Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 8616810" data-attributes="member: 71699">From RuneQuest 2Arms Law and Character Law (excerpts)From 5eOn surface, I think these all have the same reference: a person likely in armor or burdened, jumping in a world with something akin to gravity. The ICE rules appear to me most strongly correlated with their reference. RuneQuest is near to 5e in terms of what the mechanics do (jump a fixed distance with a running start, anything more is up to GM.)From examples like this, it feels like simulationist isn't a quality games either have or don't have. One might picture a scale where on general approach and balance of mechanics its ICE=8, RQ=5, 5e=3. Even though for jumping specifically it's perhaps ICE 6, RQ 3, 5e 3.I still can't help feeling there is something more to it. Some fundamental design intent that games might be differentiated on. I've read the debate on hit points and sadly still don't really see how one demonstrates 5e hit points aren't on the same spectrum as RQ and ICE. Even though I would love to get to a point where I could show that 5e hit points have a fundamentally non-simulationist purpose! In all cases, the reference is a person being harmed in a vast variety of ways and tracking when to limit their further declarations. It's interesting to look at how each game deals with a person being smothered by a pillow who chooses not to fight back.Compartmentalisation, knock-on constraints, pre-authored fiction, doesn't change that fundamentally. It certainly does change where the mechanic sits on the spectrum, but it's very, very difficult to see how one shows it to be an ontologically separate class of thing.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="clearstream, post: 8616810, member: 71699"] From RuneQuest 2 Arms Law and Character Law (excerpts) From 5e On surface, I think these all have the same reference: a person likely in armor or burdened, jumping in a world with something akin to gravity. The ICE rules appear to me most strongly correlated with their reference. RuneQuest is near to 5e in terms of what the mechanics do (jump a fixed distance with a running start, anything more is up to GM.) From examples like this, it feels like simulationist isn't a quality games either have or don't have. One might picture a scale where on general approach and balance of mechanics its ICE=8, RQ=5, 5e=3. Even though for jumping specifically it's perhaps ICE 6, RQ 3, 5e 3. I still can't help feeling there is something more to it. Some fundamental design intent that games might be differentiated on. I've read the debate on hit points and sadly still don't really see how one demonstrates 5e hit points aren't on the same spectrum as RQ and ICE. Even though I would love to get to a point where I could [I]show [/I]that 5e hit points have a [I]fundamentally [/I]non-simulationist purpose! In all cases, the reference is a person being harmed in a vast variety of ways and tracking when to limit their further declarations. It's interesting to look at how each game deals with a person being smothered by a pillow who chooses not to fight back. Compartmentalisation, knock-on constraints, pre-authored fiction, doesn't change that [I]fundamentally[/I]. It certainly does change where the mechanic sits on the spectrum, but it's very, very difficult to see how one shows it to be an ontologically separate class of thing. [/QUOTE]

Verification