Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 8614779" data-attributes="member: 71699">So what I want to resolve is if a good definition of simulationist would require that results of mechanics shape further choices and resolutions, or if it is enough that it narrowly dictates the fluff. The reason I feel that is at issue goes as follows<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Let's suppose that it's sufficient that the mechanics narrowly dictates fluff</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Therefore we're saying that no future choice or resolution depends on that fluff</li> </ul>That seems to me a very weak version of simulationist. What seems at issue is that a game designer pre-authors fluff for us. Nothing coming after needs it. They just decided that's the narrative.The fiction matters, yes, but there seems to be a proposed (putative) "simulationist" preference for fiction that the game designers pre-author over that we author as we go. If [USER=22779]@Hussar[/USER]'s point is right (and supposing I'm putting it fairly) then that fluff is fiction that won't matter. To me that feels like a strange sort of concept because surely when we next test our fictional position it should be able to matter... but that will be true whether the fluff was pre-authored, or authored by the group.Again, I'm not seeing the "playing to find out" in pre-authored fiction. I can (and usually do) sit down before joining the game and read the book. Pre-authored fluff can't surprise me: I can't play to find out what it is because it's right there in the text.That's a very good point about available techniques. I've been trying to think what TTRPG would be worth designing (as there is so much interesting design being done at present)? Maybe in each epoch what is worth designing may be inspired by available techniques (including glimpsed techniques that that aren't yet settled) and unsatisfied urges. Apparently the C&S designers were inspired by EPT (an unsatisfied urge for something that felt more real, perhaps), but certainly in their 1st edition they were grappling with techniques. (And they lacked the furniture of PbtA or FitD etc.)I'll just note for the D&D comments here and by others that they don't represent what is entailed by the game text. Particulary in regard to the abilities mechanics. An ability check should only be made when the fiction drives it, it should take inputs from the fiction affecting resolution (at minimum the DC), and it gives outputs to the fiction affecting future choices and potentially resolutions.It's true that losing a few hit points can be vague in terms of affecting subsequent resolution. Down the line, those few hit points lost might affect tempo crucially, but that is not guaranteed. That's also true of taking 1 concussion, or 1 hit point to an arm location. The difference is how noticeable, immediate, and compelling (on play) the increments are, and the extent to which they narrow options for saying what follows. (Which is kind of fascinating, because I take "say something that follows" as a foundational rule of RPG.)Earthdawn isn't simulationist (or if it is, then 5e is). Interesting point about people getting soggy though. Do you mean that if everyone playing D&D would just harden up and say something like - down to CON hit points it's vitality, and after that wounds - or better yet if that was written into the game text, then your view of D&D hit points would change?</blockquote>

Verification