Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Scribble" data-source="post: 5491572" data-attributes="member: 23977">I think that's kind of another aspect where my point comes up... It seems to ME that Simulationists, despite the fact they tend to argue that simulationism allows them to more easily ignore the game behind the game... seem to pay more attention to rules then non simulationists.With the rule as it stands there isn't really a casual observation on my part. I'm just moving my guy. My brain is ignoring the rules and thinking about the scene. With the 1/2/1 approach it pulls me out.And again- to a non simulationist it seems like they're always thinking bout the rules. They're thinking about how the rules interact with the world. If I'm playing a simulationist game, it's forcing me to think about the rules. What's the math problem I need to do to calculate the distance my gun can fire in a foggy room with a denser atmosphere, but lower gravity...Instead of just thinking about my character firing his gun.Not disengage my brain- just disengage it from the rules. I'd rather my brain concentrate on the imaginary scene being set, instead of the physics behind how it's being set.For my part I tend to find that simmulationist style games seem to make me jump through hoops to get to basically the same place...It' possible for people to have different playing style I think and to talk about it, without saying someone who plays differently is &quot;disengaging their brain.&quot;I think the case could be made that it's a bad rule overall for that very reason.&nbsp; Which is why I think they should return to the inches idea, and remove the grid. Only I would prefer if the game heavily emphasizes distances in the &quot;about&quot; range as opposed to concrete.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Scribble, post: 5491572, member: 23977"] I think that's kind of another aspect where my point comes up... It seems to ME that Simulationists, despite the fact they tend to argue that simulationism allows them to more easily ignore the game behind the game... seem to pay more attention to rules then non simulationists. With the rule as it stands there isn't really a casual observation on my part. I'm just moving my guy. My brain is ignoring the rules and thinking about the scene. With the 1/2/1 approach it pulls me out. And again- to a non simulationist it seems like they're always thinking bout the rules. They're thinking about how the rules interact with the world. If I'm playing a simulationist game, it's forcing me to think about the rules. What's the math problem I need to do to calculate the distance my gun can fire in a foggy room with a denser atmosphere, but lower gravity... Instead of just thinking about my character firing his gun. Not disengage my brain- just disengage it from the rules. I'd rather my brain concentrate on the imaginary scene being set, instead of the physics behind how it's being set. For my part I tend to find that simmulationist style games seem to make me jump through hoops to get to basically the same place... It' possible for people to have different playing style I think and to talk about it, without saying someone who plays differently is "disengaging their brain." I think the case could be made that it's a bad rule overall for that very reason. Which is why I think they should return to the inches idea, and remove the grid. Only I would prefer if the game heavily emphasizes distances in the "about" range as opposed to concrete. [/QUOTE]

Verification