Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 8612756" data-attributes="member: 71699">Perhaps I can put my meaning a better way<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Mechanically, hit points in RPGs are a gauge with a threshold at which constraints are applied to further declarations by the given entity.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">In RQ, that mechanic applies to hit points in sum, and for hit locations that each have their own guage and threshold. In 5e, that mechanic just applies in sum.</li> </ul>Based on those two points alone, we might want to say that we separate RQ from 5e as simulationist on the grounds of greater granularity, but you seem to have added something more.<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Descriptively, game designers sometimes provide pre-canned narration for hit points. In RQ, that is that they are physical injury (not resilence to psychological trauma, good luck, etc). In 5e, they're toughness - how well you endure (I don't think anywhere in 5e your chosen fiction of embarrassment is sustained, FWIW).</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">The ambiguity of 5e hit points bothers you, so seem to want to say that to be simulationist also requires pre-canned narration.</li> </ul>I think the problem with requiring granularity is to say how much is enough? I notice folk apparently arguing that granularity in some areas is more important than others, so another problem is what areas must be granular? Must a group care about hawk flight speed to be simulationist? What about if they had tremendous granularity on baking, would that count or is no amount of granularity in one area enough to make up for a lack in another? How does one avoid it coming down to matters of taste or just differing concerns?And then the problem with requiring pre-canned narration is that I would say that it is sufficient that there is a model and rules whose performance and results are consistent and can be interpreted so that the group can say what follows given their context. Something I have in mind is that pre-canned narration surely cannot save an inconsistent or faulty mechanic?Thus I so far do not see a convincing razor for simulationist in what you have said. More personal preferences and attitudes. There might be something in arguing for a threshold of granularity + pre-canned descriptions. And although I like the idea of being able to prove connection with mechanics, as I see it, it relies on selective blindness. We ignore lack of connection at a myriad of points, to put laser focus on connection sthat jar with our tastes.</blockquote>

Verification