Quote from: Saurondor;887031And you see I see a problem because?

Well, either you do, or I've misread your post.

Quote from: Saurondor;886905Either way once established if you come back to reliving this case you don't create yet another exception, you use the previously created rule our rule modification. Hence it's repeatable.

Typically, that's exactly what I do. But it isn't for simulation's sake. It's more a matter of if I feel I found a great solution, I want to go back to it again when the situation arises. However, there are reasons to create a rule anew each time. Some of them are even for the sake of better simulation. Like maybe I don't want the player to know what the procedure will be.

Remember, human input is important to my conception of simulation. Players are the source of a lot of human input. The quality of their input is therefore important. And here, I'm talking quality in terms of that their input is based on character knowledge, not player knowledge, to the extent possible. To help facilitate this, I prefer, when practical, that the player does not know things the character doesn't know. Like the precise probabilities of sneaking up on someone and slitting their throat.

The common/standard/core case is one thing. The character has lived in the game world, and if he's got certain skills, it's reasonable to assume he has experience doing those sorts of things. But when it comes to those rare exceptions? It's not entirely unreasonable that the GM keep the player guessing as to what the precise rules procedure will be, changing it each time to do so. And for reasons of player knowledge vs character knowledge, this can aid in simulation.

Again, typically, in actual play, if I find a ruling that I think works really well, I do tend to stick with it. I'm merely pointing out that there are pro-simulationist arguments AGAINST doing so. All other things equal, keeping rules consistent does not automatically make for better/purer simulation.

Quote from: Agkistro;886952This seems like a wasted story.  Of course all RPG simulations require human imput.  My point is that you can't use that catch-all to defend just any old human interaction as 'simulationist'.  There is a difference between a GM deciding whether or not bandits attack, and a GM deciding which arrows hit, how much damage they do, and so on.

Yeah, exactly. It is the difference between an event emerging via rules of simulation as opposed to being authored directly. Somehow it has taken page after page after page to explain this and people still don't get it.

Quote from: JoeNuttall;886984I don't follow you.

I said the thread was characterised by posts saying "but that's not simulation!"  and you answered with "but that's not simulation!" which kinda proved my point.

Don't worry about getting my point. It isn't that complicated but fuck explanations.

Quote from: Phillip;886989It would not be hard at all if you started by actually defining, instead of by throwing around your odd usage of "simulation" and "authoring." The bigger problem, though, is that your fetish has nothing to do with what people really care about.

Why do so many fuckwads feel the urge to engage with me in "discussion"? About things they don't really care about by their own admission?

Quote from: Saurondor;887031And you see I see a problem because?

I'll freely admit...I can't see if he can see if you can see a problem.

In a fully simulated environment, we may well expect reproducible results from the same actions in the same circumstances.

However, in tabletop RPGs we do not have a fully simulated environment. When two characters fight we do not explicitly model the motions of their bodies for instance. Instead we generally have dice or some other randomizer which is used to stand in for undefined variables. Since these things are generated on the fly, there is obviously not going to be the same degree of reproducibility in results. The same thing will happen upon reenactment if you roll the same results on your dice.

Quote from: Manzanaro;887058In a fully simulated environment, we may well expect reproducible results from the same actions in the same circumstances.

However, in tabletop RPGs we do not have a fully simulated environment. When two characters fight we do not explicitly model the motions of their bodies for instance. Instead we generally have dice or some other randomizer which is used to stand in for undefined variables. Since these things are generated on the fly, there is obviously not going to be the same degree of reproducibility in results. The same thing will happen upon reenactment if you roll the same results on your dice.

How in the world do you arrive at this conclusion?

Quote from: Saurondor;887059How in the world do you arrive at this conclusion?

Crazy, right? Just call me crazy.

Quote from: Manzanaro;887060Crazy, right? Just call me crazy.

You're saying that reproducible results are easier to obtain in a fully simulated environment than in a non-fully stimulated one like an rpg? Is that right?

Quote from: Manzanaro;887058In a fully simulated environment, we may well expect...

Hmmm....:hmm:

Quote from: Yogi Berra"It's like déjà vu all over again."

Quote from: Saurondor;887067You're saying that reproducible results are easier to obtain in a fully simulated environment than in a non-fully stimulated one like an rpg? Is that right?

If your method of simulation is dependent upon the the random generation of variables you are going to only reproduce those same variables randomly. If all variables are predefined and constant this is not the case.

Quote from: Bren;887069Hmmm....:hmm:

Why didn't you make comments to the guys, including you, who were discussing this subject for the last 3 pages, asshole?

By the way,

QuoteNow I understand what he wants. He wants the mechanics to lead the way. Have them create emergent dynamics in which the mechanics surprise everyone, even the GM. In a way in which I write the novel and read it at the same time and I discover its ending as it is being written.

This is pretty close to being dead on.

The only thing that it occurs to me to add is that, as we all have acknowledged, any tabletop RPG is going to be incomplete as a simulation. It is the GM and other players who input situations and courses of action to be processed by the rules of simulation. So even in cases where rules of simulation are adhered to without narrative skips, (such as in a dungeon crawl or combat where the entire thing stays in "timed" mode throughout) it is up to the GM to process those outcomes and present them to the players in narrative from. Note that when I say it is up to the GM, this implies the GM does not have to do this; certainly he can present outcomes in a very flat way based entirely in the terminology employed in the rules of simulation ("Hit. Take 7 HP."), but there really isn't much to discuss in that approach.

Manzanaro,  Bren, put each other on ignore at least temporarily! I generally like discussions with both of you, but that's not going to happen while you are needling each other.
I try to quote everything that's on topic, so you'll see everything the other one says regarding the actual topic.