Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="kenada" data-source="post: 8966360" data-attributes="member: 70468">I’m pushing back on the idea that gamism needs the GM to provide challenges. All you need to play is a consistent and knowable board state, which a simulated world approach provides naturally. If the treasure is in a cave, and we have the means to burrow to it, then that should work because we’d expect that to work according to the rules of our world (following the simulation). In contrast are approaches that have hidden rules or state.For example, if the GM wants to ensure certain narrative beats are hit or dramatic moments happen, then they’re going to adjust things to make sure the game works correctly. A clever ploy may or may not work depending on how it fits into things. That would be a hidden and unknowable board state. That approach to running is not bad, but it works against gamism because you don’t know necessarily what moves will be valid. Obvious things may work until they don’t. The incentive is to follow the cues.In a sense, yes. A gamist is going to look at the possibilities and try to find the optimal path to their goal. Some times that’s going to look like something a bit subversive (such as burrowing to the treasure instead of going through the dungeon properly). Other times it’s going to look like the seemingly impossible (eliminating the dragon threat that no one can even approach). However, I would be careful with the word “exploit” to avoid negative connotations. I don’t think it’s about taking advantage for its own sake.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="kenada, post: 8966360, member: 70468"] I’m pushing back on the idea that gamism needs the GM to provide challenges. All you need to play is a consistent and knowable board state, which a simulated world approach provides naturally. If the treasure is in a cave, and we have the means to burrow to it, then that should work because we’d expect that to work according to the rules of our world (following the simulation). In contrast are approaches that have hidden rules or state. For example, if the GM wants to ensure certain narrative beats are hit or dramatic moments happen, then they’re going to adjust things to make sure the game works correctly. A clever ploy may or may not work depending on how it fits into things. That would be a hidden and unknowable board state. That approach to running is not bad, but it works against gamism because you don’t know necessarily what moves will be valid. Obvious things may work until they don’t. The incentive is to follow the cues. In a sense, yes. A gamist is going to look at the possibilities and try to find the optimal path to their goal. Some times that’s going to look like something a bit subversive (such as burrowing to the treasure instead of going through the dungeon properly). Other times it’s going to look like the seemingly impossible (eliminating the dragon threat that no one can even approach). However, I would be careful with the word “exploit” to avoid negative connotations. I don’t think it’s about taking advantage for its own sake. [/QUOTE]

Verification