Agreeing and disagreeing with the Pundit

[J Arcane]

I honestly don't understand why people describe GURPS as some sort of arcane, uber-complicated, simulationist game system.

It's actually quite straightforward at its core, and becomes as complicated as you want it to be by picking and plugging various sub-systems and supplements onto your campaign.

3e was actually a pretty simple game, and presented as such, with clearly delineated options that could be picked from to make the game as simple or complex as you like.  I think a lot of people thumbed through the book once in a store, saw the optional Advanced Combat chapter and then flipped out without knowing the context.  

4e on the other hand, I think missed completely the entire point of everything behind 3e, in favor of pandering to the obsessive nerds on the SJG forums who want all those more complex options, and more besides.  So chargen got a lot more complicated, almost all the rules from Adv. Combat got rolled into the default, plus more on top of it, and just a lot of unnecessary complications across the board that, while I wouldn't say they make for a bad game, they do make the game into something more like HERO and less like GURPS3.

[jhkim]

That's funny, I don't recall it in any dictionary I've ever owned. Google doesn't have a dictionary definition for it, just a couple links to Forgie articles on John Kim's site and Wikipedia.

A clarification here for those who aren't aware.  While I am a Forgie (i.e. former participant on the Forge forums), there is a big difference between uses of the term "simulationism."  

Simulationism as a term for RPGs started in 1995 in rec.games.frp.advocacy, long before the Forge existed.  A few years later, Ron Edwards heard about the term on Gaming Outpost, and started using the term for articles on his own site, The Forge.  However, his usage came to be vastly different than how we at rgfa had used it.  

RGFA Simulationism is similar to how it sounds, in that it implies a game where players try to make the game world run according to its its own rules independent of out-of-game factors.  So GURPS is simulationist as compared to games like Theatrix or Buffy the Vampire Slayer (with explicit drama point mechanics) which are dramatist.  Ron's GNS Simulationism is quite different, and is distinguished based on whether the game addresses a premise -- a generalizable, problematic aspect of human interactions.  In his view, Theatrix is still simulationist because it prioritizes exploration within a predetermined theme rather than truly addressing a premise.  

For more details, see my article on "The Origin of the Threefold Model" on my Threefold Model page.

[LordVreeg]

And as for it's usefulness beyond, well, EVERY game system is a physics engine, it's just a matter of prioritizing what elements of reality and genre you want to model. You do the same thing in video games, where physics engines are a key part of the development, and can mean everything from detailed real world physics in a sim game like Gran Turismo, or just making rocks and boxes that can fall over in front of the PC.

Nice description and Truism. all Rolled into one...

[estar]

the SJG forums who want all those more complex options, and more besides.

GURPS lost it intro edge with the advent of 3rd edition. What throw players off coming from 3rd edition that all the tweaks they learned for that system don't work as the costs have been revamped. For teaching new players I find 4th edition way better than 3rd edition.

almost all the rules from Adv. Combat got rolled into the default,

Ah no.

Basic is pretty much it was since 2nd edition. With only major change are the dropping of PD, and the swap of ST and HT. to distinguish it from prior editions. The loss of PD simplified things quite a bit for the defense roll.

They do make the game into something more like HERO and less like GURPS3.

GURPS had issue as an intro game since advent of 3rd edition.  They should have a slimmer fantasy specific version with templates, bestiary, basic magic, and a sample adventure. They met folks partway with Dungeon Fantasy but it still doesn't help as an intro. And Dungeon Fantasy a GURPS simulation of  D&D fantasy not the lower point gritter GURPS Fantasy that most of us started with when 2nd edition was out.

[estar]

So GURPS is simulationist as compared to games like Theatrix or Buffy the Vampire Slayer (with explicit drama point mechanics) which are dramatist.  

GNS Theory fails because neither falsifiable nor it makes useful predictions. The same with the dozens of other RPG theories out there. People can't accept that like crafting a good movie, book, or play; making a good RPG  is the work of a craftsmen. We can talk about specific techniques. We can see that those who master those technique have a better chance of producing something that is consider a quality product. But in the end a "good" RPG relies on the creative spark of an individual or a team. I.e. good craftsmenship.

Without it being falsifiable we can't test it. Devoid of predictive value, the GNS theory and it's ilk detracts gamers from learning stuff that can work for them to build the game they want to play and have fun with.

