This is why these threads are so acrimonious. The seeming line of demarcation for you (and those who hold the same priorities) is "
people who value the integrity of a world." The primary issue with this framing is that its a misdiagnosis and that misdiagnosis make it impossible to communicate.
There is absolutely no way to converse about this that won't get your (and
@Micah Sweet 's and others) hackles up and make you feel condescended to. But the reality is, its not you
valuing the integrity of a world that (a) separates us or (b) makes these conversations fraught. I
value the integrity of a world.
@pemerton ,
@Campbell ,
@hawkeyefan ,
@AbdulAlhazred value the integrity of a world (all of which I'm certain of because I've run, and run, games for them). The
valuing of the integrity of a world isn't what divides us. Its that you (and
@Micah Sweet et al) have a particular brand of Simulation/Immersionist priorities whereby you guys' particular mental framing of the internal causality of an imagined world is absolutely foundational for you to play at all. Its a cognitive framing effect; causality, content generation, resolution mechanics must have a particular "fit" or the game becomes "jarring" (as I've heard it called plenty of times).
The other side of this
values integrity of the world. The other side doesn't run games with
worlds as grey featureless blobs. The other side just doesn't share your cognitive framework when it comes to internal causality and imagined spaces or the way that particular framing effect places particular demands and constraints upon content generation and resolution mechanics specifically and game engines generally.
Apocalypse World, Dungeon World, Stonetop, Dogs in the Vineyard, Thousand Arrows, Blades in the Dark, Burning Wheel, Torchbearer, Mouse Guard, Cortex+, D&D 4e (etc) don't feature play possessed of
grey featureless blobs of worlds without integrity. But they aren't Sim/Immersionist games governed by a metaplot and high resolution backstory and setting parameters that are primary (often overriding) inputs onto play. Consequently, as game engines/procedures/principles/set of techniques used to produce play, they would be "jarring" for you because they don't array themselves in line with your cognitive demands.
TLDR; its this kind of misdiagnosing of our differences that makes these conversations difficult. One side doesn't value
integrity of a world while the other doesn't. One side has a particular brand of Sim/Immersionist priorities and demands a particular configuration of constraints be placed upon game engines, type/kind/frequency of content introduction, zoom, GMing techniques (etc) follow from that. The other side doesn't share those priorities or the cognitive framing (whether chicken or egg) that it entails.