To my mind, one just resists the initial impulse that a simulation must have a preexisting reference. One motive for doing so is that otherwise one unreasonably excludes game creation as a form of imaginative expression in its own right. In the past, Jo Writer wrote stories about worlds they imagined. Now and in future, Jo Designer will craft games about worlds they imagined.You're trying to make a narrow focused discrimination based on motivation and thought process for the origin of fiction. I don't see the point, it's still total fiction. In addition D&D's magic is called Vancian magic because Jack Vance came up with the concept first. Gygax and Arneson may or may not have picked it because it also served their purposes, but they did not invent the idea.
Np. Wasn’t clear initially and I was just confirming.I am using emulation and simulation as synonyms here. Sorry if that's confusing.
I think as with most creative endeavors it’s the chicken and the egg. Another place we see this is the character creation process. Sometimes we have an idea and find mechanics to suit and sometimes we have mechanics and find an idea to suit, but most the time we are starting somewhere in the middle and iterating until we find something acceptable both in concept and in mechanics.To my mind, one just resists the initial impulse that a simulation must have a preexisting reference. One motive for doing so is that otherwise one unreasonably excludes game creation as a form of imaginative expression in its own right. In the past, Jo Writer wrote stories about worlds they imagined. Now and in future, Jo Designer will craft games about worlds they imagined.
I agree that it feels somehow dismissive to say that game designers are not also authors.To my mind, one just resists the initial impulse that a simulation must have a preexisting reference. One motive for doing so is that otherwise one unreasonably excludes game creation as a form of imaginative expression in its own right. In the past, Jo Writer wrote stories about worlds they imagined. Now and in future, Jo Designer will craft games about worlds they imagined.
Hit points definition didn’t change much since first edition, despite the many debates seem to proove the opposite.
But what if you shoot the car in the gas tank?The lethality of a gunfight cannot be measured as a steadily consumed resource like gasoline.
But what if you shoot the car in the gas tank?![]()
So to simulate a comic genre wouldn’t we just have energy beams blow through concrete but not through people? I don’t understand why you say that doesn’t constitute a simulation?
Well, apparently according to Mythbusters (may the show rest in peace) shooting a gas tank doesn't do much of anything. They even tried incendiary tracer rounds and it did nothing other than punch a hole in the tank.
What’s the difference in emulating a genre vs simulating a genre?
But even with a nearly empty tank, bullets don't create sparks like they do on TV. They just make a hole. The bullet will be hot, but not hot enough to ignite the fumes. I did a quick google search and found a Russian version of the test. On a side note a cigarette butt will also not ignite gasoline spilled on the ground and cars that are on fire almost never explode. Even if they do it's only a small explosion not a huge fireball.As far as I can tell, the only exceptions to that is when the tank is nearly empty and as such is full of vapors, at which point you can under some circumstances get a fuel-air mixture thing. Though I'm surprised they didn't get a gas fire with the incindiary rounds--I guess they must have blown all the way through too fast.
Well, my joke was more about how far down the rabbit hole you're willing to go in your simulation. Punching a hole in the tank, in the real world, will have an effect, if only to cause a continuing fuel leak (akin to bleed/damage over time effects)—but do your game rules consider such possibilities, and if so, how do they handle them? In other words, even a simple thing like fuel is not so simple if you even start to look into it.As far as I can tell, the only exceptions to that is when the tank is nearly empty and as such is full of vapors, at which point you can under some circumstances get a fuel-air mixture thing. Though I'm surprised they didn't get a gas fire with the incindiary rounds--I guess they must have blown all the way through too fast.
He needed a magic system, one of his favorite books had one that would work great in a game. He took it.. Would he have done that if he hadn't read it? Or read it and hated it? Parsimony seems to be both.So, basically it was a gamist decision fundamentally, which is what I've been saying.
I too am agnostic about three agendas. "Gamist" is poorly defined and likely IMO merges together multiple priorities.I suspect they're saying that the element is neither simulationist nor dramatist/narrativist in intent, so it must be gamist in some cases (and keep in mind, its statistically likely some people in the thread consider gamism kind of a dirty word in regard to RPGs). That of course turns on you viewing all elements needing to fit in some incarnation of the three agendas, which I've always been agnostic about.
Then making the appropriate "check" or whatever would be the limiting factor.Marvel Heroic RP/Cortex+ Heroic treats magic like any other ability.
Very nice find!
But even with a nearly empty tank, bullets don't create sparks like they do on TV. They just make a hole. The bullet will be hot, but not hot enough to ignite the fumes. I did a quick google search and found a Russian version of the test. On a side note a cigarette butt will also not ignite gasoline spilled on the ground and cars that are on fire almost never explode. Even if they do it's only a small explosion not a huge fireball.
TV and movies lie, man.![]()
Well, my joke was more about how far down the rabbit hole you're willing to go in your simulation. Punching a hole in the tank, in the real world, will have an effect, if only to cause a continuing fuel leak (akin to bleed/damage over time effects)—but do your game rules consider such possibilities, and if so, how do they handle them? In other words, even a simple thing like fuel is not so simple if you even start to look into it.