Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Charlaquin" data-source="post: 8607318" data-attributes="member: 6779196">Yeah, that’s pretty consistent with my experience as well. Generally I’ve seen people use the term “narrativism” for mechanics they dislike and want to keep out of D&amp;D, and “simulationism” for the particular brand of selective realism they favor. But personally, I don’t think there’s anything categorically different about the mechanics the terms are used to gatekeep out and the mechanics that they’re used to prop up.You dismiss the notion of simulating genre, but I think that’s very much something many people want to do with so-called “narrativist play.” That said, I don’t disagree with what you’re saying here. There are definitely different agendas that people of various cultures of play pursue. I think the arbitrary distinction of “narrativist” vs “simulationist” games obfuscates the more meaningful underlying distinction between play agendas, and artificially limits what game mechanics people are willing to consider using in service of their play agendas. Ostensibly “simulationist” games often have mechanical tools that could be useful to the play agendas of groups who may think of themselves as “narrativist” and vice-versa, but they often go overlooked because of the in-group/out-group effect of the labels.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Charlaquin, post: 8607318, member: 6779196"] Yeah, that’s pretty consistent with my experience as well. Generally I’ve seen people use the term “narrativism” for mechanics they dislike and want to keep out of D&D, and “simulationism” for the particular brand of selective realism they favor. But personally, I don’t think there’s anything categorically different about the mechanics the terms are used to gatekeep out and the mechanics that they’re used to prop up. You dismiss the notion of simulating genre, but I think that’s very much something many people want to do with so-called “narrativist play.” That said, I don’t disagree with what you’re saying here. There are definitely different agendas that people of various cultures of play pursue. I think the arbitrary distinction of “narrativist” vs “simulationist” games obfuscates the more meaningful underlying distinction between play agendas, and artificially limits what game mechanics people are willing to consider using in service of their play agendas. Ostensibly “simulationist” games often have mechanical tools that could be useful to the play agendas of groups who may think of themselves as “narrativist” and vice-versa, but they often go overlooked because of the in-group/out-group effect of the labels. [/QUOTE]

Verification