Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 8962612" data-attributes="member: 82106">Purely as a mathematician, I would say it requires there to be some mathematical 'transform' which can map a state of Y onto a state of X. So, if I were to take the current positions velocities, and masses of the planets, and Newton's Laws of Motion, and his Law of Gravity, I can write a pretty good simulation of the Solar System in the sense that this is enough data to extrapolate their positions, or at the very worst a set of positions that are a plausible outcome of the current state, some time into the future. There is some sort of relationship that would hold between X (the actual positions/velocities of the planets at some future time) and Y (the outcome of my simulation). Thus I can say this is truly a simulation, and it might even reveal as-of-yet-unknown traits of the real system, like orbital resonances, or modes of instability that exist in both the simulation and the real system which ARISE NATURALLY in each due to analogous components of both systems. This is the sort of thing that is generally meant by 'simulation'. In engineering the meaning is similar, a simulation of a nuclear power plant will model a core meltdown when the main coolant loop fails, not because this is coded into it, but because the model itself represents the essential elements of the real system such that its state will evolve in a way that is related to the state of the real system under analogous inputs.Right, and those differences are, potentially, meaningful in terms of what sort of game results, how the fiction plays out, what choices exist for the players, etc.precisely. In no way is my commentary directed as some sort of derogatory statement. It is simply intended as a point from which explication can start. My intent is to show the common ground between different approaches to running games. I see the subject matter of this thread, plot armor, minions, and presumably similar stuff if I can extrapolate from the OP a bit, as closely related to the 'sim' question. I personally think that if we sheer away answers to questions like "why would we not use minions" that amount to "they aren't good simulations of monsters" then we can analyze more fundamental aspects of the question, answers that get us closer to understanding the essence of WHY we choose certain patterns of RPG game design as well as play techniques. Now, maybe not everyone wants to discuss what the differences might be between an answer like "minions don't simulate real creatures very well" vs "the fiction produced when describing combat with minions doesn't have the character I like" but I find it somewhat interesting. I find it interesting to ask which sorts of play these different alternatives favor and if there are, for instance, ways to have your cake and eat it too.</blockquote>

Verification