Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Thomas Shey" data-source="post: 8966885" data-attributes="member: 7026617">I was about to discuss what GDS gamism was defined as, but in your next paragraph...Its hard to describe the difference, but GDS gamism very much was supposed to be challenges that were, perhaps, not fair but at least interesting.&nbsp; To what degree that applied to &quot;come up with a very limited number of workable solutions and then the problem is trivial&quot; is a matter of perspective, but I'm not sold all that many people find that interesting.&nbsp; Which gets back to the question of how much PCs have access to the the tools for the job, and in some cases, how a gamist will view some on-the-fly assumptions--a GDS Simulationist wouldn't hesitate to patch a hole if it didn't seem like a logical flaw in the problem so much as just something he hadn't thought about.&nbsp; That'd have been pretty bad form for a pure Gamist.&nbsp; If a simulationist of the stripe back then decided that any active opponents involved would have thought of it even if he didn't, he wouldn't even blink about addressing it--and a lot of the people playing with that view wouldn't think anything of it, because to them not doing so would have violated the setting integrity.See above however.&nbsp; I'm suspecting that sort of &quot