Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="The Shadow" data-source="post: 8962739" data-attributes="member: 16760">&quot;Texture&quot; is a very good word for what's going on.&nbsp; It needs to feel right, in ways that aren't always easy to quantify.&nbsp; &quot;Simulate&quot; still rings false to my ear;&nbsp; it connotes too much precision, too clinical an attitude... More fundamentally, I don't think the thought process used in actually simulating something and the thought process in coming up with a &quot;simulationist&quot; mechanic really have much of anything in common.Alliances can be a tricksy subject.&nbsp; It could be revealed that Pietra was only pretending alliance all along, had been worming her way into our confidence for her own purposes, possibly even intending to betray us.&nbsp; I would find that a legitimate development, provided that it was consistent with Pietra's past behavior and the rest of the fiction.(Of course, potentially even more interesting would be the reveal that she had originally intended to betray us in that way, but had come to actually like us or believe in our ideals or otherwise truly support our cause.)But yes, I certainly agree with your larger point.Now that I think of it, Paranoia kind of is an example of a game where everything is meaningless.&nbsp; But that isn't an ironic reveal at the end of the story, it's front and center from the beginning.&nbsp; The best you can hope for is to be the last clone standing... for now....Huh.&nbsp; It feels very weird for every action to be equally probable.&nbsp; Maybe that's because I'm still partly &quot;sim&quot;?&nbsp; But maybe not.&nbsp; &quot;My character is good at X&quot; is as much a detail of the fiction as any other.More broadly, are you saying every task has an equal chance of success, or every conflict?&nbsp; Because of course, games generally prioritize one over the other.&nbsp; EDIT:&nbsp; I would find the latter far more palatable than the former.Yes, I think there's interesting work to be done (and some has been done) in this space.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="The Shadow, post: 8962739, member: 16760"] "Texture" is a very good word for what's going on. It needs to feel right, in ways that aren't always easy to quantify. "Simulate" still rings false to my ear; it connotes too much precision, too clinical an attitude... More fundamentally, I don't think the thought process used in actually simulating something and the thought process in coming up with a "simulationist" mechanic really have much of anything in common. Alliances can be a tricksy subject. It could be revealed that Pietra was only pretending alliance all along, had been worming her way into our confidence for her own purposes, possibly even intending to betray us. I would find that a legitimate development, [I]provided[/I] that it was consistent with Pietra's past behavior and the rest of the fiction. (Of course, potentially even more interesting would be the reveal that she had originally intended to betray us in that way, but had come to actually like us or believe in our ideals or otherwise truly support our cause.) But yes, I certainly agree with your larger point. Now that I think of it, Paranoia kind of [I]is[/I] an example of a game where everything is meaningless. But that isn't an ironic reveal at the end of the story, it's front and center from the beginning. The best you can hope for is to be the last clone standing... for now. ...Huh. It feels very weird for every action to be equally probable. Maybe that's because I'm still partly "sim"? But maybe not. "My character is good at X" is as much a detail of the fiction as any other. More broadly, are you saying every [I]task[/I] has an equal chance of success, or every [I]conflict[/I]? Because of course, games generally prioritize one over the other. EDIT: I would find the latter far more palatable than the former. Yes, I think there's interesting work to be done (and some has been done) in this space. [/QUOTE]

Verification