Quote from: jhkim;533593I 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.

If you told someone "emulation" they'd probably think of a program that lets you play NES games on your PC.

Physics-engine has become the everyday use of the term "simulation" because D&D edition warriors didn't understand its original meaning and/or found the misuse of the term to be a handy bludgeon.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;533565Care to retract that? :rolleyes:

:rotfl:

Quote from: Halloween Jack;533613If you told someone "emulation" they'd probably think of a program that lets you play NES games on your PC.

Physics-engine has become the everyday use of the term "simulation" because D&D edition warriors didn't understand its original meaning and/or found the misuse of the term to be a handy bludgeon.

Can you clear up what the original meaning was?  I find the hobby's jargon to be often impenetrable and contradictory, so that would be helpful.  (Don't even get me started on how "verisimilitude" gets used.)

Quote from: Imperator;533573Well, I don't get an adversarial position from Gleichman's posts. Where do you see that?

I'm actually very pro-hero and thus very pro-players (who only run heroes, never villians) in my campaigns.

But that really doesn't matter, following the rules forces neutral and objective decisions,  greatly reducing the ability of the GM to alter outcomes. The result is that the players earn what victories (and defeats) are to come.

Quote from: Halloween Jack;533584You 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.

The game's physic engine doesn't have to match the physics of reality, HERO system played as a physic engine is famous for allowing Batman not to go splat or any other convention desired from comic books.

Quote from: Ladybird;533578Being 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.

You do not understand the nature and use of abstaction in game design. Few do.

And you do not understand your own limits, go back to my example and provide me the answers I requested- it will take you an extended period of time and likely require you to graft it all out in scale.

Despite this you want to claim that you can ignore the abstaction and provide correct answers on the fly without any sort of mechanical aid- and I'm afraid that's a joke.

Yes, you're providing answers. But your answers are not correct and they are in addition are breaking the rules and abstraction layer provided by the game. The game you brought specifically to provide those rules and abstraction layer.

Better to use a systems that ignore the subject upfront. It's honest at least (if IMO boring).

Quote from: gleichman;533622But that really doesn't matter, following the rules forces neutral and objective decisions,  greatly reducing the ability of the GM to alter outcomes. The result is that the players earn what victories (and defeats) are to come.

As simple as this sounds this approach does not solve the issue that it is trying to solve. The issue is part of the meta-game. One of the many decisions that a referee makes in creating and managing a campaign.

The characters are just as dead facing a 1,000 orcs if I winged the resolution or made sure that every rule was adhered too including Chapter 3 rule 10.31 on page 64. The real question is why the party was facing a 1,000 orcs in the first place. If they had every piece of information or ignored opportunities to learn about the area and still went in then the outcome was unbiased. If they appeared because the referee decided "just because" then that decision is biased.

So a referee can strict about applying the rules but because of how he setups his challenges, he can biased as all hell. In short the referee consistently picks the worst or best of the possible consquences of the players actions.

The decision to do this is a decision of the meta-game. Of how the referee chooses to run his campaign. Back in the day those referee that always picked worst consquences were known as killer referees. Those that always picked best consquences were known as monty-haul referees.

All of this has nothing to do with how strictly they adhere to the physic engine of the game.

And while making arbitary decisions can be a problem, problems with the meta game have more severe consquences. And these issues exist independently of what particular rule system are you using.

Quote from: gleichman;533044Over the years, therpgsite has become more and more like the Forge. They were big on removing grid and minis as well, lumping them into the Gamist definition which wasn't taken seriously.

Grids and minis get in the way of Narrative you know. No Forger would stand for it.

I have been lurking but I have to jump in and call horseshit on this.   Games have been big on removing grids and minis because we want to play role playing games, not Minis games.  If I want grids and minis, I will play minis games.

If I want to play a role playing game, I will play something where I don't have to use grids and minis.

The minis fans turned D&D (from 3.0 up) from a role playing games to a minis game.   Hopefully 5e will reverse that mistake

Quote from: gleichman;533625You do not understand the nature and use of abstaction in game design. Few do.

And you do not understand your own limits, go back to my example and provide me the answers I requested- it will take you an extended period of time and likely require you to graft it all out in scale.

Despite this you want to claim that you can ignore the abstraction and provide correct answers on the fly without any sort of mechanical aid- and I'm afraid that's a joke.

