Quote from: Daddy Warpig;533544I believe Estar is correct. To be more specific, in order to simulate this universe exactly, we would have to amass a perfect record of everything in this universe. And the fundamental laws of physics ensure this is utterly impossible.

There are limits on, for example, knowing the speed and position of an electron. The more you know about one, the less you can know about the other. This is not a limitation on equipment or process. It is a law of the universe. No matter what equipment you use, there is a limit on the knowledge one can acquire.

Also, even with an arbitrarily large amount of information, there are events that cannot be predicted. If a specific atom will decay in the next minute for example. This is a purely probabilistic event, it cannot be predicted from any amount of knowledge you could gather before the event.

There is also the limitation on information storage. To construct a simulator, you have to store all of the information you can't get. And the laws of the universe (in specific, the Laws of Thermodynamics) ensure that, even if you could get all the information that you can't get, you couldn't store it.

The universe ensures that there is a limit on the knowledge and information we can gather, store, and use. It's odd, but its the laws of physics we live under.

So in other words... rules are the physics of the setting?

JG

Quote from: Exploderwizard;533360:rotfl:  Cheating. That's funny.

Let me guess, you think rpgs are a contest between GM and players with only the almighty RAW to decide who gains ultimate victory?

If so you are wargaming.

I think he has a point. Maybe his wording is not the best to convey it.

I don't fudge dice. Never. I can and do houserule my games, but then those rules are "official" and well known to my players. Of course, in some games I will have to make a ruling on the spot. And I treat them as houserules: once they are tested and approved by  the group, they bind everyone. I play with the same rules as the rest of the players, and I don't think that I am entitled to change a dice roll, or fudge an stat in a bad guy to make a combat tougher / easier. I really think those things are cheating, and I don't understand why in RPGs we make that exception so readily.

Re: the use of some kind of graphic representation. I tend to agree with Gleichman in that they are more important and useful than many people will admit. Without them is easy to fall in monodimensional situations where everyone tends to think they are where they need to be, no bottlenecks or other tactical situations can be properly modelled, and is more difficult to accurate emulate the situation in the gameworld.

I am all about using graphic aids in combats and similar situations. I like the feel that we are playing in a well-defined world. I don't think you need to make exhausting calculations, many times a sketch of the battlefield and its elements with even a rough approach of distances is enough.

Quote from: James Gillen;533550So in other words... rules are the physics of the setting?

A bit of a change of subject, but I'll run with it.

Rules define how the setting works. This includes physics. It can also include metaphysics, religious truths, psychological characteristics of natives, and so forth. The rules encompass all of these, and more besides.

But...

So do the actions of the GM and players. Rules don't exist in a vacuum, and  how the players and GM use the rules also determines the physics of the setting (and metaphysics, religious truths, etc.)

To the extent that an RPG can be considered a simulation, it's an extremely loose simulation tailored more towards what people think is enjoyable than reality. (And if you favor "realism", than that's what you consider enjoyable.) These are games, after all, enjoyment is the goal of the whole endeavor. (If not always a goal we achieve.)

So, are rules the physics of the setting? Sort of. But it's more complicated than that statement suggests.

How's that for an answer?

Quote from: Rincewind1;533506Now, I never claimed to be a man of high standards though, have I? Interesting enough, I must had forgotten about this ages ago - thanks. Although the link'd had sufficed, I'm not a idiot, you now.

Care to retract that? :rolleyes:

Quote from: Imperator;533551I think he has a point. Maybe his wording is not the best to convey it.

I don't fudge dice. Never. I can and do houserule my games, but then those rules are "official" and well known to my players. Of course, in some games I will have to make a ruling on the spot. And I treat them as houserules: once they are tested and approved by  the group, they bind everyone. I play with the same rules as the rest of the players, and I don't think that I am entitled to change a dice roll, or fudge an stat in a bad guy to make a combat tougher / easier. I really think those things are cheating, and I don't understand why in RPGs we make that exception so readily.

Totally with you here on the fudging issue but letting the dice fall where they may is completely a different issue from the GM as referee vs GM as antagonist one. The antagonistic GM believes that a game with fair rules means actively trying to defeat the players while adhering to those rules is what the game is about. That isn't an rpg, its a wargame dressed up as roleplaying.

A GM shouldn't be working for or against the players. The GM should judge the game from a neutral perspective and any game rules, canon or house should be applied from this perspective.

I don't fudge rolls or change stats on the fly. I will roll meaningless dice to keep players guessing (such as fake wandering monster checks for an area where I know there are no such encounters) but if there is anything actually riding on the die roll I take the result.

