Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="FormerlyHemlock" data-source="post: 6581460" data-attributes="member: 6787650">Simulationism is about taking systems seriously, exploring the interactions between them, and expecting internal consistency. If a simulationist finds a gargantuan dragon in a small room in a dungeon below ground, he expects there to be a reason for the dragon's presence, as well as a food source and a reason why the dragon has not left/escaped. Those are setting-related concerns.On the other hand, people who say D&amp;D as a system isn't compatible with simulationism typically mean that D&amp;D isn't good at simulating real life. They'll point to things like HP and the fact that Earth humans don't recover from broken bones in a matter of weeks or days (depending on edition). Well, that's true, but real life doesn't have binary gravity either. Simulationism is about internal consistency and logic, and as long as you take the system seriously (e.g. HP are fungible, transferrable, and reliable; clearly there's a physical basis) you can have a fun simulationist game in D&amp;D.D&amp;D physics are different from real physics in any number of ways. It's questionable whether humans are even built out of atoms, let alone possess cell differentiation. Certainly astrophysics is completely different there. Simulationists explore these differences and the implications--as well as the implications of bashing monsters over the head and taking their treasure. Why is all this treasure lying around? Where did it come from? How much of the world's total wealth is tied up in monster hoards? What fraction of mercantile activity gets taken by monsters? What effect on the world economy does constant monster predation exert? Etc., etc.People who say simulationism doesn't work in D&amp;D show a shallow understanding of simulationist games.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="FormerlyHemlock, post: 6581460, member: 6787650"] Simulationism is about taking systems seriously, exploring the interactions between them, and expecting internal consistency. If a simulationist finds a gargantuan dragon in a small room in a dungeon below ground, he expects there to be a reason for the dragon's presence, as well as a food source and a reason why the dragon has not left/escaped. Those are setting-related concerns. On the other hand, people who say D&D [I]as a system[/I] isn't compatible with simulationism typically mean that D&D isn't good at simulating real life. They'll point to things like HP and the fact that Earth humans don't recover from broken bones in a matter of weeks or days (depending on edition). Well, that's true, but real life doesn't have binary gravity either. Simulationism is about internal consistency and logic, and as long as you take the system seriously (e.g. HP are fungible, transferrable, and reliable; clearly there's a physical basis) you can have a fun simulationist game in D&D. D&D physics are different from real physics in any number of ways. It's questionable whether humans are even built out of atoms, let alone possess cell differentiation. Certainly astrophysics is completely different there. Simulationists explore these differences and the implications--as well as the implications of bashing monsters over the head and taking their treasure. Why is all this treasure lying around? Where did it come from? How much of the world's total wealth is tied up in monster hoards? What fraction of mercantile activity gets taken by monsters? What effect on the world economy does constant monster predation exert? Etc., etc. People who say simulationism doesn't work in D&D show a shallow understanding of simulationist games. [/QUOTE]

Verification