the mundane world, they get the pushback of the mundane world. AKA, do you have a library card? If not, no Library Search roll for you! If you break and enter, there might be guards and cops and nosy citizens and all sorts of boring, mundane real world stuff that doesn't believe or care in your crazy stories about tentacled monsters being summoned by an underground cult.
In horror RPGing, I want stark separation between Normal Earth and Monster Earth. When the shiznack gets weird, I want a strong contrast in scenes.
Aftermath.
Quote from: jhkim;1130770I've played a fair bit of HarnMaster. I think there's a difference between a more simulationist system and more complicated mechanics, though. I've been in a number of games using Fudge, Basic Roleplaying, and/or freeform diceless that were very simulationist in the sense of the GM aiming to use their judgement to simulate the game world.
In my experience, added complexity of mechanics often doesn't make the game better at simulation. It's often a case of losing the forest for the trees. So, for example, HarnMaster has pretty good mechanics for individual swings in combat, but I felt that the progress of combat as a whole still didn't match what I've read of real-world combat.
Sure, I can agree with that. I suppose it is more like two axes on a coordinate system with complexity being one and simulation another. Or perhaps that is too independent, in the sense that some systems are so simple that any "simulation" starts disappearing?
Quote from: Trond;1130758So some games are fairly complex but doable, like Harnmaster I suppose? (correct me if I'm wrong). But I have heard of games that go almost all-out, with calculations of projectile trajectories etc.
Harnmaster is excellent due to the elegance of it mechanics and the terseness of it writing. However the crown in my case goes with GURPS.
Another RPG with a great design however the major challenge is going through the lists to get what you need. However one you have that and made a cheat sheet it runs smooths. Individual mechanics are not particularly complex nor laden with excessive modifiers. It just so many options.
Quote from: jhkim;1130770I've played a fair bit of HarnMaster. I think there's a difference between a more simulationist system and more complicated mechanics, though. I've been in a number of games using Fudge, Basic Roleplaying, and/or freeform diceless that were very simulationist in the sense of the GM aiming to use their judgement to simulate the game world.
In my experience, added complexity of mechanics often doesn't make the game better at simulation. It's often a case of losing the forest for the trees. So, for example, HarnMaster has pretty good mechanics for individual swings in combat, but I felt that the progress of combat as a whole still didn't match what I've read of real-world combat.
I found applying some of the house rules I mentioned other threads to be useful for HM Combat. But the biggest issue in recent versions of Harnmaster is the excessive shock rolls rolled to see you get stunned or go unconscious. So I use the shock roll math from 1e Harnmaster which makes combat more like what I read.
Quote from: jhkim;1130770I've played a fair bit of HarnMaster. I think there's a difference between a more simulationist system and more complicated mechanics, though.
Yes. I remember in high school physics I was struck by the distinction between accuracy and precision. If we say "Kyle is closer to 2m tall than 1m or 3m, and therefore is about 2m tall," this is accurate but not precise; if we say "Kyle is 1.8318484384m tall" this is precise but not accurate (I'm 1.78m). Often, precision is presented and perceived as accurate. If I give you a lot of numbers for something it tends to be more convincing than if I handwave.
However, in a game, a handwave may actually be better at simulating something. The first modern wargames between Prussian officers on game tables had no written rules at all so far as we know, but did have referees who said what could and couldn't be done, and adjudicated results. It is not reported what the officers thought of the realism of it all, but they kept doing it so it couldn't have been too awful.
Having
no written rules or charts at all and simply having the GM decide the outcome of everything might actually lead to a better simulation of whatever setting you're after than hundreds of pages of rules. Thus the old school idea, "rulings more than rules."
For myself, I don't think rules or rulings alone give the best results, but a balance of the two. That's simply because what my idea of "a good simulation" of X may not be the same as yours. But if we agree on some rules, that's a start. So we have written rules to give the baseline, and rulings to allow adjustments on the fly. Roleplaying games are in practice a common law system.
Yea, the "realism" or "simulation" label is tricky. I own (or did own, can't remember if I've sold it) Phoenix Command, but never tried to run it. I never bought Aftermath because of it's reputation.
I have run plenty of games with intricate mechanics. While I got started in RPGs with Holmes Basic, I soon migrated to Chivalry & Sorcery and worked through the magic system which is pretty intricate. RuneQuest has it's levels of intricacy though it really isn't that complex. My college friend's home brew, Cold Iron, had some intricate moving parts but it's really not THAT much more complex that RQ, it just looks scary due to some of the technical math in it (exponentials, logarithms, true normal distribution). As estar mentions, GURPS has tons of bits and bobs to sift through, and I never made it very far running it. I did try a sample combat or two with Harnmaster, but it wasn't the right system for the players I had a the time, with a different set of players I might have latched onto it (I certainly had bitten into Harn good and solid, having started subscribing from the start, now I'm almost Harnless...). Burning Wheel has different levels of complexity.
