NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Rogue Agent" data-source="post: 5790048" data-attributes="member: 6673496">Case in point.Did somebody say it was an inferior way to play? I must have missed that.Hmm... I think you might want to go back and try re-reading my post and/or the thread. The bit you're quoting there was specifically and explicitly talking about dramatism, not simulationism.With that being said, it sounds like you're of the school of GNS thought that attempts to make the incoherent GNS Simulationism semi-coherent by defining it as "exploration" (usually by using multiple and mutually contradictory definitions of "exploration" to pull it off). (I believe this originates from a later Edwards essay, but it's been awhile since I really delved into this stuff.)But, as you've noted, this doesn't actually solve the problem. In fact, it perpetuates it: Not only does GNS Simulationism remain a bizarre amalgamation of Threefold Dramatist and Threefold Simulationist agendas that's "too freeform" and "too variable" to be useful, but you've simultaneously scooped out large chunks of Threefold Simulationism and orphaned them completely.The result is a theory which is incoherent, confusingly labeled (since simulationism is no longer focused on simulation), and incomplete even within the simple boundaries of what it's trying to discuss.Ultimately, the only real way to "fix" GNS theory is to go back to the very beginning and fix the initial error of moving dramatist agendas (which are naturally related to other dramatist agendas) into simulationism. The theory would still have some problems, IMO, but it wouldn't be fundamentally flawed from square one.</blockquote>

Verification