Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9034001" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Drama. It's not equivalent to the N ("Narrativism") of GNS, but it has broadly similar philosophical commitments, AIUI.I would argue they are actually distinct, but mostly because the two models (IMO) squabble over where to put what I have called "Emulation." To GDS, it belongs in the Drama category AIUI, with Sim being purely "process sim." To GNS, it belongs in the Sim category, being labelled "genre sim" as contrasted with "process sim." Hence why I say I have found it productive to separate it into its own category. It has certain overlaps with both things people refer to as "narrative" or "dramatic" or "storytelling" play, and yet also other overlap with things people refer to as "simulation," both in technical/jargon senses and in colloquial/casual senses.I think the core question remains unresolved. Asked, in reverse order to how [USER=71699]@clearstream[/USER] put it: If this works, why doesn't all simulation work this way? If it doesn't, why call it simulation? Your final two sentences (prior to the quoted one, I mean) just touch on this, but I think it bears spooling out.FKR works for simulation if, and I would argue only if, one of the following (more or less mutually-exclusive) conditions is met:<ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">All, or very nearly all, of the participants are already in quite strong agreement on the fundamental elements of the imagined space, so no difficulty or ambiguity will ever arise. Essentially, the group already has their "groundedness," needing (near-)zero effort to build it.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">The group is already highly tactful and cooperative, so no system is needed to resolve ambiguities. Any that arise are either resolved or dismissed without issue. Here, "groundedness" sediments over time because disruption of the imagined space can't really occur.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">One central authority calls all of the shots and everyone agrees to abide by their commands, even if they personally disagree with those commands. Unlike the previous, disruption can occur, but is silenced quickly, though in the best cases it is dealt with later/"off screen."</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">The group agrees to building new rules (often called "rulings," but they are indistinguishable from custom-built rules) ad hoc, thus when disruptions do occur, they produce new system that smooths things back to where they were.</li> </ol>In summary, these are "we all think the same, so we don't need rules"; "we all get along consistently, so we don't need rules"; "we have one authority we will obey, so we don't need rules"; and "we agree to build rules we need when we need them, not before." Or, if you want pithy single words, Unanimity, Harmony, Authority, or Accretion. "Trust," in the sense of presupposing consistency, knowledge, and lack of bias, is only required for #3, Authority. #1, Unanimity, is great when it works, because it means all the work is already done for you and it's effectively impossible to have issues; the main problem, then, is that it can rarely last, because (at least in my experience) it's exceedingly rare for 4+ people to all have exactly the same thoughts, beliefs, and ideas all the time about everything over a long period of time. So #1, being only meta-stable, usually collapses into one of the other three in short order. (Though several have noted FKR is better for short-term games--which would allow #1 to hold better sway, because there isn't time for it to become unstable.)#4, Accretion, seems to be in conflict with FKR philosophically, unless it's really really strident about only developing new rules ("consistent rulings") when said rules are absolutely essential. While absolute commitment to "no system," if you will, is about as required as "no myth" is for PbtA gaming (meaning, it's not, but some folks will insist it is), I have yet to see anyone argue that at least minimizing system isn't part of FKR. Even folks above who have mentioned that system-avoidance is not critical to FKR usually at least add that avoiding player-facing system is, but Accretion only works because it IS player-facing, that's how it resolves disputes.Thus, we are left with either #2, Harmony, or #3, Authority, as consistently reliable resolution processes for proper FKR simulation play. #2 is endangered by certain behaviors, usually coming from players: being power-hungry, grubbing for every possible advantage, engaging in bad faith, etc. #3 is endangered by other behaviors, usually coming from GMs: being dictatorial, unreasonable, inconsistent, biased, etc. Note that I use this phrasing intentionally. It is not that these things are axiomatically going to have such issues. Small groups really can form long-term stable social ties that can overcome personal grievances and desires (it's the only way we survive that terrible, wonderful institution called "family.") Individual authorities with absolute control can, in fact, use it with caution, perspicacity, and good grace (see: Cincinnatus.) But for someone asking, "Wait, how does this work, exactly? And if it does work, why doesn't everyone do that?" such concerns need to be mentioned.TL;DR: People don't all do FKR because, over the long haul, it requires strong social bonds or full deference to a single authority that all participants will continually see as consistent, unbiased, and well-informed. When it works, it works; but it does not always work. Crunchy simulation systems tend to be better for (a) long-term play, (b) play where you have no (edit: or minimal) preexisting social bonds with the other participants, or (c) play where disagreements are reasonably likely to occur and would benefit from neutral, external resolution processes.</blockquote>

Verification