In CRPGs, simulation IS the DM, and CRPGs are adventure sims

[Ol' Willy]

And in the PnP context, the even more limited capabilities of some friends, drunk, spending a few hours in a virtual fantasy world.

Brain, pen, piece of paper and calculator are hardware too

But calculating penetration of steel arrow from 50m against 2mm steel plate at 25 degree angle is not particularly fun, so ranged attack 8 vs ranged defense 6 and some dice roll for RNG is just simpler and more fun

 

[Serus]

Will this thread finally answer the ultimate question: what is... better, boobplate, boobchain, or unarmored boobs, in a crpg?. I'm holding my breath.

 

[Butter]

Will this thread finally answer the ultimate question: what is... better, boobplate, boobchain, or unarmored boobs, in a crpg?. I'm holding my breath.

Chainmail with boob holes.

 

[luj1]

RPGs are abstractions, nots simulations. Everything from the armor system, movement, skill checks, combat...all abstractions. And it is exactly as it should be. They shouldn't try to be simulations.

Abstraction is the substitute for actual simulation due to the limited capabilities of hardware and/or software

And thank God for technical limitations

 

[Nortar]

Will this thread finally answer the ultimate question: what is... better, boobplate, boobchain, or unarmored boobs, in a crpg?. I'm holding my breath.

Anyone familiar with D&D knows that the answer depends on Dex.

 

[Twiglard]

Just because something's abstract doesn't mean it can't be a simulation. It can be a simulation to a certain grain (because it has to be relatively quick and easy to calculate in a social context with some friends, for example).

But a computer can do it to a finer grain, to the point that, in a CRPG context

Are you interested in a system where physics and chemistry of the game world are represented more accurately than before?

Well, the same as other aspects of the world, a certain degree of abstraction (e.g. you could model and quantify them as having attributes, roles in the world, goals, etc.).

Are you interested in a scenario where AI is simulated using symbolic logic (i.e. classical AI approach), or want to discuss search, deduction, agents and goals?

Or maybe you're interested in formalizing the gameworld's rules and reasoning about said rules?

I don't know how to bite it. My personal approach is having a finite amount of steps to when ideas can be turned into something cool and concrete.

 

[gurugeorge]

Just because something's abstract doesn't mean it can't be a simulation. It can be a simulation to a certain grain (because it has to be relatively quick and easy to calculate in a social context with some friends, for example).

But a computer can do it to a finer grain, to the point that, in a CRPG context

Are you interested in a system where physics and chemistry of the game world are represented more accurately than before?

Well, the same as other aspects of the world, a certain degree of abstraction (e.g. you could model and quantify them as having attributes, roles in the world, goals, etc.).

Are you interested in a scenario where AI is simulated using symbolic logic (i.e. classical AI approach), or want to discuss search, deduction, agents and goals?

Or maybe you're interested in formalizing the gameworld's rules and reasoning about said rules?

I don't know how to bite it. My personal approach is having a finite amount of steps to when ideas can be turned into something cool and concrete.

In order to retain the balance between game, simulation and story, when it comes to the game side of it, the system has to be simple/abstract enough for the context. The tabletop context (people meeting socially and having a few hours of fun) demands a certain kind of abstraction and simplicity, and while the mechanics of a CRPG can afford to be a bit more complex than that, they still can't be too mind-numbingly complex.

That's why I think in a CRPG most of the complexity of simulation that the computer is capable of should be embedded in the world-reactivity and immersive sim elements - i.e. the virtual world should behave much as you'd expect the real world to behave when you probe it in a given way. But there still has to be a level of simplicity there (e.g. the game must have its own stylized way of presenting cues, so the player can easily latch on to the possible options available in a given scenario - e.g. so they can recognize fairly quickly what the stealth option vs. the brute force option vs the clever use of physics option is for a given scenario), and some aspects of the mechanics still have to be abstracted and exposed for pondering (especially those elements that are not "what you'd expect from the real world," e.g. magic rules, or not what you're really familiar with from the real world, like melee or ranged combat rules, or rules about lockpicking or whatever).

 

[Serus]

Will this thread finally answer the ultimate question: what is... better, boobplate, boobchain, or unarmored boobs, in a crpg?. I'm holding my breath.

Anyone familiar with D&D knows that the answer depends on Dex.

You surely meant "depends on boobs size".

