A Question Of Agency?

[FrogReaver]

As defined in those essays Simulationism or Right To Dream is simply an aesthetic preference rooted most strongly in exploration rather than protagonism/theme (Narrativism or Story Now) or skilled play (Gamism or Step On Up). I personally prefer the epitaphs to the labels here. It's also not perfect. These creative agendas are not the only possible ones. Still it's better than what existed before where everyone basically assumed you could only design and play RPGs in pretty much one way.

I mean if the usefulness is to bring out other ways to play RPG's then I'm sure it worked well.

But IMO It's a pretty poor definition for comparative/analysis purposes.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

You and @FrogReaver are arguing for a subject matter constraint - something like the player of a RPG should not be able to establish any fictional element which is not causally downstream of his/her PC's actions - but seem to want to assert that it's a process constraint.

There is no 'should'. but merely a recognition that whether they can or cannot is a significant difference. I really do not understand why you so badly want to make discussing RPGs more difficult.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I mean if the usefulness is to bring out other ways to play RPG's then I'm sure it worked well.

But IMO It's a pretty poor definition for comparative/analysis purposes.

I have never found GNS useful

 

[Manbearcat]

Right. So that's the difference. In fiction the character hitting the orc actually caused the orc to die.

This is not “the difference.”

There is no “the fiction” the way you’re representing it (as in a persistent objective reality with its own volition). We are it’s volition. We give it shape and trajectory through our imaginings/mental overhead, our conversation, and our deference to/application of system (where it applies).

There is no volitional causal chain that applies to melee exchanges that doesn’t equally apply to “looking for (and perhaps finding) friends.”

And from the vantage of actual characters within the shared imagined space, it’s all the same. Look for friends where you might (or even perhaps expect to) find them and do or do not. Feint/wrongfoot an Orc into raising his shield or exposing his flank and slide your Short Sword between his ribs...or not.

Being able to inhabit (or not) the cognitive workspace to viscerally experience what the character is experiencing in either case is a personal thing (not an artifact of system or procedure). Because some people can inhabit that cognitive workspace regardless of how the content is generated.

 

[FrogReaver]

This is not “the difference.”

There is no “the fiction” the way you’re representing it (as in a persistent objective reality with its own volition). We are it’s volition. We give it shape and trajectory through our imaginings/mental overhead, our conversation, and our deference to/application of system (where it applies).

There is no volitional causal chain that applies to melee exchanges that doesn’t equally apply to “looking for (and perhaps finding) friends.”

And from the vantage of actual characters within the shared imagined space, it’s all the same. Look for friends where you might (or even perhaps expect to) find them and do or do not. Feint/wrongfoot an Orc into raising his shield or exposing his flank and slide your Short Sword between his ribs...or not.

Being able to inhabit (or not) the cognitive workspace to viscerally experience what the character is experiencing in either case is a personal thing (not an artifact of system or procedure). Because some people can inhabit that cognitive workspace regardless of how the content is generated.

I’ve explained the difference about 10 times. Here you are just proclaiming there isn’t a difference without addressing where I’m pointing to the difference.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I have never found GNS useful

Really? Even as a starting point for discussion?

I don’t agree with a lot of the conclusions, but I wouldn’t discard it as a piece of analysis.

 

[Manbearcat]

I’ve explained the difference about 10 times. Here you are just proclaiming there isn’t a difference without addressing where I’m pointing to the difference.

No I know what you’re saying and what you’ve said. It’s just confused.

The answer to why I say it’s confused is in the post you’ve directly quoted here.

You’re giving volitional force to a thing (“fiction”) that fundamentally has no such thing. We invest it with life and then we feel however we do about that investment.

Because it’s necessary for you to have a certain arrangement of content generation in order for you to feel a certain way about it is not an objective fact about “the causal relationships within the fiction.” Because there is no such thing as that.

Now, zoom it out and look at it as a game (not “a fiction”) and look at the content generation procedures necessary to test skill or protagonism (not necessary to “feel like you’re inhabiting a fiction with internally consistent causal relationships”), then it’s a different conversation.

 

[Hriston]

The context was in relation to chance meetings with your friends. I figured someone would eventually chime in and say something to this effect. If you are going to your friend to find him then I have no issue. If your "looking for friends" causes a roll that results in a chance encounter with them. That's the where the issue is.

I don't understand this objection. I'm not familiar with The Burning Wheel, but presumably a Circles check in that system corresponds in some way to an attempt by the PC to make him/herself open to such an encounter, putting out the proper signals and feelers or sending messages to the appropriate people, for example. Also presumably, if you already knew where your friend was, there would be no need to "go looking" for them. Assuming you're familiar with 5E, a long way up-thread I posted that such an attempt could be resolved in that system with a Charisma check.

 

[FrogReaver]

I don't understand this objection. I'm not familiar with The Burning Wheel, but presumably a Circles check in that system corresponds in some way to an attempt by the PC to make him/herself open to such an encounter, putting out the proper signals and feelers or sending messages to the appropriate people, for example. Also presumably, if you already knew where your friend was, there would be no need to "go looking" for them. Assuming you're familiar with 5E, a long way up-thread I posted that such an attempt could be resolved in that system with a Charisma check.

None of that describes a chance encounter which is what the advocate of that system described it as doing. Now if he's mistaken that's fine, but my objection is having such a mechanic produce chance encounters.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

@Manbearcat all of the subject matter of the player agency is imaginary. I don't understand why you're hung up on this particular distinction.

Anyway, whilst I do not agree with all points of Alexandrian's analysis, I find it be far more useful than yours, as it actually endeavours to engage with how people experience and perceive these differnt games.