Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 8612597" data-attributes="member: 71699">For instance the donjon Traveller System Generator.Having a &quot;logic&quot; to it makes sense. Isn't that what others mean by &quot;consistency&quot;? I don't think randomness prevents a game being simulationist. The Traveller System generator randomly pulls stuff out of a bag, rolling against tables. The DMG dungeon generator randomly pulls stuff out of a bag, rolling against tables.Simulations are always incomplete. For every - &quot;I care about waste removal&quot;, another can respond with &quot;I care about the reproductive behaviour of natural creatures&quot;. Nor I think is convenience of executing the simulation at issue, otherwise the donjon Traveller System Generator would prevent Traveller being simulationist on grounds of convenience of execution. Poof, a UWP.I was thinking along the same lines - &quot;make some degree of sense to the observer&quot;. Seeing as observers disagree about what makes sense, they disagree about whether a simulation is good. But do they disagree on what is a simulation at all.Folk here have counted RuneQuest, the ICE system, and Traveller in as simulation, and 5e out. However, mechanics in all those games generate information beyond win/lose, and there are mechanical chains creating final products in every case. Either 5e is simulationist, or our definition isn't there yet. All simulations S have a reference R. We can't just say that when R is our real world we are simulationist, because Glorantha is not our real world. Not now, not in the past or future. Glorantha was created by its deities from the Primal Void of Chaos. That's not a belief that some folk living there have about their world, it is a fact about the creation of their world.It's not that I dislike the sense of what you are saying. I just don't see how your requirements for a simulation yet separate what we want to call simulationist from what we don't want to call simulationist.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="clearstream, post: 8612597, member: 71699"] For instance the donjon Traveller System Generator. Having a "logic" to it makes sense. Isn't that what others mean by "consistency"? I don't think randomness prevents a game being simulationist. The Traveller System generator randomly pulls stuff out of a bag, rolling against tables. The DMG dungeon generator randomly pulls stuff out of a bag, rolling against tables. Simulations are always incomplete. For every - "I care about waste removal", another can respond with "I care about the reproductive behaviour of natural creatures". Nor I think is convenience of executing the simulation at issue, otherwise the donjon Traveller System Generator would prevent Traveller being simulationist on grounds of convenience of execution. Poof, a UWP. I was thinking along the same lines - "make some degree of sense to the observer". Seeing as observers disagree about what makes sense, they disagree about whether a simulation is good. But do they disagree on what is a simulation [I]at all[/I]. Folk here have counted RuneQuest, the ICE system, and Traveller in as simulation, and 5e out. However, mechanics in all those games generate information beyond win/lose, and there are mechanical chains creating final products in every case. Either 5e is simulationist, or our definition isn't there yet. All simulations S have a reference R. We can't just say that when R is our real world we are simulationist, because Glorantha is not our real world. Not now, not in the past or future. Glorantha was created by its deities from the Primal Void of Chaos. That's not a belief that some folk living there have about their world, it is a fact about the creation of their world. It's not that I dislike the sense of what you are saying. I just don't see how your requirements for a simulation yet separate what we want to call simulationist from what we don't want to call simulationist. [/QUOTE]

Verification