Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5510700" data-attributes="member: 42582">Good question. I think that most uses of &quot;simulationism&quot; on these boards, in discussions of 3E and 4e, are meant to invoke something in the neighbourhood of &quot;purist-for-system&quot; simulationism ie a system for building game elements, and determining the character and consequences of interaction between them, that models the ingame causal processess and logic of the gameworld. (Not that I think most posters on this board have purist-for-system preferences. I think the received approach to play is a type of very dialed-down gamism, with a very heavy chassis of purist-for-system exploration underlying play, and play skill being demonstrated by effective manipulation of the build-and-resolution mechanics in order to ensure the PCs' triumph over the foes the GM throws at them.)Occasionally reference is also made to &quot;simulation of genre&quot;, but in my view that is such an unhelpful criterion - who's conception of genre? and simulating what characteristics of it? - that I tend to ignore that alternative notion.More interestingly, and sometimes more frustratingly, what most posters on this board mean when they talk about &quot;story&quot; or &quot;narrativism&quot; is something like &quot;high-concept simulationism&quot; ie a set of mechanics that, if played according to the instructions on the box, and within the tolerance parameters specified on the box, will give you the story experience that you've paid for. In practice, I tend to agree with Ron Edwards that this is code for a high degree of GM power and GM fiat to ensure that the predetermined story is realised (or, in the case of adventure paths, the GM also concedes that power to the module author). What is left for the players, in this sort of game, seems to me little more than rolling the dice and injecting some colour around the narration of particular PC actions.I agree with this approach to 4e powers, although all this does is exclude purist-for-system simulationism. It leaves a further open question as to what affirmative playstyles are available: I think high-concept play is possible (and this is how LostSoul sees the game), that gamist play is possible (I believe that this is how Balesir sees the game) and also that narrativist play is possible (from my own experience). (All adjectives for playstyles in this paragraph are used in the Forge sense.)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 5510700, member: 42582"] Good question. I think that most uses of "simulationism" on these boards, in discussions of 3E and 4e, are meant to invoke something in the neighbourhood of "purist-for-system" simulationism ie a system for building game elements, and determining the character and consequences of interaction between them, that models the ingame causal processess and logic of the gameworld. (Not that I think most posters on this board have purist-for-system preferences. I think the received approach to play is a type of very dialed-down gamism, with a very heavy chassis of purist-for-system exploration underlying play, and play skill being demonstrated by effective manipulation of the build-and-resolution mechanics in order to ensure the PCs' triumph over the foes the GM throws at them.) Occasionally reference is also made to "simulation of genre", but in my view that is such an unhelpful criterion - who's conception of genre? and simulating what characteristics of it? - that I tend to ignore that alternative notion. More interestingly, and sometimes more frustratingly, what most posters on this board mean when they talk about "story" or "narrativism" is something like "high-concept simulationism" ie a set of mechanics that, if played according to the instructions on the box, and within the tolerance parameters specified on the box, will give you the story experience that you've paid for. In practice, I tend to agree with Ron Edwards that this is code for a high degree of GM power and GM fiat to ensure that the predetermined story is realised (or, in the case of adventure paths, the GM also concedes that power to the module author). What is left for the players, in this sort of game, seems to me little more than rolling the dice and injecting some colour around the narration of particular PC actions. I agree with this approach to 4e powers, although all this does is exclude purist-for-system simulationism. It leaves a further open question as to what affirmative playstyles are available: I think high-concept play is possible (and this is how LostSoul sees the game), that gamist play is possible (I believe that this is how Balesir sees the game) and also that narrativist play is possible (from my own experience). (All adjectives for playstyles in this paragraph are used in the Forge sense.) [/QUOTE]

Verification