Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8607342" data-attributes="member: 16814">No, I just think that if we're using simulation that broadly, the problem is in using simulation that broadly and not in there not being a difference between narrativist techniques and simulation techniques, and most certainly not between the two agendas.If my goal is to faithfully simulate a process such that I have cause and effect built into the system, then this is a rather different prospect from a game that doesn't establish cause and effect except as narration to what the system says.  Take the D&D attack roll process.  The attack is declared.  You first check to make sure all of the prerequisite for the attack are in place -- is the range right, is LOS right, is there something else preventing the attack like condition?  You then proceed to the attack roll, which is modelling your PC's ability to be successful martially against the opponents AC which is modelling their ability to avoid attacks.  If successful, you proceed to a damage step, where the qualities of your weapon and the attack roll (did you crit) and your physical attributes are checked against the physical traits of the target (do they have resistance/immunity from that form of damage).  Then hp are ticked down.  The attack process is pretty simulationist up until the fact that hp aren't.Contrast to Blades in the Dark.  You declare an attack.  The fiction is checked to see how dangerous this action is and the Position for the roll is set (this sets the range of how bad outcomes are if you fail).  Then the nature of the declaration is compared to the fiction and the Effect of the roll is set (this sets the range of outcomes if you succeed).  Then you roll the dice, which are fixed for that action and don't check anything in the fiction at all.  The player can also leverage all kinds of other things here, gaining extra dice to roll to look for success or even increasing the Effect of the outcome or reducing the Position to something less dangerous.  You can trade Position for Effect, taking a step of more danger for more impact.  The outcome says if the action is successful (apply the Effect), mixed (apply the Effect and the consequence from the Position) or failed (consequence from Position).  However, the outcome fictions aren't dictated by the mechanical outcome.  A consequence for missing may be that the opponent hurts you back or that more bad guys show up or that you lose your weapon (and end up in worse Position moving forward).  There's no effort to simulate a process here, but rather put constraints on what can be said and then see who gets the say.There's a difference between trying to simulate something and not caring about simulations but finding out where the drama is.</blockquote>

Verification