Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="FormerlyHemlock" data-source="post: 9029310" data-attributes="member: 6787650">Surprisingly, I think there is disagreement on the thread about which things are simulations, but I don't think you and I are arguing about that. And hopefully we're both in agreement that the output (story) from a simulationist simulation and a dramatist simulation and a gamist simulation can look quite similar once you subtract all the player transcripts.You say RPGs don't do any simulating at all beyond immediate tactical stuff, and as a generalization I disagree, but then again I'm a fan of RPG supplements like GURPS Low Tech Companion 3 (which has lovely, simple, and plausible rules for modeling food production for hunter-gatherer cultures vs. more technologically-advanced cultures that practice agriculture with iron plows) and GURPS Social Engineering (which has lovely, simple, and plausible rules for modeling individual interactions with other individuals and organizations across a wide range of interaction types such as requesting aid or information, interacting with law enforcement, and seeking employment).As a practical matter though I'm willing to stipulate that at many tables (unknown fraction), many GMs make no effort to determine &quot;what would really happen&quot; in the gameworld in response to player actions. They concern themselves solely with other factors such as making sure players have a good time. There's nothing wrong with this, but if you want to say they're not using a simulation and I want to say they don't lean simulationist, it seems to me that we're not disagreeing on that point. I just don't generalize that judgment to &quot;RPGs&quot; in general.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="FormerlyHemlock, post: 9029310, member: 6787650"] Surprisingly, I think there is disagreement on the thread about which things are simulations, but I don't think you and I are arguing about that. And hopefully we're both in agreement that the output (story) from a simulationist simulation and a dramatist simulation and a gamist simulation can look quite similar once you subtract all the player transcripts. You say RPGs don't do any simulating at all beyond immediate tactical stuff, and as a generalization I disagree, but then again I'm a fan of RPG supplements like GURPS Low Tech Companion 3 (which has lovely, simple, and plausible rules for modeling food production for hunter-gatherer cultures vs. more technologically-advanced cultures that practice agriculture with iron plows) and GURPS Social Engineering (which has lovely, simple, and plausible rules for modeling individual interactions with other individuals and organizations across a wide range of interaction types such as requesting aid or information, interacting with law enforcement, and seeking employment). As a practical matter though I'm willing to stipulate that at many tables (unknown fraction), many GMs make no effort to determine "what would really happen" in the gameworld in response to player actions. They concern themselves solely with other factors such as making sure players have a good time. There's nothing wrong with this, but if you want to say they're not using a simulation and I want to say they don't lean simulationist, it seems to me that we're not disagreeing on that point. I just don't generalize that judgment to "RPGs" in general. [/QUOTE]

Verification