Judgement  calls are made depending on the situation. Sometimes these favor the player, sometimes not. I find that too many hard and fast rules applied rigidly quickly lead to ridiculous situations if not tempered with common sense.



QUOTE=Imperator;533551]
Re: the use of some kind of graphic representation. I tend to agree with Gleichman in that they are more important and useful than many people will admit. Without them is easy to fall in monodimensional situations where everyone tends to think they are where they need to be, no bottlenecks or other tactical situations can be properly modelled, and is more difficult to accurate emulate the situation in the gameworld.

I am all about using graphic aids in combats and similar situations. I like the feel that we are playing in a well-defined world. I don't think you need to make exhausting calculations, many times a sketch of the battlefield and its elements with even a rough approach of distances is enough.[/QUOTE]

Graphical representaion is a group taste thing. If everything runs smoothly without them and the group is happy then thats great. If there are many arguments and the rules are very fiddly with regard to precise movement & positioning then some kind of markers are perfectly understandable.

Personally, I like minis, both painting them and using them in game sessions. I'm an adult kid and enjoy playing with toys.

Quote from: Rincewind1;533490Here, Randall. Come and join us, the rest of ZHE CHEATERZ. And if you somehow managed to get players into your campaign, do not worry - it just means they are BAD.

I know. I need to email my players and let them know that someone are the Internet decreed they were bad players because they play in my campaign and I cheat. I wonder if I should inform the three people on the wait list so they can decide not to play with cheatin' me and all the bad players in my game if/when we have an opening.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;533571Totally with you here on the fudging issue but letting the dice fall where they may is completely a different issue from the GM as referee vs GM as antagonist one. The antagonistic GM believes that a game with fair rules means actively trying to defeat the players while adhering to those rules is what the game is about. That isn't an rpg, its a wargame dressed up as roleplaying.

Well, I don't get an adversarial position from Gleichman's posts. Where do you see that?

From what I stand, it seems like he feels that rules are to be followed always, but I haven't seen any hint of comeptition against the players.

QuoteA GM shouldn't be working for or against the players. The GM should judge the game from a neutral perspective and any game rules, canon or house should be applied from this perspective.

Yes, I agree with you.

QuotePersonally, I like minis, both painting them and using them in game sessions. I'm an adult kid and enjoy playing with toys.

I find the hate of maps, grids, minis and markers baffling. D&D was born from miniature games, and minis were an integral part of it. Nothing wrong with that. I have found that my players have more interesting combats when they can see everyone's position, the environment and the distances to everyone else.

I use lots of fog of war effects, and I try to show only what can be perceived from the group's perspective. It beats imagination-only every time, IME.

Quote from: Imperator;533573I find the hate of maps, grids, minis and markers baffling. D&D was born from miniature games, and minis were an integral part of it. Nothing wrong with that. I have found that my players have more interesting combats when they can see everyone's position, the environment and the distances to everyone else.

I use lots of fog of war effects, and I try to show only what can be perceived from the group's perspective. It beats imagination-only every time, IME.

I don't hate any of that it is just that after a certain point it literally overloads my brain and I shut down. It has to do with how my cerebral palsy affects my brain and my cognition. The doctors say it's quite common for that particular handicap. It's a major factor in why I can't drive also.

As for the intent you're trying to achieve I totally agree just not the implementation.

Quote from: Imperator;533573I find the hate of maps, grids, minis and markers baffling. D&D was born from miniature games, and minis were an integral part of it. Nothing wrong with that. I have found that my players have more interesting combats when they can see everyone's position, the environment and the distances to everyone else.

I don't use minis as they aren't suitable for where we play, but we do draw maps and diagrams of locations.

I think the thing to bear in mind, though, is that the situation the characters are experiencing on the ground is not the same as the representation on our table. The characters aren't standing rigidly in place; they're moving about, looking around, taking non-direct routes, checking stowed gear, etc... pretty much all the time, but especially in combat. And everyone is doing this all at the same time, not in initiative order.

Being obsessive about the detailed interaction of the figures completely misses the point - it's the rough spatial relationships of the characters and items the figures represent that are important, and those are only similar to, not identical to, the actual spatial relationships of the figures themselves. It's counter-intuitive, but you have to be willing to fudge it to maintain an accurate simulation of how the characters are actually interacting.

Quote from: John Morrow;533441And what's wrong with the rules being the physics engine for the setting?  That's pretty much what I want out of a set of RPG rules.

Simulation is about emulating genre and theme. Pendragon is an example of great simulation--concepts like Glory are an actual thing in the rules, and align the players' goals with what should be the characters' goals.

