Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
D&D Combat is fictionless
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 8406107" data-attributes="member: 71699"><p>Thank you, that really helps! A view is taken of the flow of local macroscopic interactions and information that gamers experience in the real world - that we generally call "time" - and the game model is expected to comply with that flow. To expect that compliance is a simulationist-concern, even though it's not arising from simulationist-motives.</p><p></p><p>To make the information constraints clear, picture two actors on an unbounded grid. They can each move 6 squares (30') in their turn. The time-simulationist expects that they move some of that over each second of the 6-second round. It could be as simple as expecting them to move 1 square a second. Supposing both start at rest, and actor 1 wants to catch actor 2. One can quibble with this example, but let's imagine that the actors must commit to their full movement in second 1, which might be something like what is thought to be happening when a cleric commits to a spell cast. There are well over 100 squares that actor 2 could possibly be found in by second 6 from the point of view of actor 2, who must decide at the start of second 1 what direction to move to intercept them. The problem is, how does actor 2 in second-1 have information about actor 1's position in second-6?</p><p></p><p></p><p>No such distinction is envisioned: I take a non-simulationist view of time in D&D combat. I suppose that all actors are continuously doing things, and the moments we see in a round are just highlights and points of interjection, in a scene too complex for a game to model. I do not assume any going back up the time stack to find out what N is doing while P2 treats P1's wound. It transpires that P1 is wounded, and P2 treats that; N might well do more, as we will discover in future rounds. That's sufficient for a coherent narrative. The example of Magritte's pipe is intended to illustrate that it pays not to look to closely at any picture: if you do you'll find canvas, emulsion and pigment, not a pipe!</p><p></p><p>All simulations are necessarily incomplete, and I finesse that limitation by saying that game need not be simulation. As noted up-thread, I gloss-over or elide. Information flows in game mechanisms and fictions really shouldn't be examined too closely. Hardly anyone has much grasp on information flows in the real world (consider quantum field theory, or Lorentz transformations!) That said, I want to acknowledge that all games lean very hard upon appeals to real world experiences. If something about a game disrupts that for us, then we find ourselves woken up from our suspension of disbelief... and it can be difficult for us to rejoin play.</p><p></p><p>Is that in turn clear?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="clearstream, post: 8406107, member: 71699"] Thank you, that really helps! A view is taken of the flow of local macroscopic interactions and information that gamers experience in the real world - that we generally call "time" - and the game model is expected to comply with that flow. To expect that compliance is a simulationist-concern, even though it's not arising from simulationist-motives. To make the information constraints clear, picture two actors on an unbounded grid. They can each move 6 squares (30') in their turn. The time-simulationist expects that they move some of that over each second of the 6-second round. It could be as simple as expecting them to move 1 square a second. Supposing both start at rest, and actor 1 wants to catch actor 2. One can quibble with this example, but let's imagine that the actors must commit to their full movement in second 1, which might be something like what is thought to be happening when a cleric commits to a spell cast. There are well over 100 squares that actor 2 could possibly be found in by second 6 from the point of view of actor 2, who must decide at the start of second 1 what direction to move to intercept them. The problem is, how does actor 2 in second-1 have information about actor 1's position in second-6? No such distinction is envisioned: I take a non-simulationist view of time in D&D combat. I suppose that all actors are continuously doing things, and the moments we see in a round are just highlights and points of interjection, in a scene too complex for a game to model. I do not assume any going back up the time stack to find out what N is doing while P2 treats P1's wound. It transpires that P1 is wounded, and P2 treats that; N might well do more, as we will discover in future rounds. That's sufficient for a coherent narrative. The example of Magritte's pipe is intended to illustrate that it pays not to look to closely at any picture: if you do you'll find canvas, emulsion and pigment, not a pipe! All simulations are necessarily incomplete, and I finesse that limitation by saying that game need not be simulation. As noted up-thread, I gloss-over or elide. Information flows in game mechanisms and fictions really shouldn't be examined too closely. Hardly anyone has much grasp on information flows in the real world (consider quantum field theory, or Lorentz transformations!) That said, I want to acknowledge that all games lean very hard upon appeals to real world experiences. If something about a game disrupts that for us, then we find ourselves woken up from our suspension of disbelief... and it can be difficult for us to rejoin play. Is that in turn clear? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
D&D Combat is fictionless
Top