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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Rogue Agent" data-source="post: 5790834" data-attributes="member: 6673496">Probably true. But saying that people interested in experiencing stories that have had their parameters set by somebody else constitutes an interest in "simulating" something is patent nonsense.Trying to use stance, technique, and/or division of authority at the game table to create a dividing line between those who have an interest in "story" and those who have an interest in "simulation" is a really bad idea. Stances and techniques aren't goals; they're tools for achieving goals.And the reality, of course, is that most stances, techniques, and divisions of authority at the game table can find applications across different goals. For example, consider the modern technique of breaking up the authority of the traditional GM and spreading it around the table: Lots of Forge games use that for narrativist goals. But Robin D. Laws' Rune used it for gamist goals. And I've known lots of campaigns in which different players "owned" different parts of the game world, which can make the technique very applicable for simulationist goals.Like most of what you post here, your conclusion doesn't follow from your premises. The Threefold is very specifically focused on one method of classification. That's why it works.By those lights, as you say, GNS fails because it isn't focused. It is, instead, a muddled attempt to overload multiple metrics onto a single scale. It's like somebody said: "There are these related concepts of 'weight' and 'mass'. But, in practice, they're different. So I'm going to separate the two and say that 'weight' is actually just a kind of frequency. And then I'm going to spend ten years trying to make my concept of 'frequency' coherent despite the fact that I've erroneously included weight in my definition of the term."It's not the weight and mass are the same thing. It's just that weight isn't a frequency.It only interests me insofar as I think correctly identifying that most story-railroaders are primarily interested in story is the quickest way to show them techniques that they can use to pursue their interest in story without using the, IMO, dysfunctional techniques of railroading.Whereas, OTOH, trying to convince them that their use of a railroading technique means that what they're really interested in simulation doesn't accomplish anything at all: People who are actually interested in simulation aren't going to find anything of interest in the games of the story-railroaders (or vice versa); and the techniques one group uses won't be particularly useful to the other without a lot of modification.If the group is enjoying itself without reservation and isn't interested in experimentation, of course, this is usually all irrelevant. Tiger Woods might spend a year making micro-adjustments in his swing in order to optimize his game, but most of us are probably perfectly content to just play like Tiger Woods.</blockquote>

Verification