Quote from: Lunamancer;889809Suppose I have a driving simulator arcade style machine, only it's programmed so that the car turns left when you turn the wheel right and vice versa. Over time, a driver could learn to compensate for that.

The set of results will not be as close for the left is right and right is left simulator as for a normal simulator where left is left and right is right. As you yourself said any particular driver will have to learn to compensate. Whether they could ever compensate fully isn't even relevant since their accumulated results while learning would be worse at least up to the point where they've achieved maximal compensation. And the same will be true for every single driver.

QuoteYou might actually want to go and design a combat system such that determinations of if you attack, who you attack, and with which weapon are all determined by dice.

I might, if I wanted to simulate NPCs in combat.

QuoteSuch a simulation would fall flat to him.

This is a different issue than the accuracy of the simulation output. Feel and accuracy may be related, but can easily be somewhat orthogonal. Here you are discussing whether a simulation feels real to the participant which is a different matter than whether it's results accurately simulate the correct something. Some people seem to find LARPs a good simulation of combat. Others not so much. Matching subjective expectations is at least as important (probably more important) to feel as is the actual accuracy of the simulation.

Quote from: Bren;889867The set of results will not be as close for the left is right and right is left simulator as for a normal simulator where left is left and right is right. As you yourself said any particular driver will have to learn to compensate. Whether they could ever compensate fully isn't even relevant since their accumulated results while learning would be worse at least up to the point where they've achieved maximal compensation. And the same will be true for every single driver.

Well I'd also point out that for me joystick down is nose up and joystick up is nose down. Call me old school, but I learned that way and there are those for whom it's backwards. Now it seems like I'm backwards in most systems since I have to turn on the invert Y axis setting. For me there is nothing inverted about it, it's the way I learned it. Inverted is correct.

The point here is that Lunamancer points out an issue which is present in many "simulationist" games. You have to train yourself to play these RPGs. Learn about rounds, attacks per round, amount of actions, sneak attacks, attacks of opportunity, etc., and how all this fits into the "strategy" and "tactics" of the game. The "simulation" isn't elegant enough that I can say "I run behind the dividing wall and attack from behind" and be able to simulate it. It's either some "free form" narrative solution or a "step by step" simulated solution. It's as if the game industry lacked some middle ground. It's either "free form" authored or simulated "step by step". Manzanaro seems to hint that if it isn't step by step it's authored and thus can never be categorized as "simulated". Many games do indeed require that the players adapt to the "left is right, right is left" driving simulation Lunamancer mentions before even getting down to play the game in a "serious manner".

Quote from: Saurondor;889890The "simulation" isn't elegant enough that I can say "I run behind the dividing wall and attack from behind" and be able to simulate it. It's either some "free form" narrative solution or a "step by step" simulated solution.

A Free Kriegsspiel approach can simulate what happens if "I run behind the dividing wall and attack from behind."  A knowledgeable referee should be able to provide appropriate adjustments of partial cover and bonus for rear attack without the player getting bogged down in rules minutia.

Quote from: Bren;889900A Free Kriegsspiel approach can simulate what happens if "I run behind the dividing wall and attack from behind."  A knowledgeable referee should be able to provide appropriate adjustments of partial cover and bonus for rear attack without the player getting bogged down in rules minutia.

True, I have no doubt many games can provide means to resolve this. It just seems as if Manzanaro is reducing the options to a bare minimum and calling anything else, that which isn't derived directly from mechanical resolution through rules, as "authoring" and thus not worth of the title "simulation".

Quote from: Saurondor;889903True, I have no doubt many games can provide means to resolve this. It just seems as if Manzanaro is reducing the options to a bare minimum and calling anything else, that which isn't derived directly from mechanical resolution through rules, as "authoring" and thus not worth of the title "simulation".

At this point it's safe to say that it not "just seems as if" but that he clearly is attempting to narrow the definition of simulation to only the purely mechanical so that anything not mechanical can be called authoring or narration.

Bren? You're not as smart as you think. I can sum up your entire position in this thread as follows : " You are wrong and I am right. How many times must I tell you this?" Totally uninteresting and missing the mark with every post.

Simulation does indeed require a mechanical process, in the sense I am using the word and have spelled out as per Websters.

Quote from: Bren;889900A Free Kriegsspiel approach can simulate what happens if "I run behind the dividing wall and attack from behind."  A knowledgeable referee should be able to provide appropriate adjustments of partial cover and bonus for rear attack without the player getting bogged down in rules minutia.

Oh, a knowledgable referee should be able to simulate cover via a mechanical process? Cool.

Guess you showed me!

Lunamancer, still hostile and stupid as fuck, I see. No need to go into details that you would yet again fail to understand.

I seem to be left with the 3 stooges at this point and my own interest is waning.

Quote from: Manzanaro;889924Bren? You're not as smart as you think. I can sum up your entire position in this thread as follows : " You are wrong and I am right. How many times must I tell you this?" Totally uninteresting and missing the mark with every post.

Simulation does indeed require a mechanical process, in the sense I am using the word and have spelled out as per Websters.

Ok. I'll play along with this definition. Question. How much time are you willing to grant this simulation during the game? Namely how many a seconds, minutes our hours to resolve an action our scene?