In reality RPGs are swiss army knives. How they are played it up to the group. The moment a game has characters with continuity, some type of resolution system, and the other elements it capable of doing anything.

Now obviously game mechanics allow you to do certain things easier than other. It would take a lot of work to adapt Ars Magica to run a cyberpunk setting. Drama Points in Buffy doesn't preclude the game from being a monster gore fest run by the GM to allow his players to see how many thing they can kill. (Kinda of what happened to many World of Darkness games in the 90s)

 For players who care about having dramatic elements in their game the mechanic is a nice touch for them. A way to reward a good roleplaying moment.

[jswa]

That's okay, he'll still leave the money on your dresser when he's done.

This is why I keep reading theRPGsite

[RPGPundit]

I agree that GNS "simulationism" is utter bollocks.  However, I do think the word is still useful in its dictionary-meaning sense.  Some games do seem to focus on, well, modeling reality as a core of their system more than others.  I'd hate to concede to the Forgies such useful bits of English.

There are two words, neither of them "Forge" words, that do a better job of describing the two SEPARATE phenomena that Edwards lumps into "simulationism" as a way to discount 99% of how gamers actually play.

One, the "bad" one, is "Realism"; ie. where games claim to be trying to go out of their way to have "realistic" combat, or "realistic" vehicle rules or whatever, and usually end up fucking things up royally.

The other one, the "good" one, is Emulation. Where you are trying to make an RPG or campaign emulate a genre.  This is something good that most gamers enjoy. The Forge sees this (along with immersion, which they suggest is either impossible or a mental illness) as nothing more than a barrier to "creating story".

RPGPundit

[RPGPundit]

What happens then, when the word simulationism is loaded because of its connection to a manifesto based "theory" yet no other word describes the concept as well.

Fortunately, that's not true. Its actually a godawful way of describing something meant to force control of language to make it something derogatory ("you want your Star Wars game to be like Star Wars? You care about setting? Then you're just a simulationist obsessed with being "realistic" trying to achieve something impossible!").

RPGPundit

[J Arcane]

Ah no.

Basic is pretty much it was since 2nd edition. With only major change are the dropping of PD, and the swap of ST and HT. to distinguish it from prior editions. The loss of PD simplified things quite a bit for the defense roll.

I'm sorry, we must've read completely different 4th Editions, because the one I owned and read almost every word of didn't even HAVE a "Basic/Advanced" split, in fact, the only part of the combat system seperated out from the main chapter were the brief bits about running it with a battlemap, which was hardly the complicated part of 3e Adv.

Everything was rolled right into the core, under the banner of a single Combat chapter, along with a lot of pointless shit like the ridiculous number of new damage types.  None of it was presented as optional, simply written up as "this is the combat system".

When you add to that the extension of the kludgy effects-based approach to chargen that is essentially forced if you wish to use many of the advantages, it produces a product that is very much not like the modular toolkit wrapped around a simple core that 3e was, and very much more like games like HERO.  

As for the rest of your post, I came in with 3rd Edition, and I never had a problem understanding it, despite it being one of my first games, nor has anyone I've ever talked to or played with or ran it for who actually read it instead of seeing the Adv. Combat chapter and freaking out.  Maybe 2e was easier, maybe not, but the whole argument seems like a smokescreen to keep from addressing the differences between 3e and 4e by implying they're the same by comparison to an edition no one plays.

[estar]

I'm sorry, we must've read completely different 4th Editions, because the one I owned and read almost every word of didn't even HAVE a "Basic/Advanced" split, in fact,

My bad Combat, Tactical, Special Combat Situations, Injuries Illness & Fatique.

However if you compare what they write could it follows nearly the same flow as the original.

The major change coming around Page 377 where the Injury chapter is expanded. Instead of referring to the full Injury chapter like in 3trd edition they give you a subset of the rules to digest first.

Instead of splitting the maneuvers information they consolidated where they first talk about it.

Yes they dont' make the Basic & Advanced distinction but if just use the Combat then you have what the 3rd edition covered with less page flipping.

the only part of the combat system seperated out from the main chapter were the brief bits about running it with a battlemap, which was hardly the complicated part of 3e Adv.

I would not call 8 pages exactly brief. And then there is the 25 pages of Special Combat situations which you can ignore followed by the 23 pages on Injuries, Illness and Fatique which also be ignored since it covered by pages 377 to 380 Damage and Injury

Everything was rolled right into the core, under the banner of a single Combat chapter, along with a lot of pointless shit like the ridiculous number of new damage types.  None of it was presented as optional, simply written up as "this is the combat system".

