Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Balesir" data-source="post: 6257737" data-attributes="member: 27160">Well, I wasn't really talking about &quot;simulation&quot; at all. The term &quot;process-sim&quot; is really about an imagined process-to-process correspondance, not a simulation, as such. Whether &quot;process-sim&quot; is a good term for it is a valid question, but it is what it is; I didn't originate the term.As for &quot;resulting in a narrative that can withstand in-depth examination&quot;, I didn't intend to imply that as a requirement. I might agree that it relies on creating a narrative, rather than a start point and an end point with hints about what the narrative might have been in between - but that narrative doesn't need to be complex or comprehensive, particularly.This might possibly be true for &quot;most players and DMs&quot;, but what I'm saying is that the &quot;narrative&quot; part is not actually needed for a TTRPG. In fact, it can be problematic it if either exists when it's not wanted, or it doesn't exist when it's desired.No explanation of it is required - except when it is required... This is a whole debate I went through (in far more time than I actually needed to) long ago. In general, these things only &quot;make sense&quot; in this way to those who have become habituated to them. And it's quite possible to de-habituate yourself (I've done it - again, long ago). Players who started out with White Wolf systems have far less trouble with it, for instance.All this aside, however, there are those who - for whatever reason - prefer there to be a direct correspondance between rolled dice and imagined stages of an &quot;attack&quot;. This is &quot;process-sim&quot;, and there are folk who like it - even who have difficulties without it. TTRPG writers have to deal with that, by one means or another. In the case of &quot;hit&quot; and &quot;miss&quot; I think using different words would help (but would probably have traditionalists up in arms) - the terms &quot;success&quot; and &quot;failure&quot; would do. For &quot;hit points&quot; I think there really is no choice but to treat them as things other than &quot;meat&quot;, systemically. No coherent system can be produced otherwise, and segregating &quot;Endurance&quot; or &quot;Health&quot; or whatever from &quot;Fatigue&quot; or &quot;Vitality&quot; has been done on-and-off from at least 1982 onwards and it really just complicates the issue without actually solving it. Individual wounds gives excellent verisimilitude, but won't give a &quot;heroic&quot; or &quot;action adventure&quot; narrative. So we have what we've got.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Balesir, post: 6257737, member: 27160"] Well, I wasn't really talking about "simulation" at all. The term "process-sim" is really about an imagined process-to-process correspondance, not a simulation, as such. Whether "process-sim" is a good term for it is a valid question, but it is what it is; I didn't originate the term. As for "resulting in a narrative that can withstand in-depth examination", I didn't intend to imply that as a requirement. I might agree that it relies on creating [B][I]a[/I][/B] narrative, rather than a start point and an end point with hints about what the narrative might have been in between - but that narrative doesn't need to be complex or comprehensive, particularly. This might possibly be true for "most players and DMs", but what I'm saying is that the "narrative" part is not actually needed for a TTRPG. In fact, it can be problematic it if either exists when it's not wanted, or it doesn't exist when it's desired. No explanation of it is required - except when it is required... This is a whole debate I went through (in far more time than I actually needed to) long ago. In general, these things only "make sense" in this way to those who have become habituated to them. And it's quite possible to de-habituate yourself (I've done it - again, long ago). Players who started out with White Wolf systems have far less trouble with it, for instance. All this aside, however, there are those who - for whatever reason - prefer there to be a direct correspondance between rolled dice and imagined stages of an "attack". This is "process-sim", and there are folk who like it - even who have difficulties without it. TTRPG writers have to deal with that, by one means or another. In the case of "hit" and "miss" I think using different words would help (but would probably have traditionalists up in arms) - the terms "success" and "failure" would do. For "hit points" I think there really is no choice but to treat them as things other than "meat", systemically. No coherent system can be produced otherwise, and segregating "Endurance" or "Health" or whatever from "Fatigue" or "Vitality" has been done on-and-off from at least 1982 onwards and it really just complicates the issue without actually solving it. Individual wounds gives excellent verisimilitude, but won't give a "heroic" or "action adventure" narrative. So we have what we've got. [/QUOTE]

Verification