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="Lonely Tylenol" data-source="post: 4135431" data-attributes="member: 18549">Indeed, there's nothing geeks do like split hairs so they can fight with one another over which of the fragmented strands is the superior one.I don't even see this as a simulation/not simulation issue.  It's an issue of narrative.  It doesn't matter whether the fighter can do his "Uber-Kewl Attack" once per day because he only has one in him and can choose to expend it any time he wants, or whether the fighter is always trying to do that attack, but manages to land it no more than once per day.  Both cases are equivalently simulationist, they're just simulating different things.  The first case is turning the attack into something that has its own kind of metaphysical reality--it's some kind of spell or power that the fighter (let's call him fighter1) can call upon.  When he does so, he can fail, but he will know that the power was expended and can no longer be attempted.  The second case is more like what we would consider a "normal" view of things, in that the fighter (fighter 2), without the benefit of some weird metaphysical backdrop, can find an opening that will allow him to perform his special attack no more than once a day, because these occasions are rare.  When they occur, he tries for them, but will perhaps not succeed.In either case, it's a simulation of an internally-consistent world.  From the point of view of both fighters, their ability to perform the actions makes sense.  Fighter 1 knows he's got one "use" of his power, and can choose when to use it, but might fail.  Fighter 2 knows when he has a chance to use the power, and when it comes up he takes a shot at it.  If, however, the fighter were able to pull off this attack only when the group deemed it dramatically appropriate, tampering with the system so that simulation was made second to narrative, the fighters would no longer be able to predict how and when their powers would function.  They'd probably get a feel for when the ability would be appropriate to try, by gauging the tension of the situation, and noting how much is hanging on their pulling off the manoeuvre, but neither would understand how and why they were able to perform the action.Fighter 1 is more "something" than fighter 2, but it's not simulationist.  If anything, I'd call it gamist.  He has a power, it comes from some source, and he can use it, after which it's used up.  That doesn't sound like anything except a character in a roleplaying game.  Fighter 2, by comparison, knows a technique, and he knows how to recognize when the technique has a chance of success.  The sort of opening he looks for comes up less than once a day, and he'd be surprised if it happened twice in a day.  Often, it doesn't happen every day.  That sounds more like what I'd expect from a fighter from a book, or even in real life.  Fighter 2 simulates a realistic situation better than fighter 1, and fighter 1 is more "gamist" than fighter 2.</blockquote>

Verification