Burning Wheel and Simulationism

[wanderer]

BW is NOT SIM. If every single action counts toward advancement, the game breaks. Only crucial moments count for advancement.

First caveat: I don't ascribe to the Big Model theory of roleplaying games.

Second caveat: Of the three Creative Agendas, Simulationism is the one I understand the least.

My first response to Luke's above statement was to question why counting every roll toward advancement would be indicative of Simulationist play. I can't even decide if a system that was more-Sim would have more- or less-involved rules for tracking skill advancement.

Lately, I have been thinking about Simulationism because I've been trying to critique some recent Dungeons & Dragons 4th Edition sessions in which I have played. In 4th Edition, the environment no longer opposes the characters. Things like tracking a monster through the wilderness or having to forage for food have given way to other focuses. Certain skills, like those for crafts and professions, are absent. Persistent conditions, like disease and even hit-point loss, have been minimized. As I would not characterize these removed elements as Narrativist, I have to categorize them as Simulationist (most would agree the new D&D exemplifies focused Gamist design).

I see Burning Wheel as containing many of these "Simulationist" elements. A broad range of skills, painful wound recovery rules, Get a Job!, the lifepaths: all of these indicate to me a kind of Sim-focused experience. Even BITs, which direct character behavior, could be understood as Simulationist (although, I could be misconstruing Simulationist as referring to a kind of simulation).

In this post, Thor points out some ways in which Burning Wheel is not Simulationist. On the forum, Luke says all the time that Burning Wheel should revolve around what the players find interesting, rather than--as some games do--trying to embody characters who have disparate interests from the players. A person in the Burning Wheel world likely would choose to stay home where it's safe rather than go out on an adventure or risk her life challenging the status quo. But that makes for a poor RPG session. This engagement of the player seems to be a hallmark of why Burning Wheel is not a Simulationist roleplaying game.

I'm not offering any answers here, but I am curious to get other people's opinions on this topic. I believe the transparency of Burning Wheel's mechanics also strongly contribute to it not being a Simulationist game. Anyone care to offer an opinion on the subject? Do people feel Burning Wheel pushes a Creative Agenda? If so, why? Has anyone had success with Simulationist Burning-Wheel play or is this antithetical to the design? I'm hoping to use this thread to better understand what people mean when they talk about Simulationism.

(I put this in Practicals but if this discussion is better suited to another sub-forum please move the thread.)

[Aramis]

One of the key things is that, while BW/BE generate lots of verisimilitude, they don't do so by detailed rules for all conditions, but by generic rules with room to tie them to what you know.

In simulationist games, rules tend to accumulate for special situations. Check out anything by Tri-Tac for examples of this effect.

But, whether they realize it or not, the Fight mechanics can be played very simulationist... and because of the time scale, it's very much the same scale as most simulationist games use: 1 action, 1 swing.

I've had to fight for my life more than once... and fight works well at capturing the mechanics of a fight. Adding more detailed weapons lists, special case rules for certain weapons, and such, and you can easily "simulationize" Fight.

The thing is, every game is, to some degree, a simulation. if it doesn't simulate to some significant degree, it's an abstract. And roleplaying and abstract gaming are very different beasts. And, within that field of roleplaying, it is generally acknowledged that there are three "poles": Gamism, Narrativism, and Simulationism; they are at the points of a triangle...

What BW doesn't do is revel in simulation. It has just enough to support the stories, and no so much as to dominate the rules with "reality rules" in an effort to make the simulation exactly like real life. It stops at "good enough for verisimiltude."

Coupled with the advice to play the system, and the way the system is heavily story driven, this indicates both gamist and narrativist leanings... but it's still in the middle of the triangle, not out on the edge. The closest corner would be narrativism, but it's not firmly in that corner.

But in providing rules, Luke has written rules that don't contradict reality much, and combat rules that feel very much like reality. Further, they are just vague enough to allow GM's and players to fill in the details to match their own knowledge level.

Which can make Fight! very simulation-like in use. But it isn't intended as one.

Oh, and D&D is not, and never has been, simulationism... gamism, yes...

[Berandor]

I normally think of BW as havin simulationist trappings that come up especially in character creation (lifepaths), but that mostly only serve as the foundation of the game and get sort of left behind in play.

Aside from lifepaths, skills are what strikes me a the biggest simulationist aspect of the game: just look at the detailed rules for treating a wound with different skills. Still, game play doesn't revolve around simulating a realistic world, but around generating bangs.

It's a mixed bag, BW is, with Gamism coming in a distant third for me.

[luke]

Let's not use theory or jargon. Burning Wheel is not a simulation of life in medieval times. In said simulation, the performance of the character would indicate constant improvement, regardless of the task. There are no actions important to the story in a simulation. Everything has equal weight, any story that results is an accident of the actions of the character.

