Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Crazy Jerome" data-source="post: 5777948" data-attributes="member: 54877">nnms, a big part of my long point is that focusing on process has never been 100% even in trad. Heck, it isn't even in games that are a lot more focused on simulation than D&amp;D has or ever will be. Even games that never thought twice about avoiding the slightlest whiff of metagaming, were quite happy to switch to result modeling over process modelling. This is because models built on nothing but process never work. &nbsp;You can almost define a lot of the differences in D&amp;D versus Rolemaster or RuneQuest as where all those purely trad games decided to draw the lines between process versus result modeling.&nbsp;The very first group that wanted to &quot;innovate&quot; away from core D&amp;D were the people who wanted to push process heavily. &nbsp;So my point is that while I happen to like a lot of the narrative and other non-simulation techniques (some form of fate points not least of all), I'm perfectly willing to see some of those factored out into options and even made non-default on many occasions.&nbsp;But I am not willing to concede that the answer to every simulation preference is &quot;just model the process the character goes through, and it will all work great!&quot; Not only do I know I wouldn't like it, I'm also pretty sure that most of the trad simulation guys won't like it, either. Process models tend to freeze assumptions about particular verisimilitude goals into mechanics.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Crazy Jerome, post: 5777948, member: 54877"] nnms, a big part of my long point is that focusing on process has never been 100% even in trad. Heck, it isn't even in games that are a lot more focused on simulation than D&D has or ever will be. Even games that never thought twice about avoiding the slightlest whiff of metagaming, were quite happy to switch to result modeling over process modelling. This is because models built on [B]nothing[/B] but process [B]never[/B] work. You can almost [B]define[/B] a lot of the differences in D&D versus Rolemaster or RuneQuest as where all those purely trad games decided to draw the lines between process versus result modeling. The very first group that wanted to "innovate" away from core D&D were the people who wanted to push process heavily. So my point is that while I happen to like a lot of the narrative and other non-simulation techniques (some form of fate points not least of all), I'm perfectly willing to see some of those factored out into options and even made non-default on many occasions. But I am not willing to concede that the answer to every simulation preference is "just model the process the character goes through, and it will all work great!" Not only do I know I wouldn't like it, I'm also pretty sure that most of the trad simulation guys won't like it, either. Process models tend to freeze assumptions about [B]particular[/B] verisimilitude goals into mechanics. [/QUOTE]

Verification