Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 9043065" data-attributes="member: 42582">I am trying to work out what makes RPGing simulationist, on your account. Given that you say that it is not having anything besides simulation as a motive, that seems to make the notion of &quot;simulation&quot; relevant to making sense of it.As far as I can tell, you treat reasoning and modelling as synonymous, or at least largely coextensive. That strikes me as strained usage, in the sense that even without what I would consider modelling, it is possible to engage in dispassionate reasoning about &lt;things&gt;. (Eg reasoning that polar bears won't be found in the Sahara doesn't require a model, just some basic knowledge about polar bears and about the Sahara. To call those beliefs a &quot;model&quot; seems to me a misdescription of them.)In any event, I don't really get what clarity is added to the notion of dispassionate reasoning by labelling it simulation, but no matter.I'm trying to make sense of what contribution to simulationist RPGing these sorts of rules are taken to make.For instance, suppose that someone was an experienced CEO, or spy, or trial advocate, and hence rather than rely on GURPS Social Engineering they use their own knowledge to decide what happens when persons try and interact with organisations, or seek employment, or deal with law enforcement, would that still count as simulationism?The discussion of bears in the Sahara suggests yes. The emphasis on GURPS falling rules suggests no. Hence why I'm asking.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 9043065, member: 42582"] I am trying to work out what makes RPGing [I]simulationist[/I], on your account. Given that you say that it is [I]not having anything besides simulation as a motive[/I], that seems to make the notion of "simulation" relevant to making sense of it. As far as I can tell, you treat [I]reasoning[/I] and [I]modelling[/I] as synonymous, or at least largely coextensive. That strikes me as strained usage, in the sense that even without what I would consider [I]modelling[/I], it is possible to engage in dispassionate reasoning about <things>. (Eg reasoning that polar bears won't be found in the Sahara doesn't require a model, just some basic knowledge about polar bears and about the Sahara. To call those beliefs a "model" seems to me a misdescription of them.) In any event, I don't really get what clarity is added to the notion of dispassionate reasoning by labelling it [I]simulation[/I], but no matter. I'm trying to make sense of what contribution to simulationist RPGing these sorts of rules are taken to make. For instance, suppose that someone was an experienced CEO, or spy, or trial advocate, and hence rather than rely on GURPS Social Engineering they use their own knowledge to decide what happens when persons try and interact with organisations, or seek employment, or deal with law enforcement, would that still count as simulationism? The discussion of bears in the Sahara suggests yes. The emphasis on GURPS falling rules suggests no. Hence why I'm asking. [/QUOTE]

Verification