VtMB is not a perfect "simulation" but if i use blood boil in front of kine, it is a masquarede breach and humanity loss(killing with no reason). It is not a perfectly simulation of what would happen if vampires with such powers existed and used on front of kine, but is good enough.
When I say simulation, I don't mean simulating-real-life, but
systemic simulation vs. smaller, isolated systems, hand-crafted and scripted interaction.
But I think you touch on an interesting point in an RPG, and that's interaction between different planes of gameplay.
I think we can divide a traditional Baldur's Gate like (be it pathfinder, Dragon Age, PoEs or Divinity) into at least three planes - combat, exploration, conversation. I think what you hint at, is that many modern RPGs keep those seperate: you can't use exploration problems with a combat ability, you can perform combat ability, but not have it acknowledged by an NPC. That is something that makes POEs feel more artifical then IE games for example - mages spells could be used for both utility and combat making them a more consistent part of the world, while in PoE they are limited to combat (scripted interactions expanded that, especially in PoE2. Overall, PoE2 feels much better in that regard but seperation between combat/exploration/conversation is very preset throughout the design). And while BGs had moments systemic interactivity (I remember being able to see through a ruse when being a Paladin and using "Detect Evil") I don't think BGs had that much of systemic simulation. It relied mostly on hand crafted scenarios when compared for Fallouts which used systems when creating problems to solve, allowing for wider range of creative and unique-per-character solutions. While some systemic simulation exists (passing time, day&night cycle, stealing in BG1) I don't think they were a focus of BGs and some of them were dropped for BG2 and following Bioware games. That a distinction I wanted to make between BGs and Pathfinder, which I think has more of an ambition to create a more simulationist enviroment.
I do think that this kind of universal use of same tools across various gameplay planes is really important. And that something old Tim Cains RPGs did really well - with skill use, combat, conversation being tools for solving quests available based on player's build, rather then pre-determined scripted events (now dialogue, avoidable combat, now exploration, now mandatory bossfight). That's also something I liked about D:OSs system - how same abilities would be used for both combat and exploration - that way character we make has impact on various aspects of the game, rather then just one.
EDIT:
I don't think that Larian is making BG3 a successor to DOS2.
I mean, except by the artstyle, the game is nothing like DOS2
That's not the first time I see that argument, and BG3 is definitely NOT a reskin of D:OS2. However, I have my doubts about priorities of BG3 vs BG1&2. The simplest way I can explain it is, that IE consist of 3 distinct series BG, Icewind Dales and Planescape. While similar in some respect, those are three very different IPs, with different appeals and focuses. BG3 being based on DnD, doesn't make it automatically a spiritual successor to BG1&2. I think it is possible that Larian RPG is quite a unique thing, just as Bioware or Bethesda RPG is. And Larian RPG might not appeal to some people who liked original Bioware RPGs.
