Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 8614009" data-attributes="member: 71699">So my question on that is - we do know how because as we went along we said how. When the ants bit, they were described using bitey language. Afterward, the group would expect M (had M survived) to talk about their enflamed bite marks, torn clothes etc. We do know the state of the character now, because of the fiction we authored in response to cues from the system.Perhaps we say then that the group is being simulationist, but not the system. But what is special about pre-authorship? Or to put it another way, what takes ICE beyond pre-authorship? There are results on that table like 1 concussion that seem to suffer the same fault you level at 5e HP (these were not giant warrior ants, only giant ants). For ants against chain, there are about 140 possible outcomes (counting criticals). There's no way of knowing whether the Beak/Pincher table is realistic, as we lack a data set of real-world beak/pincher attack results to compare its predictions with, but is it realistic to say that when giant ants bite a person in chainmail there are only 140 ways that can go?What I'm getting at is, is the test for simulationist in the end a threshold for granularity? And what about the mussed state of my character's hair? Where is the necessary - some might say crucial - detail on that? Does it come down to sufficient granularity of results on matters we care about?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="clearstream, post: 8614009, member: 71699"] So my question on that is - we do know how because as we went along we said how. When the ants bit, they were described using bitey language. Afterward, the group would expect M (had M survived) to talk about their enflamed bite marks, torn clothes etc. We do know the state of the character now, because of the fiction we authored in response to cues from the system. Perhaps we say then that the group is being simulationist, but not the system. But what is special about pre-authorship? Or to put it another way, what takes ICE beyond pre-authorship? There are results on that table like 1 concussion that seem to suffer the same fault you level at 5e HP (these were not giant warrior ants, only giant ants). For ants against chain, there are about 140 possible outcomes (counting criticals). There's no way of knowing whether the Beak/Pincher table is realistic, as we lack a data set of real-world beak/pincher attack results to compare its predictions with, but is it realistic to say that when giant ants bite a person in chainmail there are only 140 ways that can go? What I'm getting at is, is the test for simulationist in the end a threshold for granularity? And what about the mussed state of my character's hair? Where is the necessary - some might say [I]crucial[/I] - detail on that? [B]Does it come down to sufficient granularity of results on matters we care about?[/B] [/QUOTE]

Verification