Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="chaochou" data-source="post: 5609416" data-attributes="member: 99817">Simulationism is defined as prioritising causality (Internal Cause is King). Prioritising - that means subordinating other things in the game to it. It doesn't follow that a world featuring elements of causality (like, say, a law of gravity) are automatically sim. It means in sim mode, if the rescue attempt breaks the laws of gravity the dramatic rescue gets canned. That needn't be the case with G or N agendas.I can switch gravity on and off at random in Alpha Complex. The R&amp;D cleaning bot the size of a washing machine can transform into a giant killbot the side of an Apache helicopter. Players can not build a washing machine sized bot which transforms into a helicopter. Or switch gravity on and off. Unless it's funny (to us the players), in which case they can. See the internal causality? Me neither.I've seen plenty of games with rules like &quot;The zanier and crazier the attempted stunt, the better the chances of success.&quot;&nbsp; There's at least one game where for each description you add to your action you get an extra die to roll (Wushu, maybe? Danger Patrol certainly does it). It's a pure metagame device - it says entertain us at the table and your chances improve. Nothing to do with Internal Cause is King though, and still meaningful choice.I think to imagine consistent internal causality as a prerequisite for 'meaningful choice' across all three modes is synechdoche - mistaking one possible view of 'meaningful' for every possible view.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="chaochou, post: 5609416, member: 99817"] Simulationism is defined as prioritising causality (Internal Cause is King). Prioritising - that means subordinating other things in the game to it. It doesn't follow that a world featuring elements of causality (like, say, a law of gravity) are automatically sim. It means in sim mode, if the rescue attempt breaks the laws of gravity the dramatic rescue gets canned. That needn't be the case with G or N agendas. I can switch gravity on and off at random in Alpha Complex. The R&D cleaning bot the size of a washing machine can transform into a giant killbot the side of an Apache helicopter. Players can not build a washing machine sized bot which transforms into a helicopter. Or switch gravity on and off. Unless it's funny (to us the players), in which case they can. See the internal causality? Me neither. I've seen plenty of games with rules like "The zanier and crazier the attempted stunt, the better the chances of success." There's at least one game where for each description you add to your action you get an extra die to roll (Wushu, maybe? Danger Patrol certainly does it). It's a pure metagame device - it says entertain us at the table and your chances improve. Nothing to do with Internal Cause is King though, and still meaningful choice. I think to imagine consistent internal causality as a prerequisite for 'meaningful choice' across all three modes is synechdoche - mistaking one possible view of 'meaningful' for every possible view. [/QUOTE]

Verification