You cannot get a game that feels and plays like Justice League using physics-engine rules, because Batman goes splat before the rules can account for his ability to pull an anti-Darkseid tactic out of his Bat-butt. Nor can you emulate Sherlock Holmes without giving the PC some narrative control to say "I see from the red mud on your shoe that you must have come past the new construction on Wilmot Lane" and suchlike.

Quote from: Imperator;533551I think he has a point. Maybe his wording is not the best to convey it.

Gliechman's wording is inflammatory period. Among the surefire ways to start a gaming flamewar is to tell other gamers they are "doing it" wrong and that they are cheaters for not playing the way the poster say they ought to play.

Quote from: Imperator;533551I don't fudge dice. Never. I can and do houserule my games, but then those rules are "official" and well known to my players. ...

This and the rest of your post is reasonably put. Along with John Morrow's in this post (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=533438&postcount=230) earlier in the thread.

In my view the only wrong way to play is when a gamer fails to accomplish his goal (take your pick) by a particular method. Keeps using it over and over saying it ought work and ignoring reasonable suggestions for alternatives.

Quote from: Halloween Jack;533584Nor can you emulate Sherlock Holmes without giving the PC some narrative control to say "I see from the red mud on your shoe that you must have come past the new construction on Wilmot Lane" and suchlike.

Why not? Isn't this sort of thing a result of a high intelligence combined with sharp observation skills?

If the Holmes character has these attributes at the proper level then the player won't need any sort of narrative control.

Quote from: Halloween Jack;533584Simulation is about emulating genre and theme. Pendragon is an example of great simulation--concepts like Glory are an actual thing in the rules, and align the players' goals with what should be the characters' goals.

You cannot get a game that feels and plays like Justice League using physics-engine rules, because Batman goes splat before the rules can account for his ability to pull an anti-Darkseid tactic out of his Bat-butt. Nor can you emulate Sherlock Holmes without giving the PC some narrative control to say "I see from the red mud on your shoe that you must have come past the new construction on Wilmot Lane" and suchlike.

I think there is most certainly a place for emulating genre and theme in games like Pendragon, or in some emulation of Justice League stories.  I enjoy both emulation and physics-engine rules. However, couldn't we call this emulating genre and theme "emulation"?  

It seems to me that the everyday use of the word "simulation" implies something more like physics-engine rules.  If I tell someone who knows nothing about role-playing games that I play a simulation game, they will probably picture something like a flight simulator program or game like SimCity, or a boardgame that imitates reality like a wargame or the economy simulation of Power Grid.

Quote from: Marleycat;533576I don't hate any of that it is just that after a certain point it literally overloads my brain and I shut down. It has to do with how my cerebral palsy affects my brain and my cognition. The doctors say it's quite common for that particular handicap. It's a major factor in why I can't drive also.

As for the intent you're trying to achieve I totally agree just not the implementation.

Well, of course your condition is something that must be taken into account. If it doesn't work for you, it's absurd to try and force it

Quote from: Ladybird;533578I don't use minis as they aren't suitable for where we play, but we do draw maps and diagrams of locations.

I think the thing to bear in mind, though, is that the situation the characters are experiencing on the ground is not the same as the representation on our table. The characters aren't standing rigidly in place; they're moving about, looking around, taking non-direct routes, checking stowed gear, etc... pretty much all the time, but especially in combat. And everyone is doing this all at the same time, not in initiative order.

Being obsessive about the details interaction of the figures completely misses the point - it's the spatial relationships of the characters and items the figures represent that are important, and those are only similar to, not identical to, the spatial relationships of the figures themselves. It's counter-intuitive, but you have to be willing to fudge it to maintain an accurate simulation.

I completely agree. I'm not aiming for perfect, I just need to be good enough, and over all, to be consistent, so everyone can gauge distances and the like with the same precision.

Quote from: estar;533586Gliechman's wording is inflammatory period. Among the surefire ways to start a gaming flamewar is to tell other gamers they are "doing it" wrong and that they are cheaters for not playing the way the poster say they ought to play.

A common way of wording stuff. sadly.

QuoteThis and the rest of your post is reasonably put. Along with John Morrow's in this post (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=533438&postcount=230) earlier in the thread.

Thanks. Coming from you is high praise

QuoteIn my view the only wrong way to play is when a gamer fails to accomplish his goal (take your pick) by a particular method. Keeps using it over and over saying it ought work and ignoring reasonable suggestions for alternatives.

Nothing to object to that.

Quote from: estar;533586Gliechman's wording is inflammatory period. Among the surefire ways to start a gaming flamewar is to tell other gamers they are "doing it" wrong and that they are cheaters for not playing the way the poster say they ought to play.

Gliechman has a different style than the standard 'rpgsite way', and that is all that is needed for some to start taking potshots at him.