Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="hawkeyefan" data-source="post: 8673548" data-attributes="member: 6785785">I think it's likely because, even if we accept the definition you posed in your OP:the question becomes &quot;what games don't do this?&quot;What version of D&amp;D would you describe as NOT working &quot;sort of like how things work, if you squint&quot;? Or what other games generally depict a world that DOESN'T follow some loose model of real-world cause and effect? The only ones I can think of are the ones that explicitly and deliberately do so, such as Toon, which was mentioned above. I'm sure there are some others, but that they likely do so in a similar way; they break that rule intentionally.So, if we accept that most games and settings meet the criteria of how you've defined &quot;simulation&quot;, the question then is &quot;what exceptions to real world physics am I willing to overlook, and which am I not?&quot; And related &quot;what in-world reasons am I willing to accept for these exceptions?&quot; Mutant powers... magic... the Matrix... many settings build in some kind of explanation for the absurdities.&quot;Because magic&quot; has been cited many times over this and similar discussions. It's because magic is absolutely impervious to simulation. So it's used as the catchall to explain away what is otherwise not remotely &quot;realistic&quot; like dragons and ogres and paladins and such. These things work because they are magic. They cannot be simulated. And then once you accept that for SO MUCH of the content of a typical D&amp;D game, it kind of makes one wonder why be a stickler about jumping distances, or how maneuverable folks would be in heavy armor and so on.It's all rather subjective, isn't it? And I think subjectivity is kind of at odds with simulation, isn't it?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="hawkeyefan, post: 8673548, member: 6785785"] I think it's likely because, even if we accept the definition you posed in your OP: the question becomes "what games don't do this?" What version of D&D would you describe as NOT working "sort of like how things work, if you squint"? Or what other games generally depict a world that DOESN'T follow some loose model of real-world cause and effect? The only ones I can think of are the ones that explicitly and deliberately do so, such as Toon, which was mentioned above. I'm sure there are some others, but that they likely do so in a similar way; they break that rule intentionally. So, if we accept that most games and settings meet the criteria of how you've defined "simulation", the question then is "what exceptions to real world physics am I willing to overlook, and which am I not?" And related "what in-world reasons am I willing to accept for these exceptions?" Mutant powers... magic... the Matrix... many settings build in some kind of explanation for the absurdities. "Because magic" has been cited many times over this and similar discussions. It's because magic is absolutely impervious to simulation. So it's used as the catchall to explain away what is otherwise not remotely "realistic" like dragons and ogres and paladins and such. These things work because they are magic. They cannot be simulated. And then once you accept that for SO MUCH of the content of a typical D&D game, it kind of makes one wonder why be a stickler about jumping distances, or how maneuverable folks would be in heavy armor and so on. It's all rather subjective, isn't it? And I think subjectivity is kind of at odds with simulation, isn't it? [/QUOTE]

Verification