 

[Nortar]

Will this thread finally answer the ultimate question: what is... better, boobplate, boobchain, or unarmored boobs, in a crpg?. I'm holding my breath.

Anyone familiar with D&D knows that the answer depends on Dex.

You surely meant "depends on boobs size".

Hm, there probably can be some inverse correlation between boobs size and Dexterity.
As the ledends say, amazonian archer-girls even used to cut off their right tit so it won't interfere with shooting arrows, in D&D term - to get Dex bonus.

 

[roguefrog]

Abstraction is the substitute for actual simulation due to the limited capabilities of hardware and/or software

Not really anymore.

We already have the technology to make simulations with computer games. I'd argue the more an RPG leans towards simulation, the less of an RPG it becomes, because it's trying to simulate something instead of being a game, with its own rules. You can see this trend in Bethesda games from Morrowind to Fallout 4 actually. This isn't all or nothing in CRPGs though. But an RPG does intentional use abstract rules over simulation for player character skill expression, which is at the very core of what it is.

 

[gurugeorge]

Abstraction is the substitute for actual simulation due to the limited capabilities of hardware and/or software

Not really anymore.

We already have the technology to make simulations with computer games. I'd argue the more an RPG leans towards simulation, the less of an RPG it becomes, because it's trying to simulate something instead of being a game, with its own rules. You can see this trend in Bethesda games from Morrowind to Fallout 4 actually. This isn't all or nothing in CRPGs though. But an RPG does intentional use abstract rules over simulation for player character skill expression, which is at the very core of what it is.

A simulation is something "with its own rules." The logic of rules in an RPG (including the logic of character skills) derives from its nature as a simulation (albeit in the tabletop and CRPG context, variously abstracted and simplified simulation).

Even the game aspect does, because everything about the game that's related to contention and challenge, the use of intelligence to solve problems, or the possibility of winning or losing, is derived from the simulated world being a hard reality that the player (character) bumps up against.

Again, as with the analogy of alternative geometries and number systems, there are a bazillion possible rule systems out there in possibility space, and many of them are turned into games, but only one subset of those possible rule systems - those that describe, more or less abstractly, more or less explicitly or simply, a virtual world in which the player plays a role in that virtual world, are properly called "RPGs" or "CRPGs." Everything either gamey or story-like derives (or I should say, is best derived) from that, not the other way round.

 

[BlackAdderBG]

RPGs are abstractions, nots simulations. Everything from the armor system, movement, skill checks, combat...all abstractions. And it is exactly as it should be. They shouldn't try to be simulations.

For example, in a D20 system my armor class is 20 and you have to roll a 1D20 to hit fool. That's pure abstract mechanics. The same system has rolling 1 as always a critical failure even if you have enough bonuses to still hit and 20 always hits even if their AC is 5000. This doesn't work in a simulation, which would try to mock real laws of physics to be as close to realism as possible. RPGs don't work that way obviously because they use abstract systems AKA rules.

This is wrong on every level. For starter simulations are abstractions by design. How you simulate these abstractions or present them in games is another question. In the context of gaming simulations and abstractions are synonymous or even interchangeable. I suspect you ascribe very different meaning to simulations in this quote.

 

[roguefrog]

Yeah, I'm making a distinction. Try to thread the needle instead of just essentially arguing simulations = abstractions. Because they're the exact same!

To spell it out, it's the difference between just hitting a guy with a sword using Newtonian physics versus rolling to hit a guy with a sword, then applying a strength modifier, based on an completely made up abstract ruleset of character stats using arbitrary rules.

 

[BlackAdderBG]

Yes. Use your words. At least try to thread the fucking needle my dude instead of just essentially arguing simulations = abstractions in my post. Let's be boring.

To spell it out, it's the difference between just hitting a guy with a sword using Newtonian physics versus rolling to hit a guy with a sword, then applying a strength modifier, based on an abstract ruleset of character stats. This is the distinction I'm making, and CRPGs do straddle this line. Leaning more towards simulation versus abstraction.

