Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="John Morrow" data-source="post: 2209181" data-attributes="member: 27012">As someone who is pretty strongly Simulationist in GDS terms, I think it's also a crime against Simulationist players.  And what makes it really nuts is that the GDS originated as a model designed to explain the distinction between Simulationist and Dramatist games -- specifically, why players who either look at the game setting through their character's eyes or otherwise value verisimilitude highly might reject overt attempts by the GM to make their games more story-like by sacrificing some realism. But as a person who originally liked the term "Simulation", I think that's a bitof a crime against clarity, too.  The problem is that every game "simulates" something.  A Star Trek game where the red shirts die to prove how dangerous a monster is "simulates" the stories of the Star Trek TV show but they aren't "Simulationist" in the sense that "red shirts" are a story element, not a part of the setting.  It's not "world-based" but "story-based", even though it "simulates" the episodes of a TV show.  The distinction Simulationism was designed to make was one of making decisions based only on the reality of the game setting as opposed to Dramatism, which makes decisions based on story needs.  Unless the characters in Star Trek are aware of the cliche that red shirts are destined to die, it's a story need decision, not a setting oriented one.The biggest value I've gotten out of The Forge model, as an ousider, is a good understanding of why people reacted so badly to the rec.games.frp.advocacy model, for which I was an insider.  I think I get it know.  If you need to read a FAQ or pages of essays to understand how normal words are being used, something is wrong with the words that are being used.  If a model rigidly limits the number of categories, insists that all role-players be fit into those categories, and uses a single category as a dumping ground for "bad role-playing", something is also wrong with the categories.  In the rec.games.frp.advocacy case, Gamism was the dumping ground.  In the GNS case, Simulationism is the dumping ground.  Is it really that difficult to create a seperate category for "bad role-playing" or to admit that "bad role-playing" can be found in any style?</blockquote>

Verification