NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5638676" data-attributes="member: 42582">If I read a post in which (2) was asserted, I would interpret it this way:Mechanic X is not likely to support simulationist play, and/or is likely to be unsatisfactory for those whose goal in play is to achieve simulationism. Where, by "simulationism", I mean what The Forge means: ingame causal logic is a high priority, and the mechanics are meant to model this, so that playing the game is simultaneously exploring the gameworld. When I, at the table, am rolliing to hit, at the very same time my PC is swinging his sword.But, as my earlier exchange with Jameson Courage showed, I find (1) quite unhelpful. For example, it seems to presuppose simulationism - because it seems to presuppose that what is happening at the table ("I'm using my daily") correlates to what is happening in the gameworld ("I'm doing this thing that can be done only 1x/day, although the reason for that can't be observed, learned or explored ingame").But, at least when I play 4e, when a player uses a martial daily, the PC in the gameworld is doing something the logic of which can be observed, learned or explored ingame. Eg if the player of the rogue uses Trick Strike, the rogue PC is doing something that can be learned and understood ingame - typically, the rogue is doing clever fencing.So I have trouble telling the difference between "dissociation" and "non-simulationist mechanics described by those who appear not to be very familiar with how they work, and the sort of relation between mechanical resolution and fictional content that non-simulationist mechanics presuppose".In an earlier but fairly recent reply to you, I criticised your characterisation of Baleful Polymorph, which appeared to me to ignore the way in which (at least in my game, which is the only actual play example anyone has provided) the duration of that power operates as a metagame mechanic.And I think you treatment of (1) and (2) above as equivalent similarly depends upon ignoring that, if a metagame mechanic is used not as a model of the gameworld but as establishing parameters on permissible narration of the gameworld, then there need not be anything in the gameworld that cannot be learned, explored, explained, understood, etc.This is why I remain wary regarding the topic of non-simulationist play, and what seem to be (mis)characterisations of it, because they are worded in ways that already presuppose simulatoinist priorities (such as mechanics as a model of ingame causal processes).</blockquote>

Verification