Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 8617402" data-attributes="member: 71699">Starting here, yes on first reading I think I agree with you there. Vexingly, that doesn't prevent D&D hit points also being placeable along a simulationist axis.Thank you. I've read parts of that before. Seems about time to read the whole thing.The way I understand this is that we have an imagined cosmos (what I have called a reference) and we expect our processes to correlate with it. We have a model that should be a collection of properties we attribute to the reference, and rules that should tell us how to translate from the model to outputs or updated states articulating behaviour we find plausible for the reference. The term "imagined cosmos" is interesting, because for me it suggests we anticipate the mechanics collectively to represent something more than they do individually. Jumping alone doesn't imagine a cosmos in action.Where this all runs into problems for me is "internal cause is king". I read "the relationship is supposed to turn out a certain way or set of ways, since what goes on "ought" to go on, based on internal logic instead of intrusive agenda." Very well, let's consider D&D hit points in that light. Foremost, I want to establish that to be simulationist is not to satisfy Jo's idea of a cosmos or Addy's idea of a cosmos: it is to satisfy an idea of a cosmos. Addy might not be satisfied by the simulation of Jo's cosmos, feeling it goes off in entirely the wrong direction and has interests, assumptions, world-things that don't fit what Addy wants to see. But  Addy preferring Addy's idea of a cosmos does not deny Jo just as much right to prefer Jo's idea of a cosmos.Setting aside a normative judgement of what is an allowed cosmos, I think we must be open to any cosmos as a reference. A far future cosmos with unproven technologies is one such cosmos -Or perhaps it is the technologies of science-fiction books and movies that are being thought of, without real concern as to proven?I eventually realised that the text [USER=6987520]@DND_Reborn[/USER] located is an important part of the descriptive component of the output of the D&D hit point mechanic.Restructuring this game text to make the instruction clearer<ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Following the basic approach of D&D, DM's are reminded of their power to make things suit themselves and their group.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">If after decrementing HP the remainder is half or more, there are no signs of injury. The number on the dice is the amount of will to live or luck depleted.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">If after decrementing HP the remainder is less than half, narrate signs of wear, such as cuts and bruises.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">If after decrementing HP is reduced to 0, narrate a direct strike leaving trauma.</li> </ol>So the mechanic is a single pool, with clear thresholds for a specified narration, remembering of course that all D&D rules are subject to DM fiat. Jo finds themselves disliking this cosmos as a reference, but it is still a cosmos.It's not a cosmos that matches our real world other than in passing: which opens the door to saying that to be simulationist a game must match our real world more than passingly. I think that raises doubts over a world like Glorantha.Jo thinks Glorantha is a reasonable alternative-Earth. Addy finds it preposterous, except if taken to be not-our-real-world. Not even an alternative-Earth. For Addy, Glorantha is a product of processes too ridiculous to be taken as anything but a frank fiction... but if it's frank fictions one is thinking of, then let me introduce you to the heroic cosmos of D&D!This goes around and around. It's not that you aren't making excellent points. It's perhaps that I am asking an ontological question and you are asking a normative one. Possibly you would say that normally the heroic cosmos of D&D can't be accepted and isn't intended as a reference for plausible causes of an imagined cosmos. The pre-authored descriptions may seem far too sparing, and like everything in D&D too subject to DM override. (But then one has to ask, is it DM override that prevents a game being simulationist to any degree? I'd suggest not.) The fact is though, that there are pre-authored descriptions, they are consistent, cause can be traced through the mechanic, and it represents an heroic cosmos that someone could have in mind as a reference.</blockquote>

Verification