Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 8615487" data-attributes="member: 71699">Taking my definition for simulationist, expanded to articulate what it entails for metagaming, as called attention to by [USER=7026617]@Thomas Shey[/USER] Now looking at the 5e game text [USER=6987520]@DND_Reborn[/USER] locatedAnd given that posters including [USER=22779]@Hussar[/USER] and [USER=42582]@pemerton[/USER] believe that 5e hit points are not simulationist, the definition ought to exclude 5e hit points from counting as simulationist. Before considering that, it's worth noting that asking this question raises additional concerns.<ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Is a game simulationist only if all its mechanics are simulationist, or can it be be simulationist so long as enough of (or the right ones among) its mechanics are simulationis?</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Is a mechanic simulationist if it can sometimes yields results that don't correlate well with its reference?</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Does the text [USER=6987520]@DND_Reborn[/USER] located (or any other text in 5e) count as a reference? Have we yet said enough about what counts as a reference? Do we find ourselves choosing between<ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Our putative reference (P) is not a reference (R)?</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">P is an R, but not the kind we count valid (and how do we justify such picking-and-choosing)?</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">P is an R, but mechanics aren't correlated with it?</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">P is an R, but it contains specified problems preventing its use as an R (does it just needs revising)?</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">There is no P (or R)?</li> </ol></li> </ol>Before going futher, does the text [USER=6987520]@DND_Reborn[/USER] count as a reference? That is to say, does 5e contain (there or anywhere in the game text) any preexisting reference for hit points?</blockquote>

Verification