Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Crazy Jerome" data-source="post: 5994253" data-attributes="member: 54877">I'll bite. I make the same reservations on answers that you made on the questions, so I don't think this really reduces to concise answers without losing meaning. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />  That may be the intention in some cases. I think the primary purpose is usually to model a world as "directly" as possible. The distinction becomes important when you look beyond process simulation to other types.  In a fine grain or narrow area, yes, they often do. Wider, no. They can rapidly become counter-productive at keeping everyone on the same page, though the line will vary by a person's experience and preferences. (Example, engineers are notoriously hard to please in some science fiction roleplaying by process sim that others can use without blinking.)  Similar to the above answer, with the additional bit that reliance on direct cause and effect is also very dependent upon the person. I don't think it at all controversial to suggest that some people find process sim not only useful but necessary to stay in actor stance, at least in certain areas of a game. That such is universal is not only controversial but flat out false. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />  This one is tricky. My short answer is that I don't think frequency has anything to do with it. Rather, I think that such realignment happens with everyone in one form or another. It is how and why it happens that varies by group.   It's not controversial at all if the abstract mechanic is directed at "result simulation". That's why result simulation was developed as a technique--to abstract process away in favor of getting the expected result in the model. (That's not the only use of abstraction, but it is a common one in simulation.) Other than that, I would find it controversial to make such a suggestion (or maybe an indication of confusion on the nature of models and abstractions).  To the extent and degree that immersion is a desired state, it can be helped by the above. Keep in mind, however, that there are lots of ways that rules can create a shared understanding. Example, if everyone is fine with each player having narrative rights on particular parts of the fiction, then it is not a immersion-breaking for the player to exercise those rights. Yet, another person not fine with this technique would probably find it constantly jarring to immersion, even at the same table where it was used to good effect. Overall, you also most account for the simple fact that for some people immersion is the primary goal, while for others it is secondary or even tertiary.  It has been generally true that people who set immersion as a primary goal have been attracted to more process simulation than others, at least on the surface level.</blockquote>

Verification