Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="The-Magic-Sword" data-source="post: 8606470" data-attributes="member: 6801252">For me, I'd actually say games like DND and Pathfinder (to differing degrees by edition) are simulations-- but they're simulations through the lens of gaming, they give numbers for different objects and creatures to define their properties, and use those to determine what would happen in various contexts, the fact that the simulation is mediated through a desire for the resulting game to be fun, doesn't make it not a simulation, just a different type of simulation. They (usually) go out of their way to make different lore things feel different by giving them different numbers. The problem is more that some people want to move away from it being a simulation where they feel it hurts the game, so the arguments you hear about it not being a simulation are chiefly in the context of trying to justify moving towards mechanics that break down the simulation, or people being annoyed about places where the rules aren't as much of a simulation as they would prefer. When my Magus lands a spellstrike, the rules telling me to add the damage dice of the spell together with the damage dice of his Katana, have defined the properties of each of those things in order to 'simulate' them, and then instructs me on how to combine them, to 'simulate' my character's ability to do that in the game world and its effects on a creature. Which in turn has hit points that 'simulate' how hard and how many times we need to hit it with these damaging effects to bring it down. These elements are abstracted to different degrees, but in principle, they are elements of the simulation.I would go so far as to say Simulation is just a lens through which you view game mechanics &quot;how does x simulate y.&quot;</blockquote>

[QUOTE="The-Magic-Sword, post: 8606470, member: 6801252"] For me, I'd actually say games like DND and Pathfinder (to differing degrees by edition) [I]are [/I]simulations-- but they're simulations through the lens of gaming, they give numbers for different objects and creatures to define their properties, and use those to determine what would happen in various contexts, the fact that the simulation is mediated through a desire for the resulting game to be fun, doesn't make it not a simulation, just a different type of simulation. They (usually) go out of their way to make different lore things [I]feel [/I]different by giving them different numbers. The problem is more that some people want to move away from it being a simulation where they feel it hurts the game, so the arguments you hear about it not being a simulation are chiefly in the context of trying to justify moving towards mechanics that break down the simulation, or people being annoyed about places where the rules aren't as much of a simulation as they would prefer. When my Magus lands a spellstrike, the rules telling me to add the damage dice of the spell together with the damage dice of his Katana, have defined the properties of each of those things in order to 'simulate' them, and then instructs me on how to combine them, to 'simulate' my character's ability to do that in the game world and its effects on a creature. Which in turn has hit points that 'simulate' how hard and how many times we need to hit it with these damaging effects to bring it down. These elements are abstracted to different degrees, but in principle, they are elements of the simulation. I would go so far as to say Simulation is just a lens through which you view game mechanics "how does x simulate y." [/QUOTE]

Verification