Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="DND_Reborn" data-source="post: 8619467" data-attributes="member: 6987520">Yes, that is absolutely true. What I disagree with is the idea that you have to have the concept for something to simulate first and THEN come up with the mechanic / rules to carry out the simulation. When you are developing something, you can decide what mechanics / rules you want to use first (for whatever reason--balance, convenience, etc.) and then come up with a rational for why that system simulates your rational well (or well enough for your interests...).Let's taking long jumping again. This is a real-world action which can be simulated in any number of ways. At some point, a designer for 5E might have been looking at a bunch of Strength scores and realized using that score would make a good upper limit for long jumping. They might not even have been thinking about long jumping necessarily when it came to them. In this fashion, the mechanic was developed before the real-world action it simulates (poorly--- but oh well) was applied.Now with spells. You can look at your game design and think, &quot;Hey, if you sum up your character levels additively, that number would make a cool spell point pool to cast from.&quot; You could very well use that number of other things, but choose to use it to simulate the amount of magic a creature can draw on. You don't have to think about the game and say, &quot;We should have magic (in the game/ world) be represented by a pool of spell points inherent to each creature. How can we generate those points?&quot;Whether the mechanic comes first or the concept it simulates comes first is immaterial for whether or not that mechanic simulates that concept well or accurately. So, in the simulationist light, I am always asking &quot;what is it trying to simulate?&quot; but also (and very important to me) is &quot;how accurately does it simulate it?&quot; and finally &quot;is it too cumbersome to use in the game?&quot;</blockquote>

[QUOTE="DND_Reborn, post: 8619467, member: 6987520"] Yes, that is absolutely true. What I disagree with is the idea that you have to have the concept for something to simulate first and [I]THEN[/I] come up with the mechanic / rules to carry out the simulation. When you are developing something, you can decide what mechanics / rules you want to use first (for whatever reason--balance, convenience, etc.) and [I]then[/I] come up with a rational for why that system simulates your rational well (or well [I]enough[/I] for your interests...). Let's taking long jumping again. This is a real-world action which can be simulated in any number of ways. At some point, a designer for 5E might have been looking at a bunch of Strength scores and realized using that score would make a good upper limit for long jumping. They might not even have been [I]thinking[/I] about long jumping necessarily when it came to them. In this fashion, the mechanic was developed [I]before[/I] the real-world action it simulates (poorly--- but oh well) was applied. Now with spells. You can look at your game design and think, "Hey, if you sum up your character levels additively, that number would make a cool spell point pool to cast from." You could very well use that number of other things, but choose to use it to simulate the amount of magic a creature can draw on. You don't have to think about the game and say, "We should have magic (in the game/ world) be represented by a pool of spell points inherent to each creature. How can we generate those points?" Whether the mechanic comes first or the concept it simulates comes first is immaterial for whether or not that mechanic simulates that concept well or accurately. So, in the simulationist light, I am always asking "what is it trying to simulate?" but also (and very important to me) is "how accurately does it simulate it?" and finally "is it too cumbersome to use in the game?" [/QUOTE]

Verification