Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 9042965" data-attributes="member: 82106">Read your own references, OK?"A simulation is the imitation of the operation of a real-world process or system over time. Simulations require the use of models; the model represents the key characteristics or behaviors of the selected system or process, whereas the simulation represents the evolution of the model over time."A model, in this context, means a mathematical or logical formulation which relates characteristics of a modeled system to characteristics of the model itself. Normally a model will be simpler than the actual modeled system, and may only be valid within a certain 'model domain', that is some set of states, time, actions, or with respect to only certain traits of the modeled system.Simulations drive models. That is, an instance of a simulation updates the state of its model over time, relating model state at one time to model state at another time (there are some variations here, but they're not important for this discussion).Honestly, it isn't ACCURACY that really is fundamentally the issue. Its simply a category error to call what is happening in RPGs simulation AT ALL. It isn't. There is usually no model, except in the simplest cases (IE D&D's rule for falling could be said to take the character as a model and apply a rule which alters its hit points based on an input of the distance fallen). Even the falling example is a tenuous simulation. The model is extremely lacking in detail, and the rule being applied is consequently simplistic in the extreme. The results are only realistic to a sort of 'order of magnitude' degree, but still, I've repeatedly yielded on these edge cases. I hardly think, even collectively, they add up to much.On the whole there are no models, because there are no realities to be modeled! I also grant that non-existent things are often said to be modeled, such as aircraft which do not yet exist, yet these are very specific things which COULD exist, and who's posited characteristics are well enough understood to be modeled (where this is not the case then engineering studies must be conducted first, at least in the engineering world, other disciplines may operate similarly). A fantasy world is NOT understood, not in a fundamental sense. It contains features which are not simply fanciful things which can be modeled, but things which posit fundamental differences between the fantasy world and reality at a very low level. Dragons simply cannot fly, by any real-world measure. The fact that they do fly, and can breath fire, isn't simply some trivial thing, it indicates that the entire fundamental basis of the fantasy world is not rooted in physical laws at all! The implications are beyond wide-ranging, and entirely unknowable!There are also no models because the state of the fantasy world is so poorly defined that constructing a model from it would be of little or no value, even assuming we understood its laws well enough. So, we cannot construct a model, and we cannot initialize the state of a simulation, and thus we really have nothing at all. Simply some 'rules of thumb' and to call a rule of thumb of this kind a simulation is to rob the term of all meaning.Finally, I don't actually have any issue with people's use of various labels for styles of RPG design, play, agenda, etc. Terms get used in ways far from their actual original meanings in these specialized contexts all the time. What I am pointing out is simply that it is of no use to take such a term used in such a specialized way, and then attribute the character of the more usual and formal meaning of the term to this special context. So, for example, Ron Edwards uses the term 'simulation' (and he probably got it through its general usage in alt.rec.games which derived from a more conventional war gamer usage of the term). You may pick it up from either of those sources and term your play 'simulationist', as you wish. I am not the English language police! However, when you then draw conclusions about your play based on a mistaken assumption that 'simulationism' in RPGs is in any substantive way related to the actual classic concept of simulations, then your reasoning will inevitably be seriously flawed. IMHO this is the root and cause of what I see as flawed analysis of this sort of play which I have commonly encountered at various times throughout my RPG gaming hobby activities. Still, I also defend my previous post. Simulations of highly complex, non-linear, and largely unquantifiable systems is a highly fraught endeavor, at best. Having some experience, as I indicated, with some of the MORE TRACTABLE types of simulations I know that even these are often quirky at best. Extrapolations of the sort which are undertaken in RPGs, of people's motives, of social dynamics, of economic considerations, and most importantly of human motives, thought, and emotion, seems ESPECIALLY fraught. So I stick by my statement, you better have some really good data to even attempt it, and RPG game masters do not have that.</blockquote>

Verification