On Mar 9, 7:39 pm, mkkuh...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Mary K. Kuhner)
wrote:
> In article <1173486559.011150.191...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> Will in New Haven <bill.re...@[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 mkkuh...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I can see that the definition you are using needs a word and
"simulationist" was one choice. Not the choice I would have made but I
can live with it. "Realism" doesn't really fit what I mean either or
maybe it does. Rules that make recon by throwing yourselves at the
enemy a good choice would make me itch just as badly as rules that
said that the best way to aim your bow was to face away from the
enemy. It is quite possible to play settings with highly unrealistic
elements while preserving ordinary common-sense "realism" such as the
idea that getting into a fight is committal and backing out after it
starts, while not impossible, is generally risky. Given some special
advantage, such as quick tele****t, can make an exception but the rules-
naive player should not, in my opinion, find himself constantly being
told "Of course we can do x, y or z, which seems so odd, because the
rules say so."
Anyway, that's the way I like it and I don't think I lose anything
that way.
Will in New Haven
--
If you take in a starving dog off the street, and feed him, and make
him prosperous, he will not bite you.
This is the principal difference between a dog and a man.
- Mark Twain
|
