Re: Studying an opponent and Omega Strikes

In article <1173486559.011150.191690@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
Will in New Haven <bill.reich@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

>The parenthetical comment was about _all_ simulationist gaming, beyond
>the level of hex-based wargaming. I wasn't talking about you
>specifically but about all RPG "simulationists." We aren't really
>simulating anything but gmhp gets in the way of the "feel" of
>simulation, at least in my opinion. I don't think someone who wants to
>do some of the things that you describe doesn't have much desire for
>the feel of simulation.

It's been a fairly long-standing tradition on this newsgroup to use
"simulation" to mean "fidelity to the internal logic of the gameworld"
and "realism" to mean "fidelity to our world".  That's why people
are misinterpreting what you're saying.

When Erol says "simulation" he doesn't mean "How much is this like the
real world?"  He means, "Does this follow from the internal logic of
the game-world, or is it being manipulated?"  In this sense,
non-simulation
decisions would be things like "That's an anticlimatic death so I won't
allow it" or "NPCs have to use different tactics than PCs in order to
keep the game exciting."

In this sense it's quite possible to care strongly about simulation while
playing a game with highly unrealistic elements (magic, monsters,
mutant ninja kung fu, etc.)

It probably isn't a great choice of word but it's been used around here
in that sense for several years, and if you use it to mean "realism"
you will probably be misunderstood by quite a few posters.  Not a 
criticism, just a (hopefully helpful) comment.

Mary Kuhner mkkuhner@[EMAIL PROTECTED]