Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
More DMing analysis from Lewis Pulsipher
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6340783" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>I think that when the article was written (in 1981) this was much less of a problem. I think back then there were more active RQ, C&S etc groups.</p><p></p><p>That's part of what I was getting at when I was saying, earlier upthread, that modern sim-inclined players don't seem familiar with those other games in the way that such players were 30 years ago.</p><p></p><p></p><p>The problem with Balesir's characterisation here of purist-for-system is that any RPG can be played in that way, if you read the rules back into the fiction. (Several posters on these boards seem to take that approach - eg [MENTION=6775031]Saelorn[/MENTION]).</p><p></p><p>But Edwards, in characterising purist-for-system, clearly has in mind that there are external constraints on our conception of the world, which the system then has to model/account for. If you look at the systems <a href="http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/15/" target="_blank">he actually identifies</a> as aspiring to purist-for-system, they are exactly the sorts of systems that Pulsipher (and Gygax) has in mind as contrasting with D&D:</p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px">The big commercial models are GURPS, BRP (in its "unstripped" form), DC Heroes (now Blood of Heroes), Rolemaster, D6 (derived and considerably Simulationized from Star Wars), and the Hero System (as such, mainly derived from Danger International and Fantasy Hero rather than early Champions)</p><p></p><p>He says this about d20: "Whether D20 should be included in this category [of purist-for-system sim] is a matter for some debate." I agree.</p><p></p><p>Here are some general remarks that characterise sim, especially purist-for-system:</p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px">The game engine, whatever it might be, is not to be messed with. It <em>is</em> causality among the five elements of play. . .</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"><strong>Internal Cause is King</strong> </p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">Consider Character, Setting, and Situation - and now consider what happens to them, over time. In Simulationist play, <em>cause</em> is the key, the imagined cosmos in action. . .</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">System is a major design element here, as the causal anchor among the other elements. . . .</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"><strong>Resolution mechanics</strong>, in Simulationist design, boil down to asking about the cause of <em>what</em>, which is to say, what performances are important during play . . .</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">The causal sequence of task resolution in Simulationist play must be linear in time. He swings: on target or not? The other guy dodges or parries: well or badly? The weapon contacts the unit of armor + body: how hard? The armor stops some of it: how much? The remaining impact hits tissue: how deeply? With what psychological (stunning, pain) effects? With what continuing effects? All of this is settled in order, on this guy's "go," and the next guy's "go" is simply waiting its turn, in time. </p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">The few exceptions have always been accompanied by explanatory text, sometimes apologetic and sometimes blase. A good example is classic hit location, in which the characters first roll to-hit and to-parry, then hit location for anywhere on the body (RuneQuest, GURPS). Cognitively, to the Simulationist player, this requires a replay of the character's intent and action that is nearly intolerable. It often breaks down in play, either switching entirely to called shots and abandoning the location roll, or waiting on the parry roll until the hit location is known. Another good example is rolling for initiative, which has generated hours of painful argument about what in the world it represents in-game, at the moment of the roll relative to in-game time.</p><p></p><p>The bit about initiative resonates particularly strongly for me, because of all the variant rules and options that are part of RM, none has been done and redone more than initiative - there must be at least a dozen published initiative systems, all of them trying to handle the conflict between "taking turns" in game play and continuous, simultaneous resolution in the imagined reality of the gameworld.</p><p></p><p>It is with the above remarks from Edwards in mind that I repeat my earlier post from upthread:</p><p></p><p>The reason that simulationists reject hit points and turn-by-turn initiative is not because they are "unreaslistic" in any generic sense, but because they <em>violate ingame causality</em>.</p><p></p><p>For instance, turn-by-turn initiative allows for peasant railguns, whereas not even the simplest version of initiative in RM or RQ will do that; and hit points (especially in their pre-4e form) allow for it to be true both that (i) a character is near-death and (ii) a character is easily able to recover without magical aid. Which violates the imputed biological/physilological causality of people who are understood to be ordinary in their capabilities except when using magic.</p><p></p><p>To block peasant railguns, or bag-of-rats, or other stuff like that in d20 requires GM fiat - which is to say, the game engine must be messed with. No self-respecting RM or C&C player would put up with it!