Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 8962404" data-attributes="member: 42582">As I understand it, for process X to be a simulation of process Y, there has to be some more-or-less given Y that X is then related to in some fashion (typically by some sort of structural and/or causal resemblance, I think). But in the case of RPGing, there is no Y that we can compare X to, once we get beyond very narrow bounds.This is what I take to be [USER=82106]@AbdulAlhazred[/USER]'s point, with which I am in agreement.It doesn't mean that there is no difference between (say) RQ and D&amp;D, or RM and Burning Wheel. I've repeatedly stated that the differences are obvious and fairly deep.But the differences don't consist in RM and RQ being simulations of worlds, or even of significant parts of worlds. At best they set out to simulate some aspects of hand-to-hand combat and some aspects of athletic endeavour.The difference consists in the action resolution processes, and also in some aspects of scene framing/content introduction that are connected to those processes. The action resolution processes aspire to be closed (in AbdulAlhazred's sense), hence requiring no decision-making from the participants once they are set in motion; and closely related to this, from the action resolution processes you can read off salient elements of the fiction on the way through. (This contrasts, obviously, with &quot;fortune in the middle&quot; resolution and also with &quot;say 'yes' or roll the dice&quot;, &quot;fail forward&quot; and &quot;let it ride&quot;.)It only obscures these fundamental elements of these RPGs to describe them as in any literal sense &quot;world simulations&quot;.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 8962404, member: 42582"] As I understand it, for process X to be a simulation of process Y, there has to be some more-or-less given Y that X is then related to in some fashion (typically by some sort of structural and/or causal resemblance, I think). But in the case of RPGing, there is no Y that we can compare X to, once we get beyond [I]very[/I] narrow bounds. This is what I take to be [USER=82106]@AbdulAlhazred[/USER]'s point, with which I am in agreement. It doesn't mean that there is no difference between (say) RQ and D&D, or RM and Burning Wheel. I've repeatedly stated that the differences are obvious and fairly deep. But the differences don't consist in RM and RQ being simulations of worlds, or even of significant parts of worlds. At best they set out to simulate some aspects of hand-to-hand combat and some aspects of athletic endeavour. The difference consists in the action resolution processes, and also in some aspects of scene framing/content introduction that are connected to those processes. The action resolution processes aspire to be [I]closed[/I] (in AbdulAlhazred's sense), hence requiring no decision-making from the participants once they are set in motion; and closely related to this, from the action resolution processes you can read off salient elements of the fiction on the way through. (This contrasts, obviously, with "fortune in the middle" resolution and also with "say 'yes' or roll the dice", "fail forward" and "let it ride".) It only obscures these fundamental elements of these RPGs to describe them as in any literal sense "world simulations". [/QUOTE]

Verification