Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8099376" data-attributes="member: 16814">So, curiously, are you of the opinion that, absent special conditions, invisible creatures are noticed?On a side note:As for &quot;simulationist,&quot; I'm not sure that's the right word.&nbsp; What simulation appears to be to me is that you (general you) look at a situation, interpret it, and then try to make the rules adhere to how you've interpreted the situation.&nbsp; In other words, you (still general) build a fictional picture of what a scene is and then apply the rules.&nbsp; For example, when the monk runs 100' away, you picture that result first, adding details and imagining the scene, and then have a hard time with the presupposition that the monk is detectable at all.&nbsp; That's not what your picture looks like, and the rules don't provide a clear alternative vector for you to add that makes sense.&nbsp; For the record, there's nothing wrong with this.&nbsp; Doing it this way sets up &quot;chance at the end&quot; scenario, where everything in the situation is set up in the fiction and you're only rolling to establish the outcome of that established fiction.&nbsp; This would mean that you set up the monk as practically invisible, so auto-detection doesn't make sense and you therefor need to set up some kind of roll that determines if the observer is good enough to notice the monk rather than the scene allowing it -- the scene is already set, so to speak.&nbsp; I'm approaching this slightly different -- with the chance more in the middle.&nbsp; The fiction is set up in broad strokes -- we know what the monk did, but I'm not going to add or subtract more details at this point.&nbsp; Instead, I'm going to turn to the mechanics.&nbsp; Here, it suggests that the normal is that the monk is detected, and I wouldn't consider running 100' in a few seconds to be special enough to overturn that, so the monk is detected.&nbsp; Now I return to the fiction and sketch out the rest of the scene to adhere to what the decision was.&nbsp; So, sure, the monk ran 100' but he's kicking up dust in his wake, leaving a ghostly rooster trail pointing to where he is.&nbsp; Bam, done, the scene is a good simulation of reality because that's not outlandish at all.Usually, when people say they are more &quot;simulationist,&quot; what they mean is how they establish the fictional feed in to the chance mechanic and what it's allowed to do.&nbsp; It's not really about simulating reality (if that's meaningful in a pretend elf game) but rather how you approach that simulation.&nbsp; I don't think it's any more successful at simulation that other methods.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 8099376, member: 16814"] So, curiously, are you of the opinion that, absent special conditions, invisible creatures are noticed? On a side note: As for "simulationist," I'm not sure that's the right word. What simulation appears to be to me is that you (general you) look at a situation, interpret it, and then try to make the rules adhere to how you've interpreted the situation. In other words, you (still general) build a fictional picture of what a scene is and then apply the rules. For example, when the monk runs 100' away, you picture that result first, adding details and imagining the scene, and then have a hard time with the presupposition that the monk is detectable at all. That's not what your picture looks like, and the rules don't provide a clear alternative vector for you to add that makes sense. For the record, there's nothing wrong with this. Doing it this way sets up "chance at the end" scenario, where everything in the situation is set up in the fiction and you're only rolling to establish the outcome of that established fiction. This would mean that you set up the monk as practically invisible, so auto-detection doesn't make sense and you therefor need to set up some kind of roll that determines if the observer is good enough to notice the monk rather than the scene allowing it -- the scene is already set, so to speak. I'm approaching this slightly different -- with the chance more in the middle. The fiction is set up in broad strokes -- we know what the monk did, but I'm not going to add or subtract more details at this point. Instead, I'm going to turn to the mechanics. Here, it suggests that the normal is that the monk is detected, and I wouldn't consider running 100' in a few seconds to be special enough to overturn that, so the monk is detected. Now I return to the fiction and sketch out the rest of the scene to adhere to what the decision was. So, sure, the monk ran 100' but he's kicking up dust in his wake, leaving a ghostly rooster trail pointing to where he is. Bam, done, the scene is a good simulation of reality because that's not outlandish at all. Usually, when people say they are more "simulationist," what they mean is how they establish the fictional feed in to the chance mechanic and what it's allowed to do. It's not really about simulating reality (if that's meaningful in a pretend elf game) but rather how you approach that simulation. I don't think it's any more successful at simulation that other methods. [/QUOTE]

Verification