Thomas Shey
Legend
Agreed, for a system that works that way. One could imagine a representative system faithful to the reference cosmos, that doesn't resolve linearly forward.
I agree in theory, but in practice, its hard to see such a resolution system being constructed for a game that considers that kind of element important. Even games that don't consider such things important, but still have multipe steps tend to do them chronologically so that intervention can be practiced before things finally gel.
For sure. In many cases I am rereading to see if I can better understand that.
Good luck. If people consider variations of the Threefold confusing, wade into an Immersion discussion and try and come out knowing more than you did going in.
Here's a link to the comments attributed to him. I found this from stackexchange although I didn't capture that particular link.
Yeah, that reads like Brian. I think he's a little off on a couple of things at least: First, I don't think r.g.f.a. Simulationists were defining their preference by the negative the way he says; it just happens that that was a side effect of their preference for world-exploration over everything, but there were a few special-cases where things that could only be called metagame decision that would fit in their preferences; they just wouldn't be considered a virtue. Secondly, I think he underestimates the number of Dramatist proponents that were present back in the day, though the Simulationists did kind of drive the discussion.
Regarding GNS, most of his critique seems to be of its creator than the theory, though I do agree it shows one of the same issues GDS had; one wing was only there by sort of implication and became the place to pile misunderstanding on (game in GDS, simulation in GNS).