Risking to sound annoying Newtonian physics technically are abstractions, but that would be a bad faith argument on my part. What I'm telling you is that there is no distinction between your two examples in the context of gaming, they are both simulations, just with different parameters. Your point boils down to just a technicality or you conflate what the OP is talking about when using the term simulation/sim. For a game to be Role Playing one you don't need abstraction in the sense of using terms and systems that are not real or use real life measurements to represent a game system or mechanic, because you can make such game using them as Ol'Willy pointed out couple a posts back. What I suspect you are talking about is Realism sims in opposition to abstractions. This is where I disagree, RPGs can be made without abstracting their systems, but can't be made without simulating said systems. You must simulate a combat encounter, but it's not imperative that you abstract it.

 

[Stormcrowfleet]

I think it's important to consider the fact that in TTRPG, the simulation by the Referee isn't total and it's based upon his good will. The DM never (or actually I never saw/did this) simulate everything: at some point, he'll just hand wave this or that, or straight tell the player to stop messing around. You could argue that it's just a different form of simulation or abstraction, but I think it's more. This might sound stupid to point out, but it's something really critical I think: the simulation of the TTRPG has a human agent. This human agency changes everything from the context of the simulation to its limit and abstractions. This is not just a practical concern ("the DM can adapt, the video game can't"), but a foundamental (substantial) difference. What I'm trying to say is that the simulation is already subordinate to some kind of idea of the game or the social contract between players at the table.

Also, I don't think we can really have this kind of discussion without pointing out the fact that RPGs come from Braunstein, a free-acting kind of RPG with roles 'simulating' a town; and Chainmail, a fantasy wargaming. D&D was meant to be a mix of both to do one thing: "rules for fantastic medieval wargames campaigns".

This discussion has been had many times. Not only that, but talking about this without having played both TTRPG and CRPG is kind of difficult. It's not like you can do a PhD in RPG studies in order to get to know it without never playing it.

 

[BlackAdderBG]

This might sound stupid to point out, but it's something really critical I think: the simulation of the TTRPG has a human agent. This human agency changes everything from the context of the simulation to its limit and abstractions. This is not just a practical concern ("the DM can adapt, the video game can't"), but a foundamental (substantial) difference. What I'm trying to say is that the simulation is already subordinate to some kind of idea of the game or the social contract between players at the table.

This my be a personal flaw, but for me the more people playing the tabletop game go away from the pre-established rules the worse the experience of playing the game is. Less lollygagging more roleplaying, please.

 

[roguefrog]

point boils down to just a technicality

Well, think of it as the difference between a projectile having to travel between point A and B including all the inherent obstacles there-in and...instant velocity weapons. Their affect is applied immediately.

This is how I am defining sim vs abstract.

 

[BlackAdderBG]

point boils down to just a technicality

Well, think of it as the difference between a projectile having to travel between point A and B including all the inherent obstacles there-in and...instant velocity weapons. Their affect is applied immediately.

This is how I am defining sim vs abstract.

For that case I would use the term action, not sim and would agree that RPGs can't be action games.

 

[gurugeorge]

The precursor wargames were also simulations and roleplaying games. Think of it this way: if you're playing Guderian or Alexander or whatever in a campaign, if it weren't a simulation, then there would be no meaning to the idea of "what if it happened differently, what if Alexander had done this instead, how would it have turned out?" For different outcomes to be possible, the thing you're acting and making choices "inside of" (so to speak) has to be the simulation of a world with its own rigid natural laws and rules.

I think some people are mixing up simulation with the "sim" genre. Like say a flight sim - a flight sim is not definitionally an RPG, for you are not (at least not typically - it's possible you might get immersed enough) playing a pilot in the virtual world, typically you're playing as yourself flying a virtual plane in a videogame, and even if there are gamey elements (like moving up a notional professional ladder) that will typically be just you the player "beating the game," it's a meta stance, not an immersed stance. (I know this goes a bit against the thread title I made, but it was kind of throwaway.)

It comes down to this: for roleplaying to be possible at all, it has to be roleplaying within a simulated, virtual/counterfactual world. You can't just "pretend to be a character" tout court, you can pretend to be a character only in a virtual world, with its own funny little ways. It's like two halves of a split boiled egg, each matches perfectly the other.

 

[PorkyThePaladin]

To the OP, you are thinking in the right direction, but you are not going far enough. What are video games really?

A lot of people get caught up on the relics of the past when thinking about this, and games, being inherently complex, can be a lot of things to different people. So games can be arcade games (personal challenges where you try to beat something, be it a boss, or your previous high score), I happen to think From Software games fit into this mold recently, or they can be replacements for traditional sports (e-sports, League of Legend, Counter Strike, etc), or they can be time wasters for adults, or they can be puzzlers for the intellectuals, or they can be C&C toys, or they can be dungeon crawlers for the autistically minded, and other things.

