NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 9241469" data-attributes="member: 71699">You may recall that my thoughts on sim - or "neosim" as I labelled it - <a href="https://www.arkenstonepublishing.net/isabout/2020/05/14/observations-on-gns-simulationism/" target="_blank">align with Eero Tuovinen's</a>. What you're describing would be nearer to sandbox, which interestingly enough is what Harenstam's Forbidden Lands is most like. I'm always interested in links to the thoughts of others, if you spot anything relevant.High praise indeed: I'll take it!It does seem possible to draw that conclusion, although I decided against it. To my reading, GNS is only claiming that different creative agendas will be incoherent. And then Edwards is advocating designers to serve one agenda, but that doesn't make mixing techniques incoherent. The N in GNS somewhat conflates storygames with narrativism, when - at least in my view - they should be counted two different things. Storygames obviously wield/weld narrativism very strongly to their purpose, but narrativism isn't identical to that purpose.Once you remove that bit of ambiguity, so that narrativism isn't mixed up with Edwards' interest in dramatic protagonism (not that I have any disagreement with the latter, it's only the conflation I resist) then nothing in GNS seems to predict incoherence between -trad and narrativism. There might be doubt as to whose creative agenda would fit the resultant play... even so, folk are observably embracing these games. And of course, while GNS in places relates certain techniques to one agenda or other, it doesn't predict that mixing techniques will lead to incoherence. Obviously mechanical coherence is a consideration for design, but GNS isn't so far as I recall making any claims about that.</blockquote>

Verification