Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9027034" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Unless, of course, the fun you desire is literally anything besides Groundedness and Simulation.In fact, this paragraph perfectly captures my problem with the way many advocates speak of FKR. They first define all RPGing as Groundedness and Simulation (sometimes even just one subtype thereof), and then conclude that FKR is better than everything else. Even I recognize it is objectively superior at delivering a specific kind of G&S-based play, due to having been tailored for that purpose and (pretty much) only that purpose. (Again, as I said above, there is a trace of Conceit & Emulation present, but almost never more than a trace.)Because jargon can be an impediment and these are my terms, not anyone else's, here's three-sentence summaries.Groundedness and Simulation: Groundedness is built by setting up what is "real," what is true within the fictional space, so you can use naturalistic reasoning from that grounded position (even if it is fantastical.) Simulation is the process of both trying to foresee what might happen, and actually following the "rules" (note quotes, FKR "invisible rulebooks" qualify here) to then determine what does happen. Combined, you get a design purpose for gaming: Groundedness is the standard or metric of play, while Simulation is the goal/process you follow.Conceit and Emulation: The Conceit is the central theme, concept, or idea, or (quite often) collection thereof that will be examined as part of play; "supers," "Arabian Nights," "space opera," "Aliens style space horror," "sexy teenage monsters," these are all Conceits of varying pervasiveness, as are the core thematic notions of most White Wolf games like V:tM and W:tA. Emulation is then the process of implementing the genre conventions and implications thereof in an entertaining and believable, but not necessarily grounded or "realistic," way. Combined, again, you have a design purpose: articulate a theme to be studied through the act of play, and then play by applying the genre conventions thereof.And from this, you can see how C&E could piggy-back on G&S. If a genre convention gets accepted as part of the foundation, validated as "grounded" even though it probably isn't, then naturalistic reasoning may be able to color within the lines of that genre without falling out of it or producing un-grounded results. (A huge huge part of G&S is the desire for closure under the operation of naturalistic reasoning: you start from things everyone agrees are grounded, and intend that whatever you generate thereafter via naturalistic reasoning will also be grounded.) Problems come in when looking at genres with very strong conventions that make such Groundedness difficult, which is why I so often refer to superheroes for the contrast between G&S and C&E: there are some "rules" of stories about supers that often shouldn't be broken if you want to keep the tone and feel, the core Conceit, intact. These rules are often not actually grounded in anything, they're just how people seem to behave even though they could acquire an advantage by breaking them (e.g. it should be easy to find out most characters' secret identity in a world with cell phones and DNA testing, but few supervillains even try, and most superheroes actively avoid it.) Hence why I say FKR has a veneer of support for C&E: as long as the genre conventions don't interfere with the Groundedness, they can ride along, like remoras on a shark. But if you want the kinds of fun provided by Score and Achievement (that " 'gaminess' feeling," as Snarf put it) or by Values and Issues ("Story Now") design, FKR will leave you out in the cold and do so proudly.</blockquote>

Verification