Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Thomas Shey" data-source="post: 8962384" data-attributes="member: 7026617">The key words there were &quot;emulated&quot;.&nbsp; Because, again, for the level the PCs are operating which are usually one-ship personal trading vessels, most of the data that would matter at a higher level is, functionally, invisible.&nbsp; It might be a different story if the PCs were monitoring economic trends across their trade area and had the skills to analyze what those trends meant, but beyond &quot;Currently pharmaceuticals are in surplus on Planet A and are in demand on Planet Z&quot;, neither of those is true.&nbsp; It might as well just be a table because the cause an effect are beyond their ability to perceive and/or utilize it.This is the thing I keep arguing; certain depths of simulation are only relevant to the degree that a PC group can interact with it in some meaningful fashion.&nbsp; Past that random tables do a good a job of meaningful simulation as a far more detailed simulation would, because the latter would be functionally invisible.Its why I say it makes an enormous difference what level the PCs are operating at.&nbsp; I just reject characterizing the parts of the setting PCs are able to interact with as a &quot;tiny part&quot;.&nbsp;&nbsp; Its not.&nbsp; Its as big as any simulation anyone does, because they're always ignoring things that are irrelevant or abstracting them heavily.Assuming participant decision making is liable to produce a more correct output.&nbsp; That's a big &quot;if&quot;.Averaging over time?&nbsp; Again, you could have a variation roll, but is it serving an actual purpose given the scope of play?(Mind you, the way the economics of Trav is set up is deliberately broken to make trade by itself unfeasible without secondary income, but that part is very clearly a gamist artifact to make sure the trade game is part of a more broad style campaign rather than just a simple trade game).What can I tell you, man?&nbsp; I disagree with your premises (at least enough of them), so I disagree with your conclusion.&nbsp; And I haven't been focused heavily on simulationism for 35 years now.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Thomas Shey, post: 8962384, member: 7026617"] The key words there were "emulated". Because, again, for the level the PCs are operating which are usually one-ship personal trading vessels, most of the data that would matter at a higher level is, functionally, invisible. It might be a different story if the PCs were monitoring economic trends across their trade area and had the skills to analyze what those trends meant, but beyond "Currently pharmaceuticals are in surplus on Planet A and are in demand on Planet Z", neither of those is true. It might as well just be a table because the cause an effect are beyond their ability to perceive and/or utilize it. This is the thing I keep arguing; certain depths of simulation are only relevant to the degree that a PC group can interact with it in some meaningful fashion. Past that random tables do a good a job of meaningful simulation as a far more detailed simulation would, because the latter would be functionally invisible. Its why I say it makes an enormous difference what level the PCs are operating at. I just reject characterizing the parts of the setting PCs are able to interact with as a "tiny part". Its not. Its as big as any simulation anyone does, because they're always ignoring things that are irrelevant or abstracting them heavily. Assuming participant decision making is liable to produce a more correct output. That's a big "if". Averaging over time? Again, you could have a variation roll, but is it serving an actual purpose given the scope of play? (Mind you, the way the economics of Trav is set up is deliberately broken to make trade by itself unfeasible without secondary income, but [I]that [/I]part is very clearly a gamist artifact to make sure the trade game is part of a more broad style campaign rather than just a simple trade game). What can I tell you, man? I disagree with your premises (at least enough of them), so I disagree with your conclusion. And I haven't been focused heavily on simulationism for 35 years now. [/QUOTE]

Verification