Search results

"Personal requirements"? That's a bit rich. I mean, saying that a simulationist system should actually simulate something shouldn't be all that difficult. So, let's see some simulationist systems where the mechanics provide no information for the narrative. Given all the hoopla about 4e and...

sorry, I just picked the easiest examples off the top of my head. My list certainly wasn't meant to be exhaustive. When I have time, I could very likely find better examples of skill systems where the system provides at least any information about how the result was achieved.

That is 100% wrong. Like, not even close to right.

I'd agree if that was actually the point I made. But, as I have repeatedly stated, that's not the criteria for simulationist games. A sim game MUST provide ANY information about how a result was achieved. That's it. That's the sum total of requirements. Not arbitrary numbers. That's...

I've answered this before but, okay. A Dodge/Parry roll in combat rules is a simple rule. It clearly demonstrates how the mechanics can inform the narrative. GURPS and Palladium and Warhammer Fantasy all have this mechanic. The absence of simulationist mechanics in one aspect of the game...

And thus, you failed to understand basic scientific method. The whole point of making you "show your work" is because that's the fundamental underpinning of ALL science. Being able to get the right answer without being able to show your work is useless. That's alchemy, not science. There's a...

How does my skill make the rope fray and cut? That's an interesting representation of me being hungry. I'm hungry, so, I don't climb as well and my rope breaks or the rocks crumble? Huh. You don't think that's a bit of a stretch? I would think that the dice represent ALL the random...

I don't believe there are any "authority figures" who are dictating definitions from on high. And, frankly, it would be a fallacy to quote them anyway. Appeal to authority and all that. But, yes, my definition comes from the fact that every single sim-leaning game in the past 50 years follows...

Name 2. I've named numerous sim systems that meet the criteria. So, let's see you name the ones that don't. you're the one insisting on a level of detail that I have repeatedly not talked about. So, let's see the proof shall we? Simulationist systems that are black boxes that provide no...

I would think that it's pretty much widely accepted, full stop because that's what simulationist systems are. Again, as I just posted to @Lanefan, every single sim-leaning system in the history of the hobby says that the mechanics inform the narrative. The mechanics provide some (doesn't mean...

That is very much untrue. The reason you show your work on a math exam is because the answer is largely irrelevant. The point of the exam is to prove that you know the process for achieving that answer. The fact that your answer happened to be right could easily be a lucky guess. This is a...

No. A simulation must provide some information about how a result was achieved. A system that provides only results is not a simulation. That’s not an arbitrary definition I’ve made up out of nothing. That’s what simulation means. Otherwise any and all systems are simulations. Rolling dice...

Huh. Funny how this runs rather counter to your insistence of logical simulated worlds. Your world functions as a relation to the level of the pcs. Some events are off the table, not because they don’t make sense but because they would not be fun for the players. :erm: :hrm: You spent a lot...

You might want to address this to @Maxperson who disagrees with you.

What does the die roll represent if not everything other than the PC’s skill. It’s virtually guaranteed in DnD you only succeed by rolling high enough. That’s why you are rolling. You have a chance to fail. So if ability plus skill is the pc, what is the die roll? If the die roll can change...

Because you are the one insisting on things that I am not saying. “Accurately”? Show me a time I said anything about that. But systems can inform narrative. That’s how you make them a simulation. Fail by x and it’s the character’s mistake. Fail by Y and its environmental. Poof. Instant...

That's not true at all. History is backed by all sorts of primary sources. History that is only backed by oral retellings are notoriously bad.

What's the difference? The game world is being changed as a result of a failed skill check. Had the check succeeded, the rope would have never broken and might never break. So, it's not a weak rope. The cliff face suddenly crumbling because of my climb check? How is that not my skill check...

And, here we have it again. This is one of the most frustrating things about this thread. Poster A: I have heard this thing about this game. Poster B: No. I've played that game. I have lots of experience with that game. That's not true. That's not how it works. Poster A: I will now...

I 100% agree with this. Which means that for simulationist play, we need written rules that actually SIMULATE something. IOW, they have to provide any information about how a result was achieved. Otherwise, it's just magic pixies all over the place. See, in actual sim systems, my magic...