Each of those games made some kind of claim to more realism than D&D, but I'm not convinced you can't run just as realistic a game with D&D.
Probably Daredevils, which is a subset of Aftermath's rules. Traveller the New Era and GURPS are fairly simulationist.
Quote from: ffilz;1130779Each of those games made some kind of claim to more realism than D&D, but I'm not convinced you can't run just as realistic a game with D&D.
Or as realistic as anyone actually
wants in play. I don't really want to do one combat and then need six months of physiotherapy, thanks very much :)
Traveller, various editions, especially when it comes to world building, vehicle design, or spacecraft design. You can get down to the absolute nitty gritty with all of those - but those tasks are often left for the GM to do. I've had success with this kind of setting creation being a a group affair similar to character creation. It has worked well once all of the pieces are put together and while actually putting those pieces together. It definitely is not fun for everyone, mainly it appeals to techies and frustrated engineers.
I think many RPGs have like one thing that they focus on simulating in detail and the rest might, or more oft, might not get as much detail.
AD&D with all the add-ons drifts more and more into that realm while still being very abstract in other places.
Some personal favourites are...
Albedo: A very harsh combat system and lots of rules for the psycological side of the wear and tear warfare puts on ones mental stability.
Universe: Its and SPI game, what do you expect? This has still my go-to for star system generation. Just wish the planet gen had been as robust.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1130778The first modern wargames between Prussian officers on game tables had no written rules at all so far as we know, but did have referees who said what could and couldn't be done, and adjudicated results.
On a point of information, Free Kriegsspiel (no rules, all referee judgement aided by a d6) actually post-dated the complex rules-bound Kriegsspiel. Having seen Free Kriegsspiel played on TV between British army senior officers ("4-6 the infantry line holds"), I was impressed by how well it worked; I use it now for mass battles in some of my campaigns. Tends to feel much more gritty & dramatic than more crunchy systems.
Re most simulationist rules, well compared to D&D pretty much anything else. My Mini Six (D6 System) campaign may be 'cinematic fantasy' but the combat system is far more simulationist than D&D's duelling-battleships-derived approach.
Quote from: David Johansen;1130783Traveller the New Era and GURPS are fairly simulationist.
Trying to utilize TNE's
Fire, Fusion, & Steel helped me simulate being an engineer...and to this day I credit it with dissuading me from ever taking up a career path in engineering.
Chivalry & Sorcery Redbook for medeicaval melee and economics...amd also the complex magic spell and ritual creation that was built right into the magic system. Followed by the original Morrow Project, where you spent time calculating the ground effects of massive nuclear strikes, combined with uber-detailed projectile tracjectories and impact results depending on projectile design and type.
Rolemaster handwaved many of the intense calculations these early RPGs required, in favor of prepared charts instead.
What people miss about Rolemaster is that it's actually a simple system. Detailed, yes, but mechanically quite simple. It doesn't produce particularly realistic results.
Quote from: David Johansen;1130813What people miss about Rolemaster is that it's actually a simple system. Detailed, yes, but mechanically quite simple. It doesn't produce particularly realistic results.
I kinda agree with this one too. The tables have some potential, but I always houserule a lot. And it's really not that difficult, particularly not if use a calculator. But still, it can be quite fun.
A good simulationist system does not necessarily need complex rules. Just robust ones. Lots of tables do the job just fine without adding more complexity.
Quote from: Omega;1130834A good simulationist system does not necessarily need complex rules. Just robust ones. Lots of tables do the job just fine without adding more complexity.
Any examples of such games?
According to the GNS theory the most simulationist system that I have run would probably be DnD 4e.
Champions tops the list for games I've played.
Quote from: HappyDaze;1130800Trying to utilize TNE's Fire, Fusion, & Steel helped me simulate being an engineer...and to this day I credit it with dissuading me from ever taking up a career path in engineering.
That 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.
Quote from: Trond;1130839Any examples of such games?
sounds like Rolemaster to me
Rolemaster to be sure.
But Fire Fusion and Steel was okay, a bit nitpicky, I've got the TNE errata booklet with the four decimal place precision ratings for everything. The thing I always wondered is why they didn't just assign hit location slots and work out the vehicle stats from those.
GURPS Vehicles is messier and I like it too but I get annoyed by having to purchase seatbelts.
Living Steel/Phoenix Command was mine. And yes, I've actually run it; it's not so bad once you know what you're doing with it. I pointed out to my players that it has a total of one more roll than CP2020 to finalize damage, and the exact same number of functions to execute it. It's a little more unforgiving than most games, but that's the point, I thought.
Quote from: Trond;1130839Any examples of such games?
Original Albedo is one. It gets alot done with only a few rolls and tables.
Quote from: Shasarak;1130844According to the GNS theory the most simulationist system that I have run would probably be DnD 4e.
Wha?
By GNS terms (barf, puke) it would seem to be gamist more than anything?
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.
Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1130967Not 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.
