Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Underman" data-source="post: 5995336" data-attributes="member: 6696705">Sorry, I've learned my lesson from the waste of time adopting the 'process sim' label that turned out not to be process-sim; I'll leave those label discussions to those who enjoy that kind of thing.But I will ask you why you're even thinking about that kind of thing in D&amp;D, or this kind of thing:when pemerton gets to get away with this kind of thing:Sure, I get that pemerton doesn't need to apply stringent scrutiny in a non-sim game. But just because I aim for sim-oriented play, I hope I'm not being beholden to some ludicrous level of fidelity to realism. Because that would be a failure to understand the sim agenda in D&amp;D.To put it into plain words, when you invest so much time and effort into comprehensive real-life biophysics references, it implies to me a concern that I may have some sort of hole in my understanding that needs filling. The alternative is to have written something simple like &quot;Huge insects are impossible in real-life, but possible in fantasy -- what terminology would you use to label that?&quot; and just trust us to know about the science.That makes sense to me. In my ideal &quot;let's pretend&quot; playstyle, the desired fiction or worldbuilding calls the shots and the mechanics are the rules of engagement. Not being able to use the ray of truth would be a feel good moment for me, even if it's self-crippling in a gamist way, because it validates and reinforces the intent of the playstyle. The 4E RAW treatment would bother me very much by overruling that.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Underman, post: 5995336, member: 6696705"] Sorry, I've learned my lesson from the waste of time adopting the 'process sim' label that turned out not to be process-sim; I'll leave those label discussions to those who enjoy that kind of thing. But I will ask you why you're even [I]thinking[/I] about that kind of thing in D&D, or this kind of thing: when pemerton gets to get away with this kind of thing:Sure, I get that pemerton doesn't need to apply stringent scrutiny in a non-sim game. But just because I aim for sim-oriented play, I hope I'm not being beholden to some ludicrous level of fidelity to realism. Because that would be a failure to understand the sim agenda in D&D. To put it into plain words, when you invest so much time and effort into comprehensive real-life biophysics references, it implies to me a concern that I may have some sort of hole in my understanding that needs filling. The alternative is to have written something simple like "Huge insects are impossible in real-life, but possible in fantasy -- what terminology would you use to label that?" and just trust us to know about the science. That makes sense to me. In my ideal "let's pretend" playstyle, the desired fiction or worldbuilding calls the shots and the mechanics are the rules of engagement. Not being able to use the ray of truth would be a feel good moment for me, even if it's self-crippling in a gamist way, because it validates and reinforces the intent of the playstyle. The 4E RAW treatment would bother me very much by overruling that. [/QUOTE]

Verification