Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 6354156" data-attributes="member: 22779">Ok, this does go a long way to explaining why we can't come to any agreement here.&nbsp; If you look at Final Fantasy 1 combat and see that as a simulation, then, yeah, we're just never going to agree.&nbsp; To me, that's pure gamism.&nbsp; There's nothing actually being simulated here, at all.&nbsp; The damage dealt, the chances of a successful attack, none of that is based on any sort of modelling of what is happening in the situation.&nbsp; All we know is who won in the end.&nbsp; It's coin flipping writ large.&nbsp; Again, a simulation actually has to explain HOW SOMETHING HAPPENED.&nbsp; That's the point of a simulation.&nbsp; You cannot actually tell me how one creature killed the other creature using Final Fantasy 1.&nbsp; Same with D&amp;D.&nbsp; You can tell me that the monster is dead, but you can't actually tell me anything about how it died.A model, any model, has to explain how something happened.&nbsp; It could do so in very basic terms, but, it does actually have to tell you how something happened.&nbsp; Why did someone get annoyed with me when I passed gas?&nbsp; Well, our handy Newtonian simulation model tells us that gas disperses in a volume, thus, that person could smell my social faux pas.&nbsp; Event begins, event is explained and the event concludes.&nbsp; Simulation.By the definition of simulation you are using, Pac Man is now a simulation.&nbsp; Well, I suppose that explains why people insist their D&amp;D is a sim game.&nbsp; Just use a definition of simulation that includes anything and everything you want it to include and then claim that your favourite edition does that.&nbsp; Ok, I understand better now.&nbsp; Simulation is simply the latest equivalent of Video Gamey.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 6354156, member: 22779"] Ok, this does go a long way to explaining why we can't come to any agreement here. If you look at Final Fantasy 1 combat and see that as a simulation, then, yeah, we're just never going to agree. To me, that's pure gamism. There's nothing actually being simulated here, at all. The damage dealt, the chances of a successful attack, none of that is based on any sort of modelling of what is happening in the situation. All we know is who won in the end. It's coin flipping writ large. Again, a simulation actually has to explain HOW SOMETHING HAPPENED. That's the point of a simulation. You cannot actually tell me how one creature killed the other creature using Final Fantasy 1. Same with D&D. You can tell me that the monster is dead, but you can't actually tell me anything about how it died. A model, any model, has to explain how something happened. It could do so in very basic terms, but, it does actually have to tell you how something happened. Why did someone get annoyed with me when I passed gas? Well, our handy Newtonian simulation model tells us that gas disperses in a volume, thus, that person could smell my social faux pas. Event begins, event is explained and the event concludes. Simulation. By the definition of simulation you are using, Pac Man is now a simulation. Well, I suppose that explains why people insist their D&D is a sim game. Just use a definition of simulation that includes anything and everything you want it to include and then claim that your favourite edition does that. Ok, I understand better now. Simulation is simply the latest equivalent of Video Gamey. [/QUOTE]

Verification