Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 8622094" data-attributes="member: 71699">You might be reading in something that I am not saying. Let's ask some questions<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Can they infer the contents of that table i.e. the possible outcomes as facts about their world?</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Can they infer given careful observation the rate of those outcomes?</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Do we anticipate that they can experience some of those outcomes, in their world? e.g. a shattered knee (RM)?</li> </ul>It's true that they wouldn't learn that there is a rule instructing a player to consult a table. What they would know however is that if this happens then at least these outcomes (those on the table) are possible. A player can imagine their character talking about that - "Oh yeah, bites from giant ants? Could break bones. Might destroy organs... but that's extremely unlikely."[EDIT So where a putatively simulationist mechanic is perfectly simulationist, it is necessarily true that it maps to facts found in the reference world. Of course, all simulationist mechanics are approximations, and therefore they only approximately map to those facts. The same conclusion mutatis mutandis applies.]Okay. We'll just need to agree to disagree, as I am having difficulty resolving the contradictions in your thought here.The results of that research - what they learn - is anticipated to not invalidate the particular RPG system, where that system is simulationist.You would be using BRP I believe, and not RQ. Where that is counted simulationist, then it's statistical shape will now be learnable by the researcher. Note that I am not saying GH as simulated by RM will be the same GH as that simulated by BRP. If we sincerely take each to be a simulation, differences between the systems must amount to differences between the worlds.[EDIT Given they are approximations, there might be enough wiggle room for them to amount to the same world. I am making my arguments first from the viewpoint of a perfect simulation, and then applying it to imperfect simulations with the necessary adjustments. I am not always spelling that out because it seems obvious... but perhaps it's best I note it here.]</blockquote>

Verification