Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 9029002" data-attributes="member: 42582">[USER=6696971]@Manbearcat[/USER]I can tell you why I have doubts about their simulationist character. I'm working through this real-time, so let's see if I change my mind by the end of the post.In terms of my categories upthread, they fail at (2) because the GM isn't the one extrapolating the internal cause. The player has too much decision-making power.So let's turn to (1), which is the trickier case.I think the fact that the player gets to impose their will on the fiction, and generate consequences, without that being mediated via a dice roll, is what puts pressure on here. I can see your position (I think I can - I'm just about the opposite of a martial artist, but I can read and hopefully understand your words), and so if &quot;impose their will on the fiction&quot; = the PC imposes their will on the opponent then I can see the simulationist character you're pointing to. But the number of borderline cases - eg marking a dragon while poking it with a dagger, or marking only two of three foes one attacks because of a choice about how to divvy up the foes among the various PCs - makes me think there is sufficient metagame, or at least &quot;fortune in the middle&quot;, in there, that it doesn't quite hit the RM/RQ sweet spot.The fewer the borderline cases, the more the claim to be simulationist. But even that's not quite right: in RM, if you hit a borderline case then you rework the mechanic (or ad hoc it in some fashion - at my table that was generally consensual with the GM in the chair but not the boss); in 4e D&amp;D, you make up some fiction to explain it. Which reinforces the FitM-ish character of 4e.What do you think?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 9029002, member: 42582"] [USER=6696971]@Manbearcat[/USER] I can tell you why I have doubts about their simulationist character. I'm working through this real-time, so let's see if I change my mind by the end of the post. In terms of my categories upthread, they fail at (2) because the GM isn't the one extrapolating the internal cause. The player has too much decision-making power. So let's turn to (1), which is the trickier case. I think the fact that [I]the player[/I] gets to impose their will on the fiction, and generate consequences, without that being mediated via a dice roll, is what puts pressure on here. I can see your position (I think I can - I'm just about the opposite of a martial artist, but I can read and hopefully understand your words), and so if "impose their will on the fiction" = [I]the PC imposes their will on the opponent[/I] then I can see the simulationist character you're pointing to. But the number of borderline cases - eg marking a dragon while poking it with a dagger, or marking only two of three foes one attacks because of a choice about how to divvy up the foes among the various PCs - makes me think there is sufficient metagame, or at least "fortune in the middle", in there, that it doesn't quite hit the RM/RQ sweet spot. The fewer the borderline cases, the more the claim to be simulationist. But even that's not quite right: in RM, if you hit a borderline case then you rework the mechanic (or ad hoc it in some fashion - at my table that was generally consensual with the GM in the chair but not the boss); in 4e D&D, you make up some fiction to explain it. Which reinforces the FitM-ish character of 4e. What do you think? [/QUOTE]

Verification