Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 8963954" data-attributes="member: 42582">I think there is a lot of truth to this. It reflects the still-experimental character of RPGing at that point in time: people had a place they wanted to get to, and were trying different techniques to try and get there without yet knowing what would work.What happens when we work out that the approach we've adopted won't work?Here's one possibility - I'm quoting from <a href="http://www.indie-rpgs.com/_articles/narr_essay.html" target="_blank">here</a>, but it describes my own experience (which happened in slow motion from c 1986 to 2009, though speeding up a bit in the last few of those years); the emphasis is added by me:&quot;El Dorado&quot; was coined by Paul Czege to indicate the impossibility of a 1:1 Simulationist:Narrativist blend, although the term was appropriated by others for the blend itself, as a desirable goal. I think some people who claim to desire such a goal in play are simply looking for Narrativism with a very strong Explorative chassis, and that the goal is not elusive at all. Such &quot;Vanilla Narrativism&quot; is very easy and straightforward. The key to finding it is to stop reinforcing Simulationist approaches to play. Many role-players, identified by Jesse Burneko as &quot;Simulationist-by-habit,&quot; exhaust themselves by seeking El Dorado, racing ever faster and farther, when all they have to do is stop running, turn around, and find Vanilla Narrativism right in their grasp.Another possibility is to embrace the purist-for-system simulationist ethos for its own sake - &quot;the right to dream&quot;. Some early Traveller scenarios (eg Annic Nova, Shadows) seem to have this character. To me, they're incredibly boring as presented, but presumably at the time someone thought they satisfied some sort of need.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 8963954, member: 42582"] I think there is a lot of truth to this. It reflects the still-experimental character of RPGing at that point in time: people had a place they wanted to get to, and were trying different techniques to try and get there without yet knowing what would work. What happens when we work out that the approach we've adopted won't work? Here's one possibility - I'm quoting from [url=http://www.indie-rpgs.com/_articles/narr_essay.html]here[/url], but it describes my own experience (which happened in slow motion from c 1986 to 2009, though speeding up a bit in the last few of those years); the emphasis is added by me: [indent]"El Dorado" was coined by Paul Czege to indicate the impossibility of a 1:1 Simulationist:Narrativist blend, although the term was appropriated by others for the blend itself, as a desirable goal. I think some people who claim to desire such a goal in play are simply looking for Narrativism with a very strong Explorative chassis, and that the goal is not elusive at all. Such "Vanilla Narrativism" is very easy and straightforward. The key to finding it is to stop reinforcing Simulationist approaches to play. Many role-players, identified by Jesse Burneko as "Simulationist-by-habit," exhaust themselves by seeking El Dorado, racing ever faster and farther, when [b]all they have to do is stop running, turn around, and find Vanilla Narrativism right in their grasp[/b].[/indent] Another possibility is to embrace the purist-for-system simulationist ethos for its own sake - "the right to dream". Some early Traveller scenarios (eg Annic Nova, Shadows) seem to have this character. To me, they're incredibly boring as presented, but presumably at the time someone thought they satisfied some sort of need. [/QUOTE]

Verification