"Simulationist or Gamer?" Topic

Which are you?

I don't believe in simulation so I'm definitely a gamer !

When I win it's a simulation, when I lose it's a game.

It's a mandatory yellow card for simulation these days, isn't it? Or it's going to be soon. About bleeding time, FIFA.

I'm a gamer as well.

I'm definitely in the Gamer camp… but I do like rules that give 'plausible' results within the established setting.

Simulationist

You made that up didn't you? ;)

It's only a game. I push toy soldiers around a board, laughs are had, sometimes beer is drunk

When it comes to combat tables and complexity I'm a gamer. I don't care for long lists of modifiers. When it comes to command & control, I'm a simulationist. I want a lot of chaos.

It seems to me that some folks do it the other way – complex simulations of combat combined with telekinetic control of units.

Yes.

Though more gamer with simulalations as a back-drop

I a gamer, with plausable results.

Gamer who reads history, trys to play scenarios as opposed to pick-up games, trys to have period/conflict flavour where possible and is very much aware that moving toy soldiers around on a board is Not Really A Firefight.

I'm a gamer. I realized the futility of attempting to make a game parallel reality in my youth. Maybe one day when a person can be placed in a Matrix type environment or when our miniatures can be replaced with tiny robots and use an AI program you can have a true simulation.

OK, I'll jump in and say I'm both and so are most of you.

I simulate battles by playing games.

The LEVEL of the simulation may not approach reality particularly closely but the intention is that warfare is modelled by the game.

The problem is that current usage of 'simulation' is taken to mean something more specific than its more general usage outside the context of wargaming.

I'm with vtsao – simple rules, lots of C&C problems

Gamer.
I'd be tempted to hit someone calling themselves the other.

I am a gamer who does not want his games to insult history TOO badly.

Similarly, I am a painter who tries to make that unit as accurate as humanly possible, and then goes and uses that regiment in a game 30 years out of whack, because I need them.

All game.

Simulations require me to put down my beer, and pay attention…

Both. Sometimes I like beer & pretzels, sometimes I want to have to pay attention.

-Kle.

I'm unclear what the definitions of these two terms are, which makes it a bit hard to respond.

I like games to produce results in line with historical experience and I prefer to play historical engagements. I couldn't give two hoots about the level of abstraction required to get to those results as long as it is playable in a sensible amount of time with a sensible amount of stuff. Is that simulation or gaming?

I would like to be a simulationist but end up almost always a gamer.

I am a gamer, but I want a game that strikes a balance that lets me simulate as much as possible but no more.

In a manual game, I want it to work top down. In a computer game, I don't much care about implimentation but I want my point of view to be respected and not to have to do the job of multiple levels of command.

I want both.

Lentulus is right on here.

mjc

Gamer.

When it comes to tank stuff, the only area in which I'm really interested, I tend strongly towards the simulationist side. However, I'm realistic enough to understand that nobody in my area shares anywhere close to the level of interest in rivet counting as I have, so I proceed with the assumption that my treadhead-level gaming is done solitaire and with computer assistance. My ultimate goal is to refine my computer-assist system to incorporate all the information on ballistics and armour we currently have available, but I'm many years away from that now.

For everything else, I'm definitely a gamer.

I'm a gamer who occasionally plays more simulationy gamerly games.

Hey, if we're going to make up words let's go all out!

Simulationist is a perfectly cromulent word.

Like most of the rest, I'm a gamer who expects realistic results from his games. I'm also on the bandwagon with the folks who say they want their games to expect decisions from them at the proper level of command.

I simulate.

infact, when ever I through some dice to rolle for a volley, I fire of my musket to fill the room with smoke and the sound of the guns,

and all the figs that are taken out of the game are thoughn into the trash, to simulate the problems with reenforcements
and if a whole battalion is broken in the game, I put it under the hammer.

ok, not realy, I'm a gamer to

Why do you ask, Bill?

As almost all rules are written for gamers, I guess I'm a Gamer.

Like most of the rest, I'm a gamer who expects realistic results from his games. I'm also on the bandwagon with the folks who say they want their games to expect decisions from them at the proper level of command.

Truthfully, I'm rethinking the whole "proper level of command" in game design thing.

