Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 8620396" data-attributes="member: 71699">In that case, you would be counting Torchbearer as not a simulationist game, because it's rules don't correlate with the imagined world in a way that inhabitants can know.Using ICE as an example, one GM might be interested in narrating to the level of granularity Arms Law provides and be satisfied with the pre-authored text for it. Another could be interested in narrativing to an even greater level of granularity than that and therefore lack sufficient pre-authored text. A third may be interested in nearly, but not quite, as much granularity as the first, and prefer to narrate based on direction rather than recite pre-authored texts. In all cases, I do not see how we could count as simulationist an approach that does not equip players to say something that follows.[EDIT Noticed though, that &quot;something that&quot; is probably better wording than &quot;what&quot;.]</blockquote>

[QUOTE="clearstream, post: 8620396, member: 71699"] In that case, you would be counting Torchbearer as not a simulationist game, because it's rules don't correlate with the imagined world in a way that inhabitants can know. Using ICE as an example, one GM might be interested in narrating to the level of granularity Arms Law provides and be satisfied with the pre-authored text for it. Another could be interested in narrativing to an even greater level of granularity than that and therefore lack sufficient pre-authored text. A third may be interested in nearly, but not quite, as much granularity as the first, and prefer to narrate based on direction rather than recite pre-authored texts. In all cases, I do not see how we could count as simulationist an approach that does not equip players to say something that follows. [EDIT Noticed though, that "something that" is probably better wording than "what".] [/QUOTE]

Verification