Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 7750113" data-attributes="member: 42582">As far as I know "process sim" is a phrase that is used on these boards but not at the Forge. The closest Forge term is "purist for system" simulation.Example of "purist for system" include RQ, RM, and Classic Traveller as they are typically played. I have nuch less experience of Harn Master and none of Chivalry & Sorcery other than a bit of reading but I'm pretty sure these would fall into the same camp.What distinguishes those systems as typically played, and what (I think) the term "process sim" is meant to capture, is that every mechanical determination correlates in a pre-given fashion to some identifiable event or process in the fiction.So in RM, a roll to hit is literally that - a roll to see if weapon contacts body. There is a chart that reflects different sorts of armour, which encoude the principle (true in the fiction, and at least purportedly grounded ina real-life principle) that heavier armour makes it harder to dodge blows, but will reduce the damage they inflict.In RQ a roll to hit is slightly different - it is a roll to see if an attack forces the opponent to parry or dodge to avoid being struck. If the parry or dodge check then fails, the blow does strike. There is then a further mechanical process to determine if armour absorbs/deflects the blow.Traveller's rules for attacking in person vs person combat are closer to D&D's - armour simply adjustts the roll to hit, and the attack resolution process doesn't tell you how a successful attack hurt its target (whereas RQ does this via hit location, and RM via the crit charts) - and so to that extent less "process sim". But there are other ingame phenomena and events that it tracks more rigorously than RM or RQ, such as morale (for both PCs and NPCs).None of this is "backwards simulation". It is not reading the mechanics back into the in-fiction processes. (An example of backwards simulation in RM is the PC build rules: these are designed to, among other things, acieve a degree of class balance, and reading those back into the fiction, to reach the conclusion that they model a world in which studying magic causally impedes one's ability to master weapon play would be a case of backwards simulation.)3E and PF are often described as "process sim"/simulationist games, but I think that's too simplistic. The grapple rules in 3E clearly do try and simulate a series of ingame events/processes that culminate in a creature being grappled; the disarm and trip rules are comparable in this respect. But the core combat mechanics remain similar to classic D&D, and are not naturally conducive to that sort of simulationist approach, because there is nothing in particular that (i) getting a defensive bonus corresponds to , and (ii) that losing hp corresponds to.Eg of (i) - the rules label a red dragon's AC bonus as "natural armour", but it's not clear what - in the fiction - that equates to: given that the best bonus from magical plate armour is only half some of the upper end nautral armour bonuses, it is clear that the "natural" armour of a red dragon can somehow outstrip what even the greatest dwarven artificer can forge, but why? Reading this back into the fiction would be a type of "backwards simulation".Eg of (ii) - any hit points thread ever will remind us that the rules don't mandate that losing hit points corresponds to any particular sort of occurence in the fiction other than the tautologous "that bit of fighting went against you".</blockquote>

Verification