Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8675687" data-attributes="member: 16814">It really doesn't.&nbsp; The mechanics and how they work don't change -- still conflict resolution.&nbsp; This just adds an arbitrary GM-side tool to make a roll harder or easier based only on the GM's appraisal of the situation -- which isn't really simulating anything at all.&nbsp; You seem to want to argue that simulation requires that the GM be able to assign a difficulty based only on what the GM thinks the situation is.&nbsp; If there's at least some of this, simulation!&nbsp; If none, no simulation.&nbsp; It's not a great definition of simulation as it isn't a complete statement and works on exceptions to keep things out.&nbsp; This goes to this point you're trying to make:Not at all.&nbsp; It's just that your working definition of simulation that you presented upthread, and a number of other attempts, all have serious issues in use.&nbsp; Issues like having to engage in special pleading to include some things (dragons) and exclude others (mechanics with enough 'metagamey' things that you don't like).&nbsp; It's an argument about things you like rather than one that actually does work.&nbsp; The best definition of simulation that I think works is the goal of play being to create, immerse, and 'dream' within the fiction of the game.&nbsp; Defined as a goal, we can further detail it to what allows you to immerse -- what's your specific goal?&nbsp; Is it to have as realistic a game as possible (hint, avoid 5e!) or is it to engage fully in a genre?&nbsp; Pick it, then you can evaluate if a game does this.&nbsp; 5e is a mess, with some bits trying to do one thing and other bits trying to do others.&nbsp; If I pick real world, then the athletics bits work okay-ish enough that I can get by, but I'm having problems with dragons all the way around.&nbsp; If I pick genre, then dragons are fine, but the athletics bits are jarring!&nbsp; You can't get there and say &quot;both are doing the same good work.&quot;&nbsp; Because, at the end of the day, they are not -- they're aimed at different targets and those don't and can't coexist without cognitive dissonance.&nbsp; Humans are great at papering over cognitive dissonance, though, and it's not like this is a big enough crack to cripple the game (obvs).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 8675687, member: 16814"] It really doesn't. The mechanics and how they work don't change -- still conflict resolution. This just adds an arbitrary GM-side tool to make a roll harder or easier based only on the GM's appraisal of the situation -- which isn't really simulating anything at all. You seem to want to argue that simulation requires that the GM be able to assign a difficulty based only on what the GM thinks the situation is. If there's at least some of this, simulation! If none, no simulation. It's not a great definition of simulation as it isn't a complete statement and works on exceptions to keep things out. This goes to this point you're trying to make: Not at all. It's just that your working definition of simulation that you presented upthread, and a number of other attempts, all have serious issues in use. Issues like having to engage in special pleading to include some things (dragons) and exclude others (mechanics with enough 'metagamey' things that you don't like). It's an argument about things you like rather than one that actually does work. The best definition of simulation that I think works is the goal of play being to create, immerse, and 'dream' within the fiction of the game. Defined as a goal, we can further detail it to what allows you to immerse -- what's your specific goal? Is it to have as realistic a game as possible (hint, avoid 5e!) or is it to engage fully in a genre? Pick it, then you can evaluate if a game does this. 5e is a mess, with some bits trying to do one thing and other bits trying to do others. If I pick real world, then the athletics bits work okay-ish enough that I can get by, but I'm having problems with dragons all the way around. If I pick genre, then dragons are fine, but the athletics bits are jarring! You can't get there and say "both are doing the same good work." Because, at the end of the day, they are not -- they're aimed at different targets and those don't and can't coexist without cognitive dissonance. Humans are great at papering over cognitive dissonance, though, and it's not like this is a big enough crack to cripple the game (obvs). [/QUOTE]

Verification