Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 8620354" data-attributes="member: 42582">We could. As I said, in my view that creates an absurd imagined world.I also don't imagine such worlds, as a special case of not imagining worlds in which anyone has hit points. I regard hit points as a game device, primarily a pacing one, for regulating the introduction of fiction by the participants. Not as a model of ingame causal processes that generate fiction just by being allowed to run.I don't know what the &quot;its&quot; refers to in the final clause. The imagined inhabitants of the World of Greyhawk can, I assume, know its rules, but they can't know the rules of Torchbearer which is the system I am currently using to run games set in GH.I also don't find the notion of &quot;say what follows&quot; very applicable to simulationist resolution processes. The process tells you what follows, so there is no need for an additional injunction to say what follows.I think that Edwards' characterisation of simulationism is sound: internal cause - the imagined cosmos in action - is king, and the mechanics model, or correlate, to this. The &quot;input&quot; in the fiction yields mechanical parameters (eg a bonus to hit) and the mechanics then generate an &quot;output&quot; (eg an injury to a victim), and the mechanical procedure corresponds to the in-fiction procedure. If the mechanical procedure includes dice rolls, those correlate to the vagaries of fortune or minor variables in the fiction (the crucial variables are set as part of the input - we learns something about a simulationist RPG by seeing what variables it treats as crucial - see eg Pendragon's treatment of personality, compared to RM's). If the mechanical procedure includes player insertion of &quot;luck&quot; or &quot;fate&quot;, this has to correspond - in a simulationist system - to something the character is doing in the fiction.(I'm focusing above, as I have throughout this thread, on what Edwards calls purist-for-system simulation. He also has a notion of high concept simulation that is closer to what [USER=7026617]@Thomas Shey[/USER] calls &quot;dramatism&quot; and what [USER=6790260]@EzekielRaiden[/USER] calls &quot;narrativism&quot;. Edwards also has a notion of narrativism, but it differs from the aforementioned dramatism and narrativism.)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 8620354, member: 42582"] We could. As I said, in my view that creates an absurd imagined world. I also don't imagine such worlds, as a special case of not imagining worlds in which anyone has hit points. I regard hit points as a game device, primarily a pacing one, for regulating the introduction of fiction by the participants. Not as a model of ingame causal processes that generate fiction just by being allowed to run. I don't know what the "its" refers to in the final clause. The imagined inhabitants of the World of Greyhawk can, I assume, know its rules, but they can't know the rules of Torchbearer which is the system I am currently using to run games set in GH. I also don't find the notion of "say what follows" very applicable to simulationist resolution processes. The process tells you what follows, so there is no need for an additional injunction to say what follows. I think that Edwards' characterisation of simulationism is sound: internal cause - the imagined cosmos in action - is king, and the mechanics model, or correlate, to this. The "input" in the fiction yields mechanical parameters (eg a bonus to hit) and the mechanics then generate an "output" (eg an injury to a victim), and the mechanical procedure corresponds to the in-fiction procedure. If the mechanical procedure includes dice rolls, those correlate to the vagaries of fortune or minor variables in the fiction (the crucial variables are set as part of the input - we learns something about a simulationist RPG by seeing what variables it treats as crucial - see eg Pendragon's treatment of personality, compared to RM's). If the mechanical procedure includes player insertion of "luck" or "fate", this has to correspond - in a simulationist system - to something the character is doing in the fiction. (I'm focusing above, as I have throughout this thread, on what Edwards calls purist-for-system simulation. He also has a notion of high concept simulation that is closer to what [USER=7026617]@Thomas Shey[/USER] calls "dramatism" and what [USER=6790260]@EzekielRaiden[/USER] calls "narrativism". Edwards [i]also[/i] has a notion of narrativism, but it differs from the aforementioned dramatism and narrativism.) [/QUOTE]

Verification