Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6013852" data-attributes="member: 42582">I don't know why you see &quot;process simulation&quot; as derisive. My preferred term is &quot;purist-for-system&quot; - this is the term used at the Forge - but &quot;process simulation&quot; (which I first encountered on these boards being used by [MENTION=54877]Crazy Jerome[/MENTION]) is more intuitive: the function of the mechanical system is to simulate the ingame causal processes of the shared fictional world. That is not derisive, it is descriptive. I greatly admire Rolemaster, RuneQuest and Classic Traveller as games, and process simulation seems an apt description for all three of them!I think characterising hardcore 4e fans as &quot;wargaming style&quot; - and therefore assuming that the rest might drift happily over to a shared D&amp;Dnext - is a mistake.4e's support for the &quot;wargaming style&quot; is a particular consequence of its general approach, of putting the mechanics forward as the principal arbiters of action resolution, under an assumption that both players and GMs will push the mechanics hard. This is, I think, the potential problem for the D&amp;Dnext strategy, if it ends up relying too heavily on the GM to fiat action resolution.I think this passage from the OP does a good job of capturing the hardcore 4e mentality (at least as I see it): it's about tight and powerful action resolution, not wargaming.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 6013852, member: 42582"] I don't know why you see "process simulation" as derisive. My preferred term is "purist-for-system" - this is the term used at the Forge - but "process simulation" (which I first encountered on these boards being used by [MENTION=54877]Crazy Jerome[/MENTION]) is more intuitive: the function of the mechanical system is to simulate the ingame causal processes of the shared fictional world. That is not derisive, it is descriptive. I greatly admire Rolemaster, RuneQuest and Classic Traveller as games, and process simulation seems an apt description for all three of them! I think characterising hardcore 4e fans as "wargaming style" - and therefore assuming that the rest might drift happily over to a shared D&Dnext - is a mistake. 4e's support for the "wargaming style" is a particular consequence of its general approach, of putting the mechanics forward as the principal arbiters of action resolution, under an assumption that both players and GMs will push the mechanics hard. [I]This[/I] is, I think, the potential problem for the D&Dnext strategy, if it ends up relying too heavily on the GM to fiat action resolution. I think this passage from the OP does a good job of capturing the hardcore 4e mentality (at least as I see it): it's about tight and powerful action resolution, not wargaming. [/QUOTE]

Verification