Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Yesway Jose" data-source="post: 5638603" data-attributes="member: 6679265">Re-reading this, I think IT is the point.&nbsp;What is the difference between these 2 statements in terms of its usefulness in describing RPG rules?&nbsp;1) Mechanic X is &quot;disassociated&quot; because the reasoning cannot be observed, learned or explored in-game, subjectively2) Mechanic X is not simulationist, subjectively&nbsp;...with the clarification that:- a person in Actor/Author stance may feel mechanic X is simulationist as read and in gameplay- a person in Actor/Author stance may feel mechanic X is metagame-y as read but fluffs it to make it feel simulationist in gameplay- a person may have no desire to have a mechanic feel simulationist as read or in gameplay- the labelling of non-simulationist is a matter of subjective taste, and an opposing opinion is not a criticism, and should not be conflated with &quot;not roleplaying&quot;&nbsp;So then we're just discussing or arguing if abstractions (like 1/day) are subjectively simulating a desired fiction or not, but at least we're not hung up on the term &quot;disassociated&quot;.&nbsp;Simulationism may be not rigorously defined, but everybody seems to understand generally what it means, and that's the label used in the Big Model.&nbsp;Yes, the oP suggests that &quot;simulationist&quot; might be a misnomer because it doesn't describe what is the fictional construct being modelled/abstracted, but the same is true for &quot;disassociated&quot; because it doesn't define what fictional construct the rule is (dis)associated from.&nbsp;In reference to the essay, you alluded to a certain wariness that 4E players have regarding the topic of simulationism, because 4E roleplaying is not accepted by some of the RPG community, and thus feel the need to constantly defend against criticism. But with all due respect, if one can get over any such hang-ups and not feel threatened that expressions of simulationist preferences impinge on your game, and people recognize that we're not in 2007 anymore and non-simulationism is a valid roleplaying choice (which I actually think has been true on this thread?), then I think we should be good to go?&nbsp;Personally, I'm not a fan of rigorous semantics, but I can't tell any significant difference between &quot;disassociation&quot; vs &quot;non-simulationist&quot;.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Yesway Jose, post: 5638603, member: 6679265"] Re-reading this, I think IT is the point. What is the difference between these 2 statements in terms of its usefulness in describing RPG rules? 1) Mechanic X is "disassociated" because the reasoning cannot be observed, learned or explored in-game, subjectively 2) Mechanic X is not simulationist, subjectively ...with the clarification that: - a person in Actor/Author stance may feel mechanic X is simulationist as read and in gameplay - a person in Actor/Author stance may feel mechanic X is metagame-y as read but fluffs it to make it feel simulationist in gameplay - a person may have no desire to have a mechanic feel simulationist as read or in gameplay - the labelling of non-simulationist is a matter of subjective taste, and an opposing opinion is not a criticism, and should not be conflated with "not roleplaying" So then we're just discussing or arguing if abstractions (like 1/day) are subjectively simulating a desired fiction or not, but at least we're not hung up on the term "disassociated". Simulationism may be not rigorously defined, but everybody seems to understand generally what it means, and that's the label used in the Big Model. Yes, the oP suggests that "simulationist" might be a misnomer because it doesn't describe what is the fictional construct being modelled/abstracted, but the same is true for "disassociated" because it doesn't define what fictional construct the rule is (dis)associated from. In reference to the essay, you alluded to a certain wariness that 4E players have regarding the topic of simulationism, because 4E roleplaying is not accepted by some of the RPG community, and thus feel the need to constantly defend against criticism. But with all due respect, if one can get over any such hang-ups and not feel threatened that expressions of simulationist preferences impinge on your game, and people recognize that we're not in 2007 anymore and non-simulationism is a valid roleplaying choice (which I actually think has been true on this thread?), then I think we should be good to go? Personally, I'm not a fan of rigorous semantics, but I can't tell any significant difference between "disassociation" vs "non-simulationist". [/QUOTE]

Verification