Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Balesir" data-source="post: 5789177" data-attributes="member: 27160">That would be the "simulationists" that don't exist in GNS because it's about agendas, not classifications of people?Is it entirely possible that the "Simulationist" agenda is poorly defined and consists of more than one distinct agenda? Yes, absolutely. But I have yet to see anyone come up with a very clear division or taxonomy - and I'm not convinced it's meaningful or worthwhile. I love playing to a Simulationist agenda at times, but my experience of it is that the exploration that forms its core is too freeform, too variable, to make classification really useful. That does not make it an "inferior" way to play in the slightest - and maybe if we'd all stop being so goddamned touchy all the time a lot of these debates might be a lot more productive.Sure, it's possible - I've experienced it. But do the players focus no making the story? No - the GM does. That makes it a game focussed on exploration - exploration of the situation the GM creates (and maybe also the world setting and the characters the players are playing, depending on the proclivities of those involved). Focus over all else on exploration is Simulationism as defined in GNS, therefore it is a correct classification as far as it goes - the "cap fits".Is it different from Simulationist play focussed on other aspects of exploration - pure world exploration, for example? Sure it is - no-one claimed that GNS was a total classification! There are several "flavours" of Gamism and Narrativism, too. What you are saying is like claiming that strawberry ice-cream should not be called "ice-cream" because it's not the same as chocolate ice-cream. Would it be useful to come up with names for the flavours within "ice-cream"? Maybe. Maybe not. Give us an example, if it's important to you. Edit: as a "starter for ten" Edwards already did, FWIW - exploration of setting, of situation and of character.I can set out to explore a town I just moved to or I can set out to explore Antarctica - very different goals, but still both are "exploration". In an RPG sense, T:2k, RQ and Buffy are all games about exploration, too. They are also very different games, but so are Sorceror, Burning Wheel and PrimeTime Adventures (all Narrativist in focus). This is not intended to be any sort of "insult" and I'm somewhat mystified as to how it could be perceived as such.Edit: I'm not that happy with this post, but I don't have time to rewrite it; I hope you'll get the points even though they are not well expressed...</blockquote>

Verification