Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Aldarc" data-source="post: 8963184" data-attributes="member: 5142">I'm at a loss here, Micah. I'm not sure if your comment here is directed at me or not. But I would quibble here anyway by pointing out that you did not say this. As per your original post:&nbsp; Your wording here in this part regarding the &quot;magical elf-game&quot; involves &quot;realism&quot; rather than the validity of the &quot;simulationist point of view,&quot; though maybe you view the terms as being analogous ones, as you then pivot to a belief that simulationism is under &quot;attack.&quot; I don't think that &quot;realism&quot; and &quot;simulationism&quot; are analogous terms. Likewise, others who are sympathetic to the &quot;simulationist point of view&quot; like [USER=7026617]@Thomas Shey[/USER] and [USER=6690965]@Pedantic[/USER], if I (hopefully) understand them correctly, have also made this distinction between the two. Thomas Shey said that &quot;verisimilitude&quot; is the preferred term for this reason, while Pedantic said that &quot;realism&quot; is often orthogonal to &quot;simulationism.&quot; And it's with &quot;realism&quot; in relation to &quot;magical elf-game&quot; that I shared my contentions about rather than the &quot;simulationist point of view&quot; with hard takes like: My own contention with simulationism as a term has more to do with <a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/of-mooks-plot-armor-and-ttrpgs.696233/post-8961952" target="_blank">the point that I made earlier here</a>, which you seemed to like, has more to do with its multiplicity of distinct understandings in conversation than its validity or lack thereof as a playstyle.&nbsp; To be clear here: my ability to enjoy dramatic/narrative or gamist play doesn't stop me from enjoying simulationist play any more than enjoying MMORPGs keeps me from enjoying ARPGs or JRPGs or even farm simulators and survival games. I likewise don't have a one true way that I prefer or need to play TTRPGs, which I understand can be infuriating to people who would like to put me into the trouble-making narrative/dramatic roleplayer box. Moreover, my own comment to Lanefan about putting the cart before the horse with trying to &quot;merge the fantastic into the realistic&quot; was NOT an attempt to discredit the simulationist point of view or invalidate it in anyway. Instead, my message was more about the approach of merging these things when it comes to D&amp;D. My own opinion when it comes to D&amp;D is that rather than trying to merge the fantastic into the realistic is the reverse: i.e., merge the realistic into the fantastic.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Aldarc, post: 8963184, member: 5142"] I'm at a loss here, Micah. I'm not sure if your comment here is directed at me or not. But I would quibble here anyway by pointing out that you did not say this. As per your original post: Your wording here in this part regarding the "magical elf-game" involves "realism" rather than the validity of the "simulationist point of view," though maybe you view the terms as being analogous ones, as you then pivot to a belief that simulationism is under "attack." I don't think that "realism" and "simulationism" are analogous terms. Likewise, others who are sympathetic to the "simulationist point of view" like [USER=7026617]@Thomas Shey[/USER] and [USER=6690965]@Pedantic[/USER], if I (hopefully) understand them correctly, have also made this distinction between the two. Thomas Shey said that "verisimilitude" is the preferred term for this reason, while Pedantic said that "realism" is often orthogonal to "simulationism." And it's with "realism" in relation to "magical elf-game" that I shared my contentions about rather than the "simulationist point of view" with hard takes like: My own contention with simulationism as a term has more to do with [URL='https://www.enworld.org/threads/of-mooks-plot-armor-and-ttrpgs.696233/post-8961952']the point that I made earlier here[/URL], which you seemed to like, has more to do with its multiplicity of distinct understandings in conversation than its validity or lack thereof as a playstyle. To be clear here: my ability to enjoy dramatic/narrative or gamist play doesn't stop me from enjoying simulationist play any more than enjoying MMORPGs keeps me from enjoying ARPGs or JRPGs or even farm simulators and survival games. I likewise don't have a one true way that I prefer or need to play TTRPGs, which I understand can be infuriating to people who would like to put me into the trouble-making narrative/dramatic roleplayer box. Moreover, my own comment to Lanefan about putting the cart before the horse with trying to "merge the fantastic into the realistic" was NOT an attempt to discredit the simulationist point of view or invalidate it in anyway. Instead, my message was more about the approach of merging these things when it comes to D&D. My own opinion when it comes to D&D is that rather than trying to merge the fantastic into the realistic is the reverse: i.e., merge the realistic into the fantastic. [/QUOTE]

Verification