Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 8613975" data-attributes="member: 71699">A question here is whether it is the numbers and not the descriptions that count? And if the descriptions do count, how does it matter that they are not pre-authored.I'm very familiar with Battletech and I feel you make a strong point here.A criticism could be that at the point that the mechanics are so complicated and granular, and the descriptions pre-authored, the game is better as a videogame. Do you recall the Mechwarrior supplement? There seemed to be an idea that Battletech could be an RPG. We played it only as a wargaming campaign. The counter-criticism is that such a simulation system is in the end not an RPG. Or not a good one.In the past I have been hugely into simulationist games, and so I feel you aren't quite addressing the problem I'm tackling. I think that there are some games we want to call simulationist. Games that had a distinctive feel for us in play. Cruncher, more realistic, the satisfaction of exploring a real place. Often one we could learn more about outside the game.And yet, to my observation it is really hard to find a robust definition of simulationist that cleanly separates these games from other games. HP and Levels don't do so.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="clearstream, post: 8613975, member: 71699"] A question here is whether it is the numbers and not the descriptions that count? And if the descriptions do count, how does it matter that they are not pre-authored. I'm very familiar with Battletech and I feel you make a strong point here. A criticism could be that at the point that the mechanics are so complicated and granular, and the descriptions pre-authored, the game is better as a videogame. Do you recall the Mechwarrior supplement? There seemed to be an idea that Battletech could be an RPG. We played it only as a wargaming campaign. The counter-criticism is that such a simulation system is in the end not an RPG. Or not a good one. In the past I have been hugely into simulationist games, and so I feel you aren't quite addressing the problem I'm tackling. I think that there are some games we want to call simulationist. Games that had a distinctive feel for us in play. Cruncher, more realistic, the satisfaction of exploring a real place. Often one we could learn more about outside the game. And yet, to my observation it is really hard to find a robust definition of simulationist that cleanly separates these games from other games. HP and Levels don't do so. [/QUOTE]

Verification