Quote from: Manzanaro;889924Bren? You're not as smart as you think. I can sum up your entire position in this thread as follows : " You are wrong and I am right. How many times must I tell you this?" Totally uninteresting and missing the mark with every post.

Are you 8 years old or what? Also, you forgot to end your post with "neener, neener" or say the all important "I'm rubber and you're glue..." phrase. :rotfl:

QuoteSimulation does indeed require a mechanical process, in the sense I am [strike]using the word and have spelled out as per Websters[/strike] ignoring all examples that don't suit my pet theory of what a simulation is.

Fixed that for the rest of us.

Quote from: Manzanaro;889926Oh, a knowledgable referee should be able to simulate cover via a mechanical process? Cool.

Guess you showed me!

1) Yes the example I gave might use an existing table of modifiers. Since cover and rear attacks are common occurrences. Then again, it might not.

By now no one is likely to be surprised that you continue to ignore the fact that a referee making a judgement call does not require a mechanical process to make a judgement call and that human decisions are part of many simulations including many RPGs.

2) Showing you anything would require you to have an interest in learning and an emotional age in at least double digits. You might want to save the thread so you can reread it in 10 years or so. Maybe by then you will have the emotional maturity needed to see what you've been shown.

Quote from: Bren;889957Are you 8 years old or what? Also, you forgot to end your post with "neener, neener" or say the all important "I'm rubber and you're glue..." phrase. :rotfl:

Fixed that for the rest of us.

1) Yes the example I gave might use an existing table of modifiers. Since cover and rear attacks are common occurrences. Then again, it might not.

By now no one is likely to be surprised that you continue to ignore the fact that a referee making a judgement call does not require a mechanical process to make a judgement call and that human decisions are part of many simulations including many RPGs.

2) Showing you anything would require you to have an interest in learning and an emotional age in at least double digits. You might want to save the thread so you can reread it in 10 years or so. Maybe by then you will have the emotional maturity needed to see what you've been shown.

If it's a judgement call that is not IMPLEMENTED VIA RULES OF SIMULATION than it very clearly has nothing to do with rules of simulation, and nothing to do with the topic of this thread. I realize now that you will never understand this. My pointing out that you are not as smart as you think has fuck all to do with my emotional maturity. It's simply a resigned observation.  

By the way, the bit of my post that was in quotes? That was my summary of YOUR position throughout this thread; no support just, "I am right and you are wrong." I agree it is a juvenile position. I should not be surprised that you were unable to recognize it as YOUR position.

Little tip? Quotes mean that the enclosed text is someone else's words, or a summary of someone else's words.

Quote from: Manzanaro;890692If it's a judgement call that is not IMPLEMENTED VIA RULES OF SIMULATION than it very clearly has nothing to do with rules of simulation, and nothing to do with the topic of this thread.

It's not that I don't understand your claim. It's just that your claim is wrong. Judgement calls are part of many simulations. The most obvious example of that was the moot court that Lunamancer mentioned, but the more relevant to RPGs example is that the miniatures battles that D&D emerged from are filled with those sorts of rulings (human judgements) for situations not adequately covered by rules (mechanical methods) as is OD&D itself along with many, many other RPGs. But you aren't going to admit that judgement calls can be used in a simulation in an RPG because it invalidates your curious idea of what a simulation can be.

Since you can't invalidate facts and you can't admit you are wrong, you resort to name calling towards anyone who disagrees with your underlying and erroneous premise. Which is the behavior one might expect from an immature eight year old who was told it was someone else's turn on the swing, that no mommy wasn't going to buy him that toy right now, or that no he couldn't have one more piece of candy before supper.

You may now grace us with your next temper tantrum.

Quote from: Manzanaro;890692If it's a judgement call that is not IMPLEMENTED VIA RULES OF SIMULATION than it very clearly has nothing to do with rules of simulation, and nothing to do with the topic of this thread. I realize now that you will never understand this. My pointing out that you are not as smart as you think has fuck all to do with my emotional maturity. It's simply a resigned observation.  

Let's follow along with this for a moment. Yes, a judgment call not implemented in the rules has nothing to do with such rules. So we need to implement the judgment in the rules.  Now implementing a "judgment" mechanism is no trivial thing. It's one of those big hurdles of AI. So we set on a quest to setup a company called DeepRoleplay which in turn develops this great rpg called AlphaRole. AlphaRole is so great it can actually makes judgment calls. We're all so happy! After millions spent in develpoment and research we've arrived at a tabletop role-playing game that can make judgement calls just like the GM! It's so good you can't tell the difference between a real GM and these rules of simulation. Except of course you spent the best part of the year learning these rules, it takes a day and a half to resolve a judgment call and you spent millions on something we've always had at hand for free : a friendly GM.

Tell me what did you gain out of all this trouble?

Quote from: Saurondor;890707Tell me what did you gain out of all this trouble?

Skynet.

Which launches a nuclear holocaust....

Quote from: Bren;890715Skynet.

Which launches a nuclear holocaust....

...and Terminators, which admittedly are cool.

But not very narrative oriented! Last time I heard Skynet wasn't a fan of conflict resolution mechanics either