[naetuir]

So, Luke, the theory you're going with for a "simulation," is that everything has to have scientific rules and not care about the story whatsoever? That sounds more like playing Half-Life 2 (with all it's great physics and whatnot) than playing a roleplaying game. Because it's not possible to achieve that ideal (nor would many/any want to, that'd be a ridiculous number of rules/rolls).

I disagree with your definition of simulation. And so does dictionary.com.

Imitating a story is as much a simulation as trying to imitate the physics of a world. Not to mention, the second definition of it is pretending/acting. That sounds like a basis for a story to me.

Anyways, not trying to pick a fight here, I just wanted to say that I happily believe I'm playing a simulationist game every time I play BW. I'm simulating a story, not a set of laws of physics.

Update: I also think it's important to say this because people like myself might be scared away from BW if they heard it was not a "simulation". To me, that means it's gamist (if it's not simulationist). Which means it's like D&D. Which it's not.

[luke]

I'm happy you play BW, you can call it whatever you want.

[Thor]

::sigh::

Luke (and Daniel) is using a very specific definition of Simulationism that applies to game design, as one of three Creative Agendas, one small element of the Big Model.

Commitment to the imagined events of play, specifically their in-game causes and pre-established thematic elements. One of the three currently-recognized Creative Agendas. As a top priority for role-playing, the defining feature of Simulationist play. See Simulationism: the Right to Dream.

If you really want to go down the rabbit hole, you can read a whole essay on it.

To get really technical, creative agendas don't really apply to games. They instead apply to the aggregate aesthetic priorities of a group of players. However, we accept that certain games do facilitate certain creative agendas better than others.

However, rather than getting into all of that, we can boil the thought on creative agenda down to a handful of ideas:

1. Different people get fun from role playing games in different ways.

2. There are at least three readily identifiable priorities for getting fun in RPGs: the challenge of the game (i.e., gamism), addressing the premise/theme (narrativism), and experiencing the world/setting/story/character with versimilitude (simulationism).

3. Assuming your group is functional, you're going to naturally put one of those priorities ahead of the others. By which I mean that when two or more elements come into conflict, the most satisfying outcome for your group will be an outcome that preferences your priority.

With that in mind, consider what it is that Burning Wheel preferences. I'll give you a hint: It's not about making it feel just like that story you just read. It's not about experiencing the psychological processes of your character. It's not about making sure that the setting has verisimilitude.

All those things may happen in the course of play. But what it all comes down to--what every rule and process in Burning Wheel exists to do, whether you see it or not--is to ask the question: "Do you really believe that?"

The moment you say, "fuck it, I don't care what happens, it's a Belief," or "I know it's a Belief, but that obstacle is too high!" or "He did what?! Fuck him. I'm changing this Belief!" Well, then you are addressing premise.

[wanderer]

Let's not use theory or jargon. Burning Wheel is not a simulation of life in medieval times. In said simulation, the performance of the character would indicate constant improvement, regardless of the task. There are no actions important to the story in a simulation. Everything has equal weight, any story that results is an accident of the actions of the character.

Luke, did I misread the post I quoted originally? Did you mean "Burning Wheel is not simulation," rather than "Burning Wheel is not Simulationist?"

I'm catching up on the other posts in this thread. Thanks all for chiming in thus far.

[Paul B]

Simulationism =/= "a simulation". It's about getting outside material "right" -- genre conventions, licensed material, the real world, whatever. I think there's some material in BW that heads that direction, but I've never gotten the sense from actually playing BW that the game's pushing me to run a game "like Tolkien" or "like Herbert" or whatever. Personally I think BW runs most "like A Game of Thrones," but only because both BW and Martin are hooking into the same fundamentals of good storytelling: conflicted characters, passion-driven action, action arising out of complications, etc.

I'm no great fan of pigeonholing people or games into creative agendas, but if I was held at gunpoint and forced to choose what agendas BW best supported, I'm not sure I'd know how to answer. There's a ton of stealth-nar stuff in the game (ie it's great at addressing premise without being self-conscious about it), there is of course a metric buttload of game in the game, you can really tap into lots of simmy goodness via lifepaths and carefully guided Beliefs...

Hell, it's just a very well-rounded RPG. I think any player can dig into any agenda they want along the way.

p.

[Thor]

Lately, I have been thinking about Simulationism because I've been trying to critique some recent Dungeons & Dragons 4th Edition sessions in which I have played. In 4th Edition, the environment no longer opposes the characters. Things like tracking a monster through the wilderness or having to forage for food have given way to other focuses. Certain skills, like those for crafts and professions, are absent. Persistent conditions, like disease and even hit-point loss, have been minimized. As I would not characterize these removed elements as Narrativist, I have to categorize them as Simulationist (most would agree the new D&D exemplifies focused Gamist design).

The elements themselves are not simulationist. Only the way in which they were used tended to support a simulationist agenda. Those same elements can be used to support gamist or even narrativist agendas (see Mouse Guard for an example of the latter).