But all of these things can be done in other media/venues. You can play chess for challenge, or play basketball outside, or some wargame/PnP game with your nerd buddies. What can video games let you do that nothing else can?

They are the ultimate form of escapism, letting the player experience an alternate form of reality (in a much deeper way potentially than books, movies, etc). They are like a simpler version of the universe itself (which is itself likely a video game-like simulation), letting conscious beings experience things beyond their current life limitations (e.g. some programmer nerd or construction worker can be an Emperor or a Wizard or a medieval knight or whatever else).

So yeah, ultimately simulation is the only thing that matters in terms of achieving this highest holy grail of gaming, because it can create everything else. This is why Dwarf Fotress, given another 30 years of development if things go well, should be the greatest game ever made at some point. Great combat and exploration can emerge organically from a deep enough simulation. And to answer your musings about the place of narrative, a deep enough simulation can cover that too. The goal of DF, for example, is to eventually procedurally generate random equivalents of Lord of the Rings or Game of Thrones. But until then, a good human made narrative can help bring the world to life. For example, the Witcher games don't have the greatest gameplay and they are not very deep on simulation, but the great writing/characters/quests make the world feel like a place you want to get immersed in, while Larian games, full of simulation though they might be, have such vomit inducing writing that it ruins any wish for a normal person to be lost in them.

 

[gurugeorge]

To the OP, you are thinking in the right direction, but you are not going far enough. What are video games really?

A lot of people get caught up on the relics of the past when thinking about this, and games, being inherently complex, can be a lot of things to different people. So games can be arcade games (personal challenges where you try to beat something, be it a boss, or your previous high score), I happen to think From Software games fit into this mold recently, or they can be replacements for traditional sports (e-sports, League of Legend, Counter Strike, etc), or they can be time wasters for adults, or they can be puzzlers for the intellectuals, or they can be C&C toys, or they can be dungeon crawlers for the autistically minded, and other things.

But all of these things can be done in other media/venues. You can play chess for challenge, or play basketball outside, or some wargame/PnP game with your nerd buddies. What can video games let you do that nothing else can?

They are the ultimate form of escapism, letting the player experience an alternate form of reality (in a much deeper way potentially than books, movies, etc). They are like a simpler version of the universe itself (which is itself likely a video game-like simulation), letting conscious beings experience things beyond their current life limitations (e.g. some programmer nerd or construction worker can be an Emperor or a Wizard or a medieval knight or whatever else).

So yeah, ultimately simulation is the only thing that matters in terms of achieving this highest holy grail of gaming, because it can create everything else. This is why Dwarf Fotress, given another 30 years of development if things go well, should be the greatest game ever made at some point. Great combat and exploration can emerge organically from a deep enough simulation. And to answer your musings about the place of narrative, a deep enough simulation can cover that too. The goal of DF, for example, is to eventually procedurally generate random equivalents of Lord of the Rings or Game of Thrones. But until then, a good human made narrative can help bring the world to life. For example, the Witcher games don't have the greatest gameplay and they are not very deep on simulation, but the great writing/characters/quests make the world feel like a place you want to get immersed in, while Larian games, full of simulation though they might be, have such vomit inducing writing that it ruins any wish for a normal person to be lost in them.

So I take it you like a bit of Dwarf Fortress with your Dwarf Fortress?

 

[Stormcrowfleet]

This might sound stupid to point out, but it's something really critical I think: the simulation of the TTRPG has a human agent. This human agency changes everything from the context of the simulation to its limit and abstractions. This is not just a practical concern ("the DM can adapt, the video game can't"), but a foundamental (substantial) difference. What I'm trying to say is that the simulation is already subordinate to some kind of idea of the game or the social contract between players at the table.

This my be a personal flaw, but for me the more people playing the tabletop game go away from the pre-established rules the worse the experience of playing the game is. Less lollygagging more roleplaying, please.

