Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9030231" data-attributes="member: 6790260">This gets at what I referred to earlier. Essentially, you have conceived of simulation as achieved through only one over-arching method: detailed mechanical structures which, collectively, create a sufficiently-fine mesh to catch whatever you care about. Thus, something which eschews rules (almost) entirely, or which has a completely cavalier attitude about the amount or specificity of rules, must somehow be in conflict with the concept of "simulation," defined as such.Think of it, if you will, as an analog vs digital thing. You are coming from the digital world, where every state is precisely known but there are no curves, continuity does not exist, etc. In that world, you must either stand sufficiently far away or specify a host of precise formulae which allow you to very closely approximate continuous curves, but you have immense control over all the microstates that resolve into something almost smooth. The FKR approach is coming from the analog world. The idea that you could have perfect, precise control over each micro-step in the process is untenable, even meaningless. All that exist are smooth curves, defined by simple equations. You can get truly, perfectly exact answers...but you have to let go of control first, have to accept that there are things you simply can't specify to the perfect, precise degree you want. You accept that it's ambiguity-tolerant fuzzy logic, because you don't have "yes" and "no," you have a smooth curve that touches absolutely every real number between 0 and 1.If 3e-style is the obverse side of simulation, FKR is the reverse: simulation not by formal procedure, but by intuitive understanding. "Of course owlbears are monotremes, they're highly similar to platypuses." What rule makes this true? No rule! There is no rule involved--it is simply an intuitive connection between things.As I mentioned above, something must grow in depth and complexity in order to achieve rich simulation. The 3e style grows the rules-mesh so it becomes finer, more comprehensive, more specific. The FKR style grows the intuition of the participants, and since it also emphasizes centralized, unilateral authority, the growth is specifically the GM's intuition.To play 3e-style sim, you must presuppose that the rules are well-written, effective, and productive, and be willing to improve upon them, should they fall short. To play FKR-style sim, you must presuppose that the GM is well-versed, consistent, and unbiased.Note the use of "presuppose." "Trust" has the implication of believing in someone's virtue or integrity. I find that that all too often acts as a screen, preventing us from looking at the real underlying concern. I do not think the issue in most cases is that GMs lack for integrity, though that is a valid concern that only applies to GMs and not to prewritten rules. (Conversely, prewritten rules have the problem of intent--you can't be sure the person who made them had the purpose you have in mind. A human? You can just ask them.) Instead, I think the concern is rooted in the other things. Most FKR boosters speak of rules by saying...well, bluntly, by saying they just plain suck. Not in so many words, but that's the idea. That rules will give you up, let you down, run around, and desert you. Cut 'em loose; you don't need 'em. Conversely, critics (like myself) tend to think human GMs are limited and flawed. That being well-versed is rare, that consistency is rarer still, and bias is utterly unavoidable. Why place absolute trust in something you KNOW will be biased and are very confident will fail to be consistent?There's a grain of truth in both things. Rules are almost always going to be imperfect, when their goal is to simulate all of reality with a fine mesh. But humans are pretty dang imperfect too, and often end up causing as much harm as they fix with their unstructured, unsystematic futzing about. How do we address (not necessarily fix) rules imperfections? By having humans who can bring wit and wisdom that mere procedure cannot bring. But the exact same thing applies in reverse: how do we address (not necessarily fix) human imperfections? By having rules that are free of human ignorance, inconsistency, and bias. Even strident FKR advocates tend to recognize that a truly standardized, consistent, repeated evaluation is a rule in all but name. Even strident rules advocates tend to recognize that the very best systems have weaknesses that a real human has to adjust around.</blockquote>

Verification