Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 7621872" data-attributes="member: 4937">My suspicion is that it is because gamers tend to prefer the least abstract experience of the scenario possible (or at least that is convenient).&nbsp; For combat, the least abstract thing to do would be dress up in armor, take up some sort of sparring weapon, and play out the combat.&nbsp; This is exciting visceral and only slightly abstract and many people do it, yet it is not particularly convenient and leaves open problems of how you simulate giants, dragons, magic, and most of all being someone other than yourself. The combat rules used by most systems, and certainly by the most popular and enduring systems, tend to be as un-abstract as is convenient to run in a table top game.&nbsp;&nbsp; All those fiddly rules help describe a less abstract reality for the combat, where moment by moment decisions can be played out in a way that allows the participants to imagine what is going on.By contrast, the least abstract way to simulate social interaction is with social interaction.&nbsp; Table-top RPGs after all are inherently social games, and so the easiest way to simulate a conversation is simply to have that conversation.&nbsp;&nbsp; Actually having the conversation creates in a non-abstract way what was said in a far more detailed, complete, natural and convenient manner than any attempt to model conversations as combat ever could.&nbsp;&nbsp; Thus, while the least abstract combat system involves the most rules, the least abstract social system involves the fewest rules. And while there are some complexities to overcome in imagining conversations, I personally as a DM find it easier to simulate speaking and thinking like a dragon - however unrealistic my approximation may be - than I find it to actually simulate moving and fighting like a dragon.&nbsp;&nbsp; I can pretend to hubris and greed far easier than I can pretend to fly and breath fire and be 40' long.&nbsp;&nbsp; Barring acquiring the ability to change shape and bend the laws of physics, I'm going to need to model the later in a way I don't need a model for something I can do like conversation.So in a sense, yes we do choose rules for one over the other, but I don't think it is true that we do this for arbitrary reasons or even that the reasons are primarily cultural in nature.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 7621872, member: 4937"] My suspicion is that it is because gamers tend to prefer the least abstract experience of the scenario possible (or at least that is convenient). For combat, the least abstract thing to do would be dress up in armor, take up some sort of sparring weapon, and play out the combat. This is exciting visceral and only slightly abstract and many people do it, yet it is not particularly convenient and leaves open problems of how you simulate giants, dragons, magic, and most of all being someone other than yourself. The combat rules used by most systems, and certainly by the most popular and enduring systems, tend to be as un-abstract as is convenient to run in a table top game. All those fiddly rules help describe a less abstract reality for the combat, where moment by moment decisions can be played out in a way that allows the participants to imagine what is going on. By contrast, the least abstract way to simulate social interaction is with social interaction. Table-top RPGs after all are inherently social games, and so the easiest way to simulate a conversation is simply to have that conversation. Actually having the conversation creates in a non-abstract way what was said in a far more detailed, complete, natural and convenient manner than any attempt to model conversations as combat ever could. Thus, while the least abstract combat system involves the most rules, the least abstract social system involves the fewest rules. And while there are some complexities to overcome in imagining conversations, I personally as a DM find it easier to simulate speaking and thinking like a dragon - however unrealistic my approximation may be - than I find it to actually simulate moving and fighting like a dragon. I can pretend to hubris and greed far easier than I can pretend to fly and breath fire and be 40' long. Barring acquiring the ability to change shape and bend the laws of physics, I'm going to need to model the later in a way I don't need a model for something I can do like conversation. So in a sense, yes we do choose rules for one over the other, but I don't think it is true that we do this for arbitrary reasons or even that the reasons are primarily cultural in nature. [/QUOTE]

Verification