Look 4e is a perfecly fine grape. :(
Quote from: David Johansen;1130975Yeah, me too, and GURPS Vehicles for that matter. Neither one of them is as bad as people say.
One of my players looooooves gurps vehicles.
These days simulationist is almost as meaningless as fascist and almost as derogatory. But any way here is a whole bunch hard to pick which Harnmaster, Runequest, Other Suns, GURPS, Twilight 2000, Aftermath, Dragonquest, The Morrow Project, Delta Force, Powers & Perils, Ringworld, Phoenix Command and Millennium's End. The one I have wanted to play/run is Freedom Fighters now that would really melt the eyeballs and trigger the usual suspects.
Here is a character sheet.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]4488[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]4489[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]4490[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]4491[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]4492[/ATTACH]
Ive heard people say a character sheet looks like a tax form before, but that one really does.
Quote from: jeff37923;1130968Funny, I was able to design ships using just pencil, paper, and calculator with Fire, Fusion, and Steel.
I bow to your greater degree of autism then. :p
Quote from: ShasarakImagine 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: S'mon;1130958I 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').
In practice, people generally use "simulationist" roughly as it is defined by the rec.games.frp.advocacy Threefold Model -- not the way that Ron Edwards later tried to redefine it.
Under the Threefold Model, it's about trying to simulate the game world as an internally consistent setting, and movie emulation would be covered under dramatism.
Quote from: jhkim;1131177In practice, people generally use "simulationist" roughly as it is defined by the rec.games.frp.advocacy Threefold Model -- not the way that Ron Edwards later tried to redefine it.
Under the Threefold Model, it's about trying to simulate the game world as an internally consistent setting, and movie emulation would be covered under dramatism.
Yeah, I know - but Shasarak was specifically referencing GNS. 4e is Dramatist under GDS I agree. While most people tend to call 4e Gamist because it "feels Gamey" with all the power cards and eschewal of world-simulation.
Quote from: Hakdov;1131093I bow to your greater degree of autism then. :p
OK, that made me chuckle. I do get pretty single-minded when I design something.
Did anyone here try the Living Steel RPG? When people mention Phoenix Command (including myself), I get the impression that there might have been a misunderstanding. Isn't PC just a supplement to Living Steel?
I stand by my contention that nobody wants a game that truly simulates reality. Because then you might have to roleplay stories like this one (https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/features/kajaki-turning-a-remarkable-afghanistan-escape-into-a-film-9866462.html).
[video=youtube;UTVKh77kiRY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTVKh77kiRY[/youtube]
Quote from: Trond;1131363Did anyone here try the Living Steel RPG? When people mention Phoenix Command (including myself), I get the impression that there might have been a misunderstanding. Isn't PC just a supplement to Living Steel?
No. If anything, it's the other way around; Living Steel's combat system is based on a simplified version of PC, using only the first set of penetration numbers (not taking into account PEN drop off for range), and adding a skill system (since PC is really just combat rules), as well as a really in-depth design and building/repairing system (shocking how those engineers got into that...).
In further answer.. yes, I've played both, and run Living Steel both in its original form, and in a different form I modified to use d20's instead of d%, because my group at the time were very much familiar with d20, and not as comfortable with d%. I enjoyed running it, and it made a lot of sense to me. In function, it's not much different from running any other game.. about the same level of complexity as Cyberpunk 2020, with the same quantity of dice rolling for the basic combat format.
Now, if you delve into the advanced PC rules.. all bets are off, but if you really want to know if your laser penetrated through the guy's spleen or his liver, it's the game for you. With the advent of computer-based dice rollers as a common accessory, the annoying large-volume rolls aren't as bad either (for instance, the d10,000 hit location tables in Advanced PC).
Quote from: Panzerkraken;1131396No. If anything, it's the other way around; Living Steel's combat system is based on a simplified version of PC, using only the first set of penetration numbers (not taking into account PEN drop off for range), and adding a skill system (since PC is really just combat rules), as well as a really in-depth design and building/repairing system (shocking how those engineers got into that...).
In further answer.. yes, I've played both, and run Living Steel both in its original form, and in a different form I modified to use d20's instead of d%, because my group at the time were very much familiar with d20, and not as comfortable with d%. I enjoyed running it, and it made a lot of sense to me. In function, it's not much different from running any other game.. about the same level of complexity as Cyberpunk 2020, with the same quantity of dice rolling for the basic combat format.
Now, if you delve into the advanced PC rules.. all bets are off, but if you really want to know if your laser penetrated through the guy's spleen or his liver, it's the game for you. With the advent of computer-based dice rollers as a common accessory, the annoying large-volume rolls aren't as bad either (for instance, the d10,000 hit location tables in Advanced PC).
Sounds cool actually. I hear that the rules are actually an interesting read. I often used a programmed calculator back in the day, so I guess I could just program it to roll a random 1-10 000 number :)
I always feel like Howard Hughes flying the Spruce Goose when I run anything that would fit this thread. ha