Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 8674133" data-attributes="member: 42582">I've bolded the bit of your post that really resonated with me.When I think of RPG mechanics being simulationist, I have a similar sort of idea to what [USER=22779]@Hussar[/USER] does (if I'm properly reading his posts). I want the mechanics to tell me what is happening in the fiction. This is the great appeal of a system like Rolemaster or RuneQuest.Whereas HD, hp, AC, damage dice, saving throws - the core apparatus of D&amp;D - don't do that. Mathematically, the relevant numbers applied in accordance with the relevant rules will tell us what happens and whether the dragon or the fighter wins the fight. But how did the fighter do it? The system doesn't tell me. And that lack of information is reinforced by other parts of the rules that tell me that the fighter is not Beowulf or even Aragorn - can't hold their breath for hours, can't forced march for days without ill effect. (What does Eomer say? &quot;Wingfoot, they should call you,&quot; or something very similar.)These posts convey well what I'm trying to get at above.If a game's mechanical system tells me contradictory things about the same bit of the world - in this case, how tough and athletic the high level fighter is - then any sense of simulation is spoiled.This is an issue that has plagued D&amp;D from its beginnings, because of the failure to factor level and its concomitants (saving throws, hit points, to hit bonus, etc) into all aspects of the game that involve the fiction they pertain to: toughness, endurance, prowess, etc. If my fighter can kill a wyvern or a dragon in a one-on-one melee, why are they not able to hold their breath for hours, go without water for weeks, etc (think about REH's Conan being crucified but not dying in &quot;A Witch Shall Be Born&quot;).This is actually why I found 4e D&amp;D super-verisimilitudinous, even though its resolution processes are not simulationist in the jargonistic sense used by Ron Edwards.EDITED to add a missing &quot;not&quot; in the final sentence.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 8674133, member: 42582"] I've bolded the bit of your post that really resonated with me. When I think of RPG mechanics being [i]simulationist[/i], I have a similar sort of idea to what [USER=22779]@Hussar[/USER] does (if I'm properly reading his posts). I want the mechanics to tell me what is happening in the fiction. This is the great appeal of a system like Rolemaster or RuneQuest. Whereas HD, hp, AC, damage dice, saving throws - the core apparatus of D&D - don't do that. Mathematically, the relevant numbers applied in accordance with the relevant rules will tell us what happens and whether the dragon or the fighter wins the fight. But how did the fighter do it? The system doesn't tell me. And that lack of information is [i]reinforced[/i] by other parts of the rules that tell me that the fighter is not Beowulf or even Aragorn - can't hold their breath for hours, can't forced march for days without ill effect. (What does Eomer say? "Wingfoot, they should call you," or something very similar.) These posts convey well what I'm trying to get at above. If a game's mechanical system tells me contradictory things about [i]the same bit of the world[/i] - in this case, how tough and athletic the high level fighter is - then any sense of simulation is spoiled. This is an issue that has plagued D&D from its beginnings, because of the failure to factor level and its concomitants (saving throws, hit points, to hit bonus, etc) into all aspects of the game that involve the fiction they pertain to: toughness, endurance, prowess, etc. If my fighter can kill a wyvern or a dragon in a one-on-one melee, why are they not able to hold their breath for hours, go without water for weeks, etc (think about REH's Conan being crucified but not dying in "A Witch Shall Be Born"). This is actually why I found 4e D&D super-verisimilitudinous, even though its resolution processes are not simulationist in the jargonistic sense used by Ron Edwards. EDITED to add a missing "not" in the final sentence. [/QUOTE]

Verification