From: Alex Ferguson (abf@cs.ucc.ie)
Date: Wed 10 Jun 1998 - 17:32:48 EEST
David Dunham:
> Hero Wars represents a paradigm shift for most of us.
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.
------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri 13 Jun 2003 - 23:18:05 EEST