Thomas Shey
Legend
Are there any recent games in this mold?
Depends to what degree they have to to count. Also whether you count newer editions of older games.
Are there any recent games in this mold?
True.
I've said this before, but I find the idea of "simulationistic superheroes" rather appealing. What would really happen if people had such powers and how would they really function when we do away with genre conventions and plot contrivances and model the physics and the society realistically?
I guess the Boys is one answer to this, although I'm not sure results necessarily need to be quite that bleak.
The original Aberrant was in this vein, and even bleaker than The Boys.
Torchbearer 2e has all this.In regard to modeling the world, one thing that I haven't seen very much of (though instances of it are out there) is methods of generating relatively large-scale events in order to portray a dynamic world, i.e. things are happening even if the PCs don't interact with them.
You mostly get this as "random events" at domain-level play, where the GM will roll on a table for something to happen, either as part of the PCs' fief or abroad. But it applies to a lot of other things, such as random weather tables (which can be a lot of fun if used correctly, albeit more so in low-level/magic games), or even an economic fluctuation system I once saw.
That's not really what I mean by modeling the world in this context. I mean sim based rules, as opposed to drama or genre based rules. Stuff like "you can carry 37.4 pounds of gear, make sure to write it all down" versus "roll 1d6 whenever you light a torch; if you roll a 1 it is your last torch".In regard to modeling the world, one thing that I haven't seen very much of (though instances of it are out there) is methods of generating relatively large-scale events in order to portray a dynamic world, i.e. things are happening even if the PCs don't interact with them.
Sure, and even "sim" games often make concessions ("Use this optional rule to give the game a more heroic flavor" or whatever). But by and large, I think there is value in a game system that leans into the immersive aspects of the world, as opposed to the tropes of the genre or the beats of a story. Obviously it is just about preference. I think story is something that happens naturally through play and you do not need "story mechanics" for that.I don’t think you can completely separate the physics from the genre, so a universal engine is impossible / strong in some genres, weak in others / not universal but modular.
I am also not sure where you draw the line between engine and ruleset. Is it just the level of granularity/ detail to track?
I guess the Boys is one answer to this, although I'm not sure results necessarily need to be quite that bleak.
Any simulation of fictional has to make some assumptions. It's not like we have a perfect god-mind super computer who can tell us what "really would happen." Also, in the Boys a big source of the dystopian elements is that the source of the superpowers is an evil megacorporation. With different initial assumptions we get different end results. Though I have do doubt that any remotely realistic scenario would be somewhat bleak, because the real life is bleak.Well, if it is a simulation of what would "really" happen, you don't get much choice in the matter. If you instead set a level on how bleak it is, then that becomes a genre conceit.
I agree with this, but what I consider to be simulationist vs eg 5e tends to be more fiddly than I want, take GURPs for example.I think there is value in a game system that leans into the immersive aspects of the world, as opposed to the tropes of the genre or the beats of a story. Obviously it is just about preference. I think story is something that happens naturally through play and you do not need "story mechanics" for that.
Of course, no game system can serve as a physics engine for the whole universe so i think it is best when folks can assume things work like our world, except where they explicitly don't.