Even from a strict simulationist point of view, certain restrictions on creativity are hard to avoid. A simulation of the world is not the world; it's a model of the world, with a limited resolution. If, say, I am simulating the dynamics of the early solar system, I'm going to limit my model to planetesimals of a certain minimal mass, because the smaller ones make too little difference to the dynamics; I'm going to disregard chemical reactions within planetary bodies, because those don't have the sort of large-scale effects that would alter final orbits; and so on.
In a model of superhuman conflicts, if some characters have power X, and others have power X/10, the ones with power X/10 are likely not to have a meaningful effect on the outcome, and can properly be disregarded. And conversely, too powerful a character, say 10X, is going to have an overwhelming impact, like doing a model of the early solar system with a superjovian planet in place. So it's legitimate to set a restriction on the power levels that well be considered, a restriction not of kind but of magnitude. And the point budget of games such as GURPS is an attempt to approximate such a restriction. It may not work perfectly, but what it's trying to do is a legitimate goal.
And my goals in running a game aren't pure simulation; they also have game and narrative aspects. From that perspective, an engine may give us the tool to simulate "anything," for certain values of "anything," but that doesn't mean that I want to simulate anything; I may want to simulate something in particular. What that something is may be shaped by the goal of having a narrative in a certain range emerge from play; it may also be shaped by the goal of having balanced conflicts—which is a gamist goal, but also a narrativist one: the moment when the dice come out is the rpg version of the agony of classic epic and drama, the point where the struggle becomes totally serious. If one side in the conflict is so much more capable than the other that there's no chance of meaning opposition, then I don't have a conflict, or a game, or a dramatically interesting climax for a story. And having that sort of thing is what I'm using the simulationist tools for in the first place.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2008-04-11 04:34 am (UTC)In a model of superhuman conflicts, if some characters have power X, and others have power X/10, the ones with power X/10 are likely not to have a meaningful effect on the outcome, and can properly be disregarded. And conversely, too powerful a character, say 10X, is going to have an overwhelming impact, like doing a model of the early solar system with a superjovian planet in place. So it's legitimate to set a restriction on the power levels that well be considered, a restriction not of kind but of magnitude. And the point budget of games such as GURPS is an attempt to approximate such a restriction. It may not work perfectly, but what it's trying to do is a legitimate goal.
And my goals in running a game aren't pure simulation; they also have game and narrative aspects. From that perspective, an engine may give us the tool to simulate "anything," for certain values of "anything," but that doesn't mean that I want to simulate anything; I may want to simulate something in particular. What that something is may be shaped by the goal of having a narrative in a certain range emerge from play; it may also be shaped by the goal of having balanced conflicts—which is a gamist goal, but also a narrativist one: the moment when the dice come out is the rpg version of the agony of classic epic and drama, the point where the struggle becomes totally serious. If one side in the conflict is so much more capable than the other that there's no chance of meaning opposition, then I don't have a conflict, or a game, or a dramatically interesting climax for a story. And having that sort of thing is what I'm using the simulationist tools for in the first place.