Mostly out of nostalgia, I've been thinking back to the games I found most enjoyable, and the parts of those games I found most enjoyable, and realized that the stuff I found most enjoyable to me (not necessarily to any of the other gamers) was not the stuff that met the "proper level of command/point of view" criteria.

In other words, while I agree that the "appropriate level of command for what we're supposed to be simulating" approach to game design is more realistic, it's not necessarily fun for me.

In other other words, I've come to the point where I'm knowingly and willingly sacrificing "realism" for "fun". So sue me.

Is "simulationist" as different in meaning from "simulation" as "resurrectionist" was from "resurrection"?

Allen

Lewis cannon answered for me

*When I win it's a simulation, when I lose it's a game*

thats me !

"All but war is simulation" is the motto for PEO STRI, and I tend to agree with it. It's matter of design abstractions.

And whether or not you collect mushrooms for currency, maybe.

Simulationist is a perfectly cromulent word.

One of my favorite Simpsons' quotes. :)

I am interested in history. I love painting small figures. I like rules that do not need more than about five minutes checking because I already know about the way things were done in the chosen period. Sometimes the things happening on the table help me understand why certain things happened in the aforementioned period. I am glad there are no tin widows (and no bad weather to spoil those nicely painted figures !).
So perhaps I am more a simulationist than a gamer. BTW, as a non-English speaker I wonder what "cromulent" means ?

"BTW, as a non-English speaker I wonder what "cromulent" means ?"

As an English speaker I'm wondering too. I suspect it has something to do with an episode of 'The Simpsons' but am not sure.

Simulations are boring. Games are fun. I'll take games any day of the week!

cromulent comes from an episode of simpsons

were one person says the word embiggens, and another points out that she had never heard the word embiggens before she moved to springfield, then a third says that embiggens is a perfectly Cromulent word.

the fun beeing that both words are made up,

Role-player.

I want to imagine myself as a general commanding these glorious armies, and fighting in dramatic engagements.

Storyteller.

I want the games that I play in to have a narrative. I want underdogs and longshots, heroics, and tragedy.

Gamer.

I want solid mechnics in games that allow for multiple decisions points that reward both strategy and tactics. I want there to be fun involved when I get together with my playmates to play.

Simulationist.

I want games that require the decisions that I make to aid me in understanding the decisions made by the commanders in history. I want to have simulations of their problems and solutions, not absolute abstractions. Every genre/time period/milieu requires a distinct set of rules mechanics that will come close to capturing the problems and solutions available at the time.

Gamer.

Simulations are best left for the computer screen.

I'm a wargamer.

I'm a gamer who also like to simulate but at a very small skirmish level and certainly not for large scale epics.

Well, I took a graduate-level course in modeling and simulation, and I'm a software engineer for company that develops simulation software. So, I guess that makes me a simulationist.

I also enjoy playing games as a hobby, which makes me a gamer.

They are called Game for a reason. No real death is allowed ( unless some puposefully breaks my mini's) . beer is drunk ( I like those groups) fun is had , bad die rolls or not.

'Guard du Corps' had the sub-title of 'A Simulation Study of Napoleonic Warfare'.

So I have designed both types of systems over the past 30 years.

Gamer--I'm a big fan of toy soldiers.

A little of both, depends on my mood. I like to capture a historical mood in a game when I can.

Gamer..but like most of the rest of you I will call "foul" if something is TOTALLY off the wall.Pink Tiger tanks,Roman's with AK47's,Norman Knights on elephants,Prussian 15th infantry regiment in 1758 with the wrong facings…doh not that one

Gamer but I try to do historical/interesting scenarios rather than set piece battles.

No real death is allowed

I see this response, or ones very much like it every time this subject comes up. This is utterly failing to understand the term "simulation". Simulations do not require actual death. They "simulate" it. Get it?
Just like the Army does not do opposed live fire training missions. Sure, it would be more realistic and effective training, but retention would really be a problem. The Army seems to find simulated combat an effective training tool anyway.

As to the question:
Back in my younger days I was sadly part of the massive detail in massive games crowd. Campaign For North Africa was a step in the right direction, but they chickened out and dumbed it down so people would buy it.

These days, I'm much more of a gamer/fan of design for effect.

I simulate being a gamer.