</p><p></p><p>EDIT:</p><p></p><p>Of course you can have a purist-for-system game that supports unrealistic or impossible oucomes eg DC Heroes. In RQ you can build demigods (give them high CON and (say) 10 points of armour on their skin). In RM you can do the same (see the Mythic Greece supplement, for instance).</p><p></p><p>But D&D is not this. It's not that it produces unrealistic outcomes. It's subsystems (hit points and action economy chief among them) violate ingame causality.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 6340783, member: 42582"] I think that when the article was written (in 1981) this was much less of a problem. I think back then there were more active RQ, C&S etc groups. That's part of what I was getting at when I was saying, earlier upthread, that modern sim-inclined players don't seem familiar with those other games in the way that such players were 30 years ago. The problem with Balesir's characterisation here of purist-for-system is that any RPG can be played in that way, if you read the rules back into the fiction. (Several posters on these boards seem to take that approach - eg [MENTION=6775031]Saelorn[/MENTION]). But Edwards, in characterising purist-for-system, clearly has in mind that there are external constraints on our conception of the world, which the system then has to model/account for. If you look at the systems [url=http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/15/]he actually identifies[/url] as aspiring to purist-for-system, they are exactly the sorts of systems that Pulsipher (and Gygax) has in mind as contrasting with D&D: [indent]The big commercial models are GURPS, BRP (in its "unstripped" form), DC Heroes (now Blood of Heroes), Rolemaster, D6 (derived and considerably Simulationized from Star Wars), and the Hero System (as such, mainly derived from Danger International and Fantasy Hero rather than early Champions)[/indent] He says this about d20: "Whether D20 should be included in this category [of purist-for-system sim] is a matter for some debate." I agree. Here are some general remarks that characterise sim, especially purist-for-system: [indent]The game engine, whatever it might be, is not to be messed with. It [i]is[/i] causality among the five elements of play. . . [b]Internal Cause is King[/b] Consider Character, Setting, and Situation - and now consider what happens to them, over time. In Simulationist play, [i]cause[/i] is the key, the imagined cosmos in action. . . System is a major design element here, as the causal anchor among the other elements. . . . [b]Resolution mechanics[/b], in Simulationist design, boil down to asking about the cause of [i]what[/i], which is to say, what performances are important during play . . . The causal sequence of task resolution in Simulationist play must be linear in time. He swings: on target or not? The other guy dodges or parries: well or badly? The weapon contacts the unit of armor + body: how hard? The armor stops some of it: how much? The remaining impact hits tissue: how deeply? With what psychological (stunning, pain) effects? With what continuing effects? All of this is settled in order, on this guy's "go," and the next guy's "go" is simply waiting its turn, in time. The few exceptions have always been accompanied by explanatory text, sometimes apologetic and sometimes blase. A good example is classic hit location, in which the characters first roll to-hit and to-parry, then hit location for anywhere on the body (RuneQuest, GURPS). Cognitively, to the Simulationist player, this requires a replay of the character's intent and action that is nearly intolerable. It often breaks down in play, either switching entirely to called shots and abandoning the location roll, or waiting on the parry roll until the hit location is known. Another good example is rolling for initiative, which has generated hours of painful argument about what in the world it represents in-game, at the moment of the roll relative to in-game time.[/indent] The bit about initiative resonates particularly strongly for me, because of all the variant rules and options that are part of RM, none has been done and redone more than initiative - there must be at least a dozen published initiative systems, all of them trying to handle the conflict between "taking turns" in game play and continuous, simultaneous resolution in the imagined reality of the gameworld. It is with the above remarks from Edwards in mind that I repeat my earlier post from upthread: The reason that simulationists reject hit points and turn-by-turn initiative is not because they are "unreaslistic" in any generic sense, but because they [I]violate ingame causality[/I]. For instance, turn-by-turn initiative allows for peasant railguns, whereas not even the simplest version of initiative in RM or RQ will do that; and hit points (especially in their pre-4e form) allow for it to be true both that (i) a character is near-death and (ii) a character is easily able to recover without magical aid. Which violates the imputed biological/physilological causality of people who are understood to be ordinary in their capabilities except when using magic. To block peasant railguns, or bag-of-rats, or other stuff like that in d20 requires GM fiat - which is to say, the game engine must be messed with. No self-respecting RM or C&C player would put up with it! EDIT: Of course you can have a purist-for-system game that supports unrealistic or impossible oucomes eg DC Heroes. In RQ you can build demigods (give them high CON and (say) 10 points of armour on their skin). In RM you can do the same (see the Mythic Greece supplement, for instance). But D&D is not this. It's not that it produces unrealistic outcomes. It's subsystems (hit points and action economy chief among them) violate ingame causality. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
More DMing analysis from Lewis Pulsipher
Top