Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Nom" data-source="post: 4242210" data-attributes="member: 56980">The trick is what the abstractionist is optimising for.&nbsp; The optimisation is not for mechanical effectiveness; it's for gameplay effectiveness.If I want a scene where the PCs get to face (and mow down) onrushing hordes, then I don't really want a detailed mechanical model for resolving the minutae of each individual participant.&nbsp; If I want a throwaway high-level wizard (life expectancy, 2 rounds), then I don't really want to make sure each of his 130 skill points are distributed correctly and that his entire spell book is coherent.&nbsp; If I want an ongoing series of one-on-one duels between a mighty wizard and a PC with lots of tactical options, then all this detail suddenly becomes important.In a sense, some of this is just &quot;levels of abstraction&quot; (see below).&nbsp; But with the rider that different parties do not need to operate at the same level of abstraction.&nbsp; It's acceptable to run the PCs at their &quot;normal&quot; abstraction level while sliding a particular creature up and down between &quot;detailed&quot; and &quot;mass combat&quot;.&nbsp; Because the mechanics don't actually tell the story in an abstractionist model, this is &quot;no harm, no foul&quot;.&nbsp; To the simulationist, the mechanics are integral to the story-model, and thus this is seen as breaking the world.Which is exactly my point.&nbsp; It's not about &quot;level of detail&quot;, but whether the resolution mechanics are even trying to model (&quot;simulate&quot;) the same thing as the story.&nbsp; I considered describing &quot;simulationism&quot; as &quot;concretism&quot; or &quot;coherence&quot;, but the former sounded silly and the latter is too imprecise (since an abstract system is supposed to be 'coherent' too, but using a much weaker mapping).The critical difference is the extent to which we allow the player to stand between the mechanical abstraction and the story.&nbsp; In a &quot;simulationist&quot; or &quot;concrete&quot; model, the story and the mechanics must be synchronised before and after each resolution event.&nbsp; In an &quot;abstractionist&quot; model, you can synchronise whenever you choose and to the extent you choose, even if a large number of resolution events occur between the two.Of course, nothing is pure.&nbsp; For example, a simulationist may accept that turn-based activity is an &quot;unrealistic&quot; game mechanic effect, so is willing to blur the story when it comes to who moves when.&nbsp; Similarly, few abstractionists would consider it reasonable to describe a character as having survived the combat when the mechanics clearly pronounce him dead.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Nom, post: 4242210, member: 56980"] The trick is what the abstractionist is optimising for. The optimisation is not for mechanical effectiveness; it's for gameplay effectiveness. If I want a scene where the PCs get to face (and mow down) onrushing hordes, then I don't really want a detailed mechanical model for resolving the minutae of each individual participant. If I want a throwaway high-level wizard (life expectancy, 2 rounds), then I don't really want to make sure each of his 130 skill points are distributed correctly and that his entire spell book is coherent. If I want an ongoing series of one-on-one duels between a mighty wizard and a PC with lots of tactical options, then all this detail suddenly becomes important. In a sense, some of this is just "levels of abstraction" (see below). But with the rider that different parties do not need to operate at the same level of abstraction. It's acceptable to run the PCs at their "normal" abstraction level while sliding a particular creature up and down between "detailed" and "mass combat". Because the mechanics don't actually [i]tell[/i] the story in an abstractionist model, this is "no harm, no foul". To the simulationist, the mechanics are integral to the story-model, and thus this is seen as breaking the world. Which is exactly my point. It's not about "level of detail", but whether the resolution mechanics are even trying to model ("simulate") the same thing as the story. I considered describing "simulationism" as "concretism" or "coherence", but the former sounded silly and the latter is too imprecise (since an abstract system is supposed to be 'coherent' too, but using a much weaker mapping). The critical difference is the extent to which we allow the player to stand between the mechanical abstraction and the story. In a "simulationist" or "concrete" model, the story and the mechanics must be synchronised before and after [u]each[/u] resolution event. In an "abstractionist" model, you can synchronise whenever you choose and to the extent you choose, even if a large number of resolution events occur between the two. Of course, nothing is pure. For example, a simulationist may accept that turn-based activity is an "unrealistic" game mechanic effect, so is willing to blur the story when it comes to who moves when. Similarly, few abstractionists would consider it reasonable to describe a character as having survived the combat when the mechanics clearly pronounce him dead. [/QUOTE]

Verification