Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8675201" data-attributes="member: 16814">[USER=7025508]@Crimson Longinus[/USER] repeated it, and carried it forward.Getting somewhere!This is exactly the post-hoc rationalization that isn't simulation.&nbsp; There's no attempt to create a thing that aligns the play with what someone might understand about the real world, instead we have that these events happen in the game, so we craft individual and specific stories for each instance to explain how it did happen.&nbsp; That's not sim, that's weaving a narrative after the fact to make sense of the game results.And that's 100% perfect!&nbsp; I don't really know how else you could approach 5e.&nbsp; Well, yes, it's absolutely post-hoc because this didn't start with 'simulating dragons' and then coming up with rules systems to do so.&nbsp; Instead, we start with the facts that the game presents in it's mechanics, and after we read those (post-hoc, after the fact) we come up with ways to weave a narrative around it.&nbsp; We know that the fighter didn't lose all his hitpoints in the fight, so after the fight (or after each blow that doesn't kill the fighter) we make up a story to explain the facts that have already happened -- the fighter ain't dead, so here's how that happened.&nbsp; This is 100% post-hoc.&nbsp; And, again, 100% perfectly fine.Now we've moved from discussion of simulation as making things feel real to following the rules of the game.&nbsp; Can we pick a stable set of goalposts?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 8675201, member: 16814"] [USER=7025508]@Crimson Longinus[/USER] repeated it, and carried it forward. Getting somewhere! This is exactly the post-hoc rationalization that isn't simulation. There's no attempt to create a thing that aligns the play with what someone might understand about the real world, instead we have that these events happen in the game, so we craft individual and specific stories for each instance to explain how it did happen. That's not sim, that's weaving a narrative after the fact to make sense of the game results. And that's 100% perfect! I don't really know how else you could approach 5e. Well, yes, it's absolutely post-hoc because this didn't start with 'simulating dragons' and then coming up with rules systems to do so. Instead, we start with the facts that the game presents in it's mechanics, and after we read those (post-hoc, after the fact) we come up with ways to weave a narrative around it. We know that the fighter didn't lose all his hitpoints in the fight, so after the fight (or after each blow that doesn't kill the fighter) we make up a story to explain the facts that have already happened -- the fighter ain't dead, so here's how that happened. This is 100% post-hoc. And, again, 100% perfectly fine. Now we've moved from discussion of simulation as making things feel real to following the rules of the game. Can we pick a stable set of goalposts? [/QUOTE]

Verification