Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 8677645" data-attributes="member: 4937">The GULLIVER rules set for GURPS, as it existed probably circa 1999, is probably the most simulationist rules set ever.&nbsp; (Last I looked the author was trying to simplify it.)And it's not even that accurate.&nbsp; Because I've yet to see a rules set that actually models damage as shock, trauma, bloodloss and infection in detail.&nbsp;&nbsp; If you aren't modelling that, you aren't really modelling damage.&nbsp;&nbsp; GULLIVER only gets there by actually trying to model physical size accurately, something I've seen no other rules set attempt.I dropped my own attempts at realism when I realized that only a computer could reasonably handle the calculation of 3 types of damage against 3 defenses.Aces &amp; Eights is probably the most detailed attempt to model the fortune in combat I'm aware of.&nbsp; When evaluating rules sets for complexity, we tend to focus on how complex the fortune tests are - like the actual hit location system in Aces &amp; Eights.&nbsp;&nbsp; I learned when I went hard simulationist in the 90's that isn't the real problem with most published complexity.&nbsp;&nbsp; Something like the HERO system which would also be in the running has pretty simple fortune tests and it's pretty easy to play from the perspective of a PC after you get through all the crunch of creating your character from the freeform chargen engine.&nbsp; The real problem with pure simulationism is actually that it creates simply too much preparation for the GM.&nbsp; The GM ultimately ends up having to ignore the rules in order to create and run enough content to game. The secondary problem with realism is that reality doesn't make a good game.&nbsp;&nbsp; Even stories that are based on real events, we filter out all of those where the luck didn't make a great story and tell the story retroactively based on who &quot;rolled&quot; results that ended up producing a dramatic transcript.&nbsp;&nbsp; Since almost everyone is actually playing for the story in some sense, there gets to be a point very quickly where you have to add narrative currency to control the fortune.&nbsp;&nbsp; And that sort of gets to where I think is the sweet spot in gaming - casual realism combined with enough narrative currency to mitigate against the fortune.&nbsp; Where I think simulation effort ought to be focused is not on refining the casual realism to make it more realistic, but rather on broadly simulating all the different mini-games that could transpire in the course of play - evasion, negotiation, crafting, travel, transport operation, dominion building, movement, stealth, etc.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 8677645, member: 4937"] The GULLIVER rules set for GURPS, as it existed probably circa 1999, is probably the most simulationist rules set ever. (Last I looked the author was trying to simplify it.) And it's not even that accurate. Because I've yet to see a rules set that actually models damage as shock, trauma, bloodloss and infection in detail. If you aren't modelling that, you aren't really modelling damage. GULLIVER only gets there by actually trying to model physical size accurately, something I've seen no other rules set attempt. I dropped my own attempts at realism when I realized that only a computer could reasonably handle the calculation of 3 types of damage against 3 defenses. Aces & Eights is probably the most detailed attempt to model the fortune in combat I'm aware of. When evaluating rules sets for complexity, we tend to focus on how complex the fortune tests are - like the actual hit location system in Aces & Eights. I learned when I went hard simulationist in the 90's that isn't the real problem with most published complexity. Something like the HERO system which would also be in the running has pretty simple fortune tests and it's pretty easy to play from the perspective of a PC after you get through all the crunch of creating your character from the freeform chargen engine. The real problem with pure simulationism is actually that it creates simply too much preparation for the GM. The GM ultimately ends up having to ignore the rules in order to create and run enough content to game. The secondary problem with realism is that reality doesn't make a good game. Even stories that are based on real events, we filter out all of those where the luck didn't make a great story and tell the story retroactively based on who "rolled" results that ended up producing a dramatic transcript. Since almost everyone is actually playing for the story in some sense, there gets to be a point very quickly where you have to add narrative currency to control the fortune. And that sort of gets to where I think is the sweet spot in gaming - casual realism combined with enough narrative currency to mitigate against the fortune. Where I think simulation effort ought to be focused is not on refining the casual realism to make it more realistic, but rather on broadly simulating all the different mini-games that could transpire in the course of play - evasion, negotiation, crafting, travel, transport operation, dominion building, movement, stealth, etc. [/QUOTE]

Verification