Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 9088474" data-attributes="member: 71699">I'll add my extended edit here, to expand on this. I added that it's worth observing the detail of where authorship is exercised. The following are all up for authorship: subject(s), directions of exploration, what is found out. An illuminating example - that helps see the possibilities - is where the player-characters are intrinsic to subject... where they in some sense are the subject. Positioning players exceptionally well to author details of subject and what is found out.Direction of exploration - what questions are asked, and how they are asked - is usually open to player authorship. What is found out will either be an imaginary fact - ceteris paribus all are equally well positioned to answer - or a referenced fact - where significant knowledge and perspectives that deserve a hearing may be held by anyone.Yes, numerous game texts are starting to fill this space, but for myself the basics were already present in actual play at our table of much older designs. Bushido would be one of my standout examples. Folk can have in mind some sort of high-GM authority low-energy play and call that sim (worst case, meaning all of sim, entire, and everything it shall ever be.) Sim play is no more inherently low-energy than any other form!When we played Harn, we all knew different facets of dark age and medieval European history (some of us were literal students of it.) Everyone would chime in and be listened to; becoming authors of their part of the world ("part" could mean a territory, a cultural facet, an organisation, a technological facet.) And this was all perfectly normal. It came directly from our collaborative approach to wargaming campaigns.So the point is elevated appreciation and understanding! The essential problem with Edwards' take is that he mistook a core technique for the creative ambition. It's like saying fiction-first is the actual creative purpose of storynow. It's right to include core techniques in the agenda, but wrong to believe they are locked to that agenda as the creative purpose. But then, I can't easily forget that Edwards wrote “That would give us Gamism and Narrativism as "real" RPG goals, and Simulationism as a historical, perhaps even regrettable artifact of bad design.”There's no real effort that needs to be made. Nothing that folk today aren't already applying in their roleplaying. Read Stonetop and watch Strandberg's Blinding Light series for example, and tell me that it doesn't twinge some simmy feelings in you. Or run RuneQuest: Roleplaying in Glorantha paying actual attention to runes and passions. Or Pendragon, of course. Play some Fantasy Flight L5R or Free League ToR.This is of course from a position that story is not in conflict with exploration, and what sim is about foremost is exploration. Both are roleplayed, and both sup upon the fruits of immersion. This was what Gleichman argued from the outset.I don't really catch your question or criticism here. Can you put it another way?</blockquote>

Verification