Simulation is the antithesis of play
This is a weird one. I think even though simulation and play can be used as synonyms, there is something immensely antagonistic within these words... Semantics is always the thing that gets to me in the end. I've always tried to synthesize why I think games that focus on simulating feel less fun to me, and this is what I came up with after not a long time of pondering, but a short burst of inspiration.
I'm not talking simulation in a GNS sense, in case the reader is old wondering, since there are few things I find as eye-rolling as GNS discussion.1 I see simulation as the search for a result, a point, an output, a method, a goal. In ttrpgs, this manifests as maximalist rulesets that have mechanics for everything, dice rolls heavily based on attempted scientific modeling of reality, constant corner-case lists, things like that - a search for realism (not verisimilitude) through mechanics. While it's impossible to know what was going through the author's mind (supposing they're not dead, in a literary sense), rules transpire simulation when it feels like they weren't written because it fulfilled a purpose in the game, but instead tried to make sure the game's system had a way to conform with the real world. It may not be exactly like the real world - because it can never be - but that's where the effort laid.
Play, however, is not about the search for anything. Play is about play itself. From the moment you started playing, you found play. While some would say play is the search for fun, I would argue that play is the constant discovery of fun. That doesn't mean that it has no end goal, but that the end goal serves the process, and not the other way around. Consequently, I cannot point out how play manifests in ttrpgs, because play is subjective and therefore always manifest. Maybe the person writing the "how fire spreads from round to round considering rounds last approximately two seconds" rule was having fun playing like that! I can state the intent of simulation, but I cannot deny the presence or absence of play.
Is this sensible? Simulation is the antithesis of play because, while both center around hypothetical enactment, simulation cares about establishing procedures to reach an end result (generally based on reality) while play is a constant self-serving process independent of other factors. The nature of play makes compatible with simulation despite their contradictory nature.
I tend to look for games that don't care about simulation, and it annoys me because I think simulation won the mainstream. It's why we call ttrpg games "systems" and why most of the best-selling ttrpgs have a bias towards simulation2... It's also why every single triple A video game company shows us how their water droplet graphics reflect light so well. Games that go beyond the game itself and create some kind of scenario or world3 will always fall victim to comparison with "reality" and for me that feels stifling. Still, I guess I don't mind interacting only the less prominent communities of gaming, both for ttrpgs and video games. Without the brands and the business, it's rather nice in here.
I've re-read this like, twelve times now. Short burst of inspiration my ass.
anb
🐔Previous 🐤
I don't think it doesn't have any merit, however as someone who wasn't there when the terms were coined and is now looking only at the aftermath, I find it to be way too prescriptive and presumptuous. I will not utter another word about this, lest I become responsible for GNS discussion.↩
Even games like Vampire: The Masquerade, which are seen by many as story-forward and roleplay-heavy games, still have deep roots in simulation. I love V5's page 253, where there's a blurb of "This game doesn't measure speed in meters per second" directly next to a Celerity ability that says your Vampire can cover 50m and do an action in a turn. It cracks me up, it really doesn't have the seconds I guess.↩
Examples of the opposite would be tic-tac-toe, reversi, or throwing a ball for a friend to catch.↩