People were not complaining about damage types. Newcomers were complaining about the confusing array of effects in the genre books. Complaining that when they read about damage in 3rd edition paragraph 2 told them to jump to read page 72 which lead to reading 73 to 76. Then in the last paragraph is told you to jump to page 126 which is the chapter on illness and 9 pages long.

The 4th edition organization is much more straight forward and allow you to run some combat by page 384 without having to jump to other sections.

When you add to that the extension of the kludgy effects-based approach to chargen that is essentially forced if you wish to use many of the advantages,

The package you used to run fantasy or space remained the same. Psionics, Supers and the stuff that GURPS was weak on got better rules. The 3rd edition subsystems were kludgly and didn't offer much flexibility.

Maybe 2e was easier, maybe not, but the whole argument seems like a smokescreen to keep from addressing the differences between 3e and 4e by implying they're the same by comparison to an edition no one plays.

I have recruit GURPS novices all the time to run my games. Not exactly a popular system in Northwest PA. GURPS 4th edition is way easier to teach than 3rd ever was. As for the reference to 2nd edition the reason it worked because for character generation there were way less choices and most were oriented toward fantasy. This was a big help in recruiting D&D players which is where the lion share of new GURPS players come from.

With 3rd edition GURPS became more generic and I was no longer able to hand them the rulebook and have the players be able to make fantasy characters from it. I had to make cheat sheet listing the package of advantages, disadvantages, and skills.

The effect is that for many GURPS became more impenetrable.  I agree is suffer the problem that HERO does in that the diversity of choices is a barrier to player. Where we disagree is in 3rd edition. You may not have had difficulty I know plenty who had. I have nearly two dozen players tell me "Rob, GURPS is really fun, but if you hadn't taught it to me I would have never played it."


Neither edition is ideal but if I had to pick which of the two to teach a novice GURPS, fourth edition wins hands down.

Also I don't think 2nd Edition was the ideal edition. With 3rd edition and now 4th edition SJ Games made some good improvement to the GURPS system. But to keep the flow of new players into GURPS we need something that more approachable which is why I advocated a complete ready to run book for each of the major genres: Fantasy, Space, and Horror. They would oriented to the assumptions of the most popular RPG in each category D&D, Traveller, and Call of Cthulu.

[thecasualoblivion]

I honestly don't understand why people describe GURPS as some sort of arcane, uber-complicated, simulationist game system.

It's actually quite straightforward at its core, and becomes as complicated as you want it to be by picking and plugging various sub-systems and supplements onto your campaign.

Mostly because its played by arcane, uber-complicated, simulationist sorts of people. GURPS may be straightforward at its core, but I've never seen it played that way.

[Benoist]

Mostly because its played by arcane, uber-complicated, simulationist sorts of people. GURPS may be straightforward at its core, but I've never seen it played that way.

Weird. Why do you think that is?

[Thanlis]

Weird. Why do you think that is?

One sees what one expects to see.

I mean, there's something about the hyper-researched sourcebooks, but it's not like that's all SJG did. Do I have copies of Ken Hite's GURPS Cabal, his Alternate Earths, and GURPS Fantasy II? Yes I do.

[estar]

Mostly because its played by arcane, uber-complicated, simulationist sorts of people. GURPS may be straightforward at its core, but I've never seen it played that way.

It played by severval types of people. The main types are either those who like more realism in their game that is playable and those who like to really customize their characters.

If you want to play with most of the options it take a GM that knows what he is doing to make sure that novices to have a good time.

[VectorSigma]

My I'm-not-a-linguist-but-I-have-an-opinion answer is the consensus meaning of a term changes according to how folks in a community use it.  It just takes time.

My I-am-a-linguist answer is Jeffrey's right on that.

The question remains, though, do we want to waste time arguing meanings while we wait for a new consensus definition to arise.

Plenty of real-English words are useful in this discussion, and I agree we shouldn't abandon them.  Pro-tip: when using a word that ends in '-ism'/'-ist', see if you can reword your sentence so there's no -ism.  "I want a game with strong simulationist goals!" will get eyebrows raised around here.  "I want a game that makes it easy to simulate a real firefight (or whatever)" might not.  I say we turn the nouns back into the verbs from whence they came.