I'm not sure I get what you mean. Do you imply that the Referee having the capacity to handwave some parts of the game is more lollygagging? If so, I guess I miscommunicated. Let's say we play OD&D, and your level 8 Superhero is bound in chains, with a strength score of 18. Nothing in the book says nothing about breaking free. But if you'd ask 'me', I'd say : "Sure, you are a superhero with high Str, you can clearly break these chains like Samson or Hercules". This is what I mean. For me, less rules mean space for moving forward in the adventure rapidly. Rules are still important as a common frame, but for me they are there as a foundation, not as a legalistic code. So in that case, for me, it means more roleplaying and less lollygagging if the Referee makes call on the fly to move things forward instead of looking at 3 different pages in a 360 pages rulebook to see how you can do grappling etc.

 

[BlackAdderBG]

This might sound stupid to point out, but it's something really critical I think: the simulation of the TTRPG has a human agent. This human agency changes everything from the context of the simulation to its limit and abstractions. This is not just a practical concern ("the DM can adapt, the video game can't"), but a foundamental (substantial) difference. What I'm trying to say is that the simulation is already subordinate to some kind of idea of the game or the social contract between players at the table.

This my be a personal flaw, but for me the more people playing the tabletop game go away from the pre-established rules the worse the experience of playing the game is. Less lollygagging more roleplaying, please.

I'm not sure I get what you mean. Do you imply that the Referee having the capacity to handwave some parts of the game is more lollygagging? If so, I guess I miscommunicated. Let's say we play OD&D, and your level 8 Superhero is bound in chains, with a strength score of 18. Nothing in the book says nothing about breaking free. But if you'd ask 'me', I'd say : "Sure, you are a superhero with high Str, you can clearly break these chains like Samson or Hercules". This is what I mean. For me, less rules mean space for moving forward in the adventure rapidly. Rules are still important as a common frame, but for me they are there as a foundation, not as a legalistic code. So in that case, for me, it means more roleplaying and less lollygagging if the Referee makes call on the fly to move things forward instead of looking at 3 different pages in a 360 pages rulebook to see how you can do grappling etc.

Depends. Your scenario can be presented as strictly adhering to the rules of the game even if there are no specific written ones. I would say that if the DM just let the player get free from the chains on the fact he has 18 strength is more or less lollygagging. But if he or the player sets a scenario with couple of checks to free himself it would be roleplaying. I'm not very familiar with original D&D, but let sat the fallowing scenario to paint my point- "Player: I roll for Perception (or whatever is it for OD&D) to observe the chains. DM: You see the chains are old and have cracks on them. Player: I roll for Strength to break them."

 

[Stormcrowfleet]

(There is no "Perception" check in OD&D.) I think we have a different definition of both lollygaggin and roleplaying. For me, it'd be: "Referee: You are now bound in old, rusty and cracked chains and let in your cell while the guards are gone. What do you do? Player: Hey, can I break these chains as a Superhero with 18 Str? Referee: Yeah sure". Having more checks and rolls for me is not roleplaying; if anything, it's lollygagging because it's self-evident stuff. I prefer to give information and let the player do something with it or not.

I don't think breaking these chains is lollygagging because it's just implied in the fiction that a superhero can do superheroic thing. Trying to write down every single thing a character can do lead to many stupid situations or an overabundance of small rules trying to cover every and all cases. If there is no risk of failure and/or if it's moving the adventure forward, while at the same time being credible in the fictional world, why not go with it? As long as it's consistent with the Referee's previous rulings and the game rules, I think it's just better to go forward.

Anyway, I guess it's a bit offtrack. I'm not criticizing your way of seeing it btw, it's just not how I do it, nor a bunch of DM with which I played and bunch of other people I've seen on the net (generally around the OSR movement, old school RPGs, etc.).

 

[General Disarray]

RPGs are abstractions, nots simulations. Everything from the armor system, movement, skill checks, combat...all abstractions. And it is exactly as it should be. They shouldn't try to be simulations.

For example, in a D20 system my armor class is 20 and you have to roll a 1D20 to hit fool. That's pure abstract mechanics. The same system has rolling 1 as always a critical failure even if you have enough bonuses to still hit and 20 always hits even if their AC is 5000. This doesn't work in a simulation, which would try to mock real laws of physics to be as close to realism as possible. RPGs don't work that way obviously because they use abstract systems AKA rules.

Wouldn't that make looter shooters the ultimate rpgs? Games where they truly have abstracted all gameplay values to symbolic values?

You may not like it, but looters shooters are what peak rpgs look like!