Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 5995382" data-attributes="member: 6696971">To address both of these simultaneously because I'm clueless how these two paragraphs have come into being.I'll ask Underman first:  When did the "process sim" label turn out to not be "process-sim"?  The moment that Underman erroneously said the above paragraph?  Is that the moment?  Because he is most certainly incorrect.  My "Unabridged" definition of Simulation and Process Simulation are the orthodox definitions used in modeling and is the "Unabridged" definition of Ron Edwards GNS theory.  I even went on later (in my post depicting how I "changed my expectations and playstyle:" - which Underman prompted after asking why I lowered my expectations and I obliged him a complete answer in good faith) to describe the very specific genre Simulation of "High Fantasy World Married to Real World Physics By Way of Strict, Rigid, Linear Process-Sim."Here you are (straight from Wikepedia):SimulationismSimulationism refers to a style of play where the main agenda  is the recreation of, or inspiration by, the observed characteristics of  a particular genre or set of source material. Physical reality might  count as source material for these purposes, but so might superhero  anthologies, or any other literary, cinematic or historical milieu. Its  most frequent concerns are internal consistency, analysis or modeling of  cause and effect, and informed speculation or even extrapolation to the  point of satire. Often characterised by concern for the minutiae of  physical interaction and details of setting. That is, quite literally, the exact, abridged version of what I wrote but narrowed solely to the Simulation within RPGing specifically while my definition was the broad definition of Simulation (which encompasses the sub-genre of Simulation in RPG) and modelling generally.Process-Sim (again) is the modeling of phenomena at the micro-level (singular task resolution and the physics that underpin interactions within the implied setting in DnD) in order to parameterize the greater Simulation.This is what Simulation is and this is what Process-Sim is.  I have no idea what Emerikol is talking about because he refusing to answer rejoinders to his position and he refuses to get specific despite coming to this board and asserting his want to engage (and I just provided him a framework to do so and again, he appears to be declining)...and refusing to do so over and over again...and then ringing his hands and playing the misunderstood Alpha amidst a group of Deltas.  Its getting tiresome.  I answered his specific request, definitively and with precision, and where is the response?pemerton "gets away with it" because pemerton is advocating Outcome-Based Sim.  Definitionally I would not hold it to the requirements of Process-Sim where, in order for the Greater Simulation to have fidelity to the world being modeled, the implied setting and each task resolution must have a coherent, internally consistent, granular coupling of cause and effect.  Outcome-Based-Sim is not bound by this imperative...at all.  It is trying to accomplish something entirely different - Emulate genre...not model/simulate it.You invoke "world-building".  That is extremely important here and why I cringe at this "physics-based" incoherencies in the implied setting when I want good Simulation and its corresponding Process-Sim.  These two things cannot exist in the same INTERNALLY CONSISTENT PHYSICS WITHIN THE IMPLIED SETTING (which is required for a proper Simulationist experience when you are Simulating "High Fantasy World Married to Real World Physics By Way of Strict, Rigid, Linear Process-Sim.":1)  Dragons and Large creatures and Arthropods and the Ability Score Model utterly violating/ignoring Real-World Gravity, Real-World Friction, Real-World Drag, Real-World Kinesiology.2)  Mundane, Martial Characters must abide by, and be limited to, Real-World Gravity, Real-World Friction, Real-World Drag, Real-World Kinesiology.When the Physics of the world do not have Internal Consistency, the Simulation fails its most fundamental litmus test.  Beyond that, I see people wanting to hand-wave/ignore the existence of 1 while DEMANDING the adherence to 2 and then maintaining the position that they are somehow Simulating a "High Fantasy World Married to Real World Physics By Way of Strict, Rigid, Linear Process-Sim."  They flat out aren't.  Which is why pemerton gets a pass.  And why my expectations aren't lowered.  We are not producing Simulationist Games.  Our task resolution is not resolved by way of linear, strict coupling of Process (cause) > Outcome (effect).  It is Outcome (effect) period...and post-hoc rationale for Process (cause) if relevant to our fiction.  Because of this we are not 100 % constrained by internal consistency of the physics of a real-world model married to High Fantasy.  We are not having our cake (1) while eating it too (2).  We don't care about those things.  We are Emulating Heroic Action Adventure Scenes and Fiction...which doesn't concern itself with the granularity and internal consistency demands of real-world physics and the causes (Processes) that trigger effects (Outcomes).  If you need further clarification, see my last post to you regarding Simulation versus Emulation and Process-Sim versus Outcome-Based-Sim if you need further clarification.  We seem to be getting nowhere and you've questioned my "good faith" a few times now while I think I've put a lot of effort into being polite to you and trying to clarify our differences...and I seem to be getting mostly snark in return.  I even apologized (when I certainly didn't need to) when you unfairly called me out for your perception of my "bad faith" and that I'm being an "armchair academic".  I think it would probably be best if we just discontinue this exchange.</blockquote>

Verification