Yes, you're providing answers. But your answers are not correct and they are in addition are breaking the rules and abstraction layer provided by the game. The game you brought specifically to provide those rules and abstraction layer.

How many players are there? How widely are they dispersed, or are they all standing on each other's head in a big stack?
Is all this happening on a flat plane or are there any elevation differences?
Why are you modelling the characters involved as static points rather than, say, circular objects with a velocity and an acceleration? You could keep their centres at the stated positions, I guess.
What's the weather like? What time of day is it?
Where is the centre of the building in relation to the players? 25m to the northwest of where? Does it have any windows? How tall is it? What sort of state is it in?
Has Tango B forgiven Tango A for sleeping with his wife?
How long does the telepathic power take to go off?

In other words, if you want a blisteringly accurate sim, you want a computer game. Tabletop games are crap at that sort of thing by their very nature.

The answers I'll provide by winging it, without maps and grids, are just as useful in actual play as you'd get from measuring it, and probably just as accurate to the situation on the ground for the characters.

So the answer to your question is - the building might not anyone's line of sight, and I have my own homework so you can do your own trig. The allied NPC can roll their telepathic discipline to see if they pull the trick off.

QuoteBetter to use a systems that ignore the subject upfront.

Agreed.

Quote from: Daedalus;533677The minis fans turned D&D (from 3.0 up) from a role playing games to a minis game.   Hopefully 5e will reverse that mistake

Oh yes, the most successful version of D&D *EVER* wasn't a role-playing game.

I'm sorry Daedalus, but you're not being rational in your thoughts. Also maybe you should go play RISUS or the like instead of inflecting your limits on the rest of the hobby.

Quote from: gleichman;533689...instead of inflecting your limits on the rest of the hobby.

Funny, I was just thinking the same thing about you.


-TGA

Quote from: Ladybird;533687How many...

A number of questions were answered in the original example*, the rest are strawmen you put up that would have no bearing on the answer to the questions I asked.

Do you want to do this honestly, or are youing going to insist on running from the simple fact that YOU CANNOT tell the ranges or answer the line of sight questions?

Something even the dumbest player with a map and minis could do.

Quote from: Ladybird;533687So the answer to your question is - the building might not anyone's line of sight, and I have my own homework so you can do your own trig. The allied NPC can roll their telepathic discipline to see if they pull the trick off.

So your answer is that you cheat to allow the player side to make his attack even if it was against the rules of the game.

Interesting. I wonder if this is why people foolishly think I run a competitive game- because they are always cheating to allow the players to do whatever they want?



*one exception, the location point for the building is the NW corner.

Quote from: The Good Assyrian;533693Funny, I was just thinking the same thing about you.

If you have the ability to keep a completely updated and accurate mental map of all ranges and positions at all times- able to provide *correct* answers to all possible range and light sight questions within seconds...

...then I grant you the ability to play correctly without a map. Chess grandmasters seem to have nearly that ability, so I won't deny it's possiblity.

But you... nah, I don't think you have it.

Quote from: gleichman;533689I'm sorry Daedalus

Indeed, you are sorry all right

Quote from: gleichman;533689but you're not being rational in your thoughts.

Can say the same thing about you

Quote from: gleichman;533689Also maybe you should go play RISUS or the like instead of inflecting your limits on the rest of the hobby.

Don't like rules light/rules barely games like Risus and Fate.  However, the way I game is how the gamers I game with play and have played for the 24 years I have been involved in this hobby.

From your posts, you sound like a very shitty GM and player.  If your so mentally limited you have to miniatures because your brain can't visually do comment then by all means use miniatures.   Some of us have the brainpower to handle combat without the use of miniatures.  And no, it's not cheating.

Quote from: gleichman;533700If you have the ability to keep a completely updated and accurate mental map of all ranges and positions at all times- able to provide *correct* answers to all possible range and light sight questions within seconds...

...then I grant you the ability to play correctly without a map. Chess grandmasters seem to have nearly that ability, so I won't deny it's possiblity.

But you... nah, I don't think you have it.

Throughout your participation in this thread I have been wondering what it must be like for you to have such a desperate need to be right all the time, even to the exclusion of polite recognition that others play these games for different reasons than you might.

Is it some pathological issue that drives this need, or is it simply that you are too socially retarded to comprehend that others can differ in opinion about what they find enjoyable and not be wrong?

-TGA