Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="innerdude" data-source="post: 8959154" data-attributes="member: 85870">At the point in time I read the baseline / core GNS essays on the Forge (sometime around 2016) I would have called myself a gamist/simulationist hybrid, with slight leaning to simulationism.I personally didn't find the core essays to be terribly biased against simulationism, and as far as I can tell, Ron Edwards had quite a bit of personal affinity for Runequest, which is a veritable poster child for the &quot;sim&quot; agenda. I didn't review any of the broader forum discussions, though, so I can imagine there may have been some strident, ardent communiques decrying simulationism by other participants.The core essays mostly seem to convey, &quot;we acknowledge the phenomenon of simulationism as evident and real, but it's not a particular focus or pursuit within our inquiry, so we're mostly going to leave it alone.&quot; Which I was fine with, mostly, with a few quibbles.I think at the time I was somewhat disappointed that the GNS core theory didn't delve into simulationism more, as it felt like it could be expounded upon. Most of my own learnings from simulationism were tied to my exploration of GURPS, and trying to fully register just how much a game reliant on &quot;process sim input / output&quot; felt like something I didn't really want. I wanted &quot;enough&quot; &quot;sim&quot; inputs/outputs, but not too many.I can also admit that the Forge's analysis of sim felt too . . . mundane? Too rational? GNS didn't hold up simulationism on an elevated pedestal like I wanted it to. It was very matter of fact --- &quot;Sure, you can play this way if you'd like. It's no better or worse than the others.&quot; That didn't feel right to my personal . . . id, I suppose. I was emotionally invested in wanting &quot;simulationism&quot; to be better than the others. I was romanticizing it in a way that's been talked about in other threads, and that romanticism didn't play well with the process of analyzing what this playstyle is actually doing.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="innerdude, post: 8959154, member: 85870"] At the point in time I read the baseline / core GNS essays on the Forge (sometime around 2016) I would have called myself a gamist/simulationist hybrid, with slight leaning to simulationism. I personally didn't find the core essays to be terribly biased against simulationism, and as far as I can tell, Ron Edwards had quite a bit of personal affinity for Runequest, which is a veritable poster child for the "sim" agenda. I didn't review any of the broader forum discussions, though, so I can imagine there may have been some strident, ardent communiques decrying simulationism by other participants. The core essays mostly seem to convey, "we acknowledge the phenomenon of simulationism as evident and real, but it's not a particular focus or pursuit within our inquiry, so we're mostly going to leave it alone." Which I was fine with, mostly, with a few quibbles. I think at the time I was somewhat disappointed that the GNS core theory didn't delve into simulationism more, as it felt like it could be expounded upon. Most of my own learnings from simulationism were tied to my exploration of GURPS, and trying to fully register just [I]how much[/I] a game reliant on "process sim input / output" felt like something I didn't really want. I wanted "enough" "sim" inputs/outputs, but not too many. I can also admit that the Forge's analysis of sim felt too . . . mundane? Too rational? GNS didn't hold up simulationism on an elevated pedestal like I wanted it to. It was very matter of fact --- "Sure, you can play this way if you'd like. It's no better or worse than the others." That didn't feel right to my personal . . . [I]id[/I], I suppose. I was emotionally invested in wanting "simulationism" to be [I]better [/I]than the others. I was romanticizing it in a way that's been talked about in other threads, and that romanticism didn't play well with the process of analyzing [I]what this playstyle is actually doing[/I]. [/QUOTE]

Verification