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="clearstream" data-source="post: 9715854" data-attributes="member: 71699">That's well stated. I suspect that when it comes to TTRPG game mechanics, whatever "simulation" they are doing is seldom validated to ensure results fit with real-world observations. That sometimes seems to be almost beside the point, based on the game mechanics folk concerned with process-simulation seems satisfied can meet its standards. That's setting aside cases where there can be no real-world observations... which are probably rarer than one might expect due to the prevalence of type-III facts. In any event, TTRPG mechanics are more often validated to ensure results fit with the intended played-experience.Wargaming mechanics are an exception, in that they are often validated to ensure results fit with historical data. WRG and DBM rules being examples. Designers like James F Dunnigan were both wargames designers and military analysts. I don't know whether or not the RM or RQ rules were explicitly validated that way. The rules on chariots and phalanx formations in RQ  seem likely to have been at least strongly informed by historical research. But then who is to say that the distribution of the Battle skill roll made to move a phalanx forward with a rate of 2 looks anything like the distribution of real phalanx leaders in successfully advancing their phalanxes at double-time!For some, these sort of expectations about reenactment table top wargaming mechanics have carried forward into TTRPG. I could get behind an advocate of process-simulation who was making those sorts of arguments. Few game mechanics meet that standard, however.</blockquote>

Verification