NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Enrahim" data-source="post: 9704266" data-attributes="member: 7025577">The troubleling thing with the conversation is that while 1 and 2 might be right, trying to nail down anything more spesific is so extremely contextual that the conversation stalls on trying and failing to define an aproperiate context. The big one is what we aim to simulate. An airplane simulation are not particularly supported by tables for effect of diseases, while a war simulator probably have little use for an skill for providing sharp art critisism.Another dimension is that the entire simulation entusiast sphere is split into the mechanics vs rulings lairs dating back to the kriegspeil/free kriegspeil split. Those in the first lair would typically put simulation mechanics in category 1, while the other might rather say they hamper simulation (though maybe not go as far as claiming them to be fully incompatible like category 2 suggest). And this gets even harder when the majority of the players liking simulation isn't even aware of this split, and happily mix stuff from both lairs.It doesn't help when you have the fact that the simulation in it's own is generally not an end goal in itself, but rather itself being a central support for a wide range of experiences. So even in the same scope of simulation, a technique that strictly speaking supports the simulation can hurt one of the experiences the simulation is supposed to support. This phenomenom is hard to isolate, and hence conversations could be quick to bundle such techniques (unprecisely) into category 2 rather than cathegory 1.That means it seem relatively easy to get an agreement that 1 and 2 exist, and similarly it sort of follows that 4 should make sense (Edit: however counting type 1 techniques is good metric. Even a system with technique A and B might be worse than one with only technique A if there are some unfortunate interactions between A and B. I am sceptical if a metric between category 3 systems purely in terms of "simultionism" can make sense. This is why  find the idea of a "simulationistic game" silly, as simply the absence of forced simulation breaking mechanics seem like a very low bar to pass to me. This is generally not the criterion used with the classifications I have seen attempted)3 I have not seen much evidence for, and I think the proponets for that is a small minority.However actually concretising 1 and 2 beyond "existence" tend to fail due to the above problems. Actually I find it quite amazing how fail roll could be narrated as success without complication seemed to be universally recognised as category 2 among the self proclaimed sim fans in this thread (I don't count myself among them) - but if you look at it the key rationale for this classification differed even among them.This is why I say that these attempts have not been fruitful. It is not denouncing the abstract concept that some techniques might be better for sim than others. It is descriptive of the state of the discurse I have seen.</blockquote>

Verification