As this phrase is abused on a quotidian basis in my Day Job, I'm afraid it sets off rather large alarm bells...
> Until now, most RPGs have been simulationist. They attempt to model the
> real (or imaginary) world by simulating its processes. For example, RQ
> models combat by rules for the process of making an attack and the process
> of thwarting that attack. Each die roll generally simulates some
> easily-identifiable real world event or process. You may not agree that
> it's the best simulation, but the mapping is clear.
By this definition, most RPGs are _not_ simulationist. Both D&D and RQ, IIRC, and others besides, explicitly state a combat round and attack roll are not "an attack", singular, but determining "what happened that round", which is a pretty meaningless concept as far as the game world is concerned. (Well, unless Glorantha works in 12-second frame stop motion.) Not as abstract as "what happened in that fight", but conceptually, what's the ineluctable difference? Now clearly that's by no means a "storytelling" approach, either, so I suggest that either terminology, or definition thereof, is broken here.
> And while Hero Wars doesn't tell you as much about the
> outcome as does RuneQuest, it's as detailed as Pendragon in this regard.
And so why is HW a different "paradigm" from P.? Because the number of combat dice rolls might be different?
> Hero Wars also chooses a different world to model than does RuneQuest, a
> more literary (or adventure movie) view of Glorantha, but some
> simulationist games do this too (Star Wars being a notable example).
At this point, I really don't know what these words are supposed to mean, any more. In what sense is Star Wars a simulationist game, that Hero Wars is not? They both, it appears to me at this remove, are somewhat abstract resolution systems which "simulate" the outcomes of (different) "literary" conventions (aka storytelling, genre or cinematic ones), rather than "reality". Either HW is more notably different than it's been described to be on this list (which, large disclaimer, is my only real info on it), or this is making a large molehill out of a slender distinction, it seems to me.
> Perhaps it would be better to call most games process-oriented and Hero
> Wars outcome-oriented, but I doubt this will happen.
?! Thank heavens for small mercies.
> One more comment: one problem with simulationist games is deciding on the
> level of detail. RuneQuest is fairly detailed. Pendragon is considerably
> more abstract. Detailed systems are usually more complex and slow. Abstract
> systems frequently lose accuracy. Hero Wars steps outside the decision of
> where to draw the line by not simulating at all.
Thereby moving the line-drawing to how abstract or detailed an "outcome" to model, right?
Let me state, however, that I have no objection in the slightest to where the HW project seems to be headed. It seems to me to be pretty promising, and I have faith that what comes out will be worth playing. I just don't see the value or purpose of characterising its differences from RQ, Pendragon (etc) in such jargonified, and apparently considerably overstated, terms.
Slan,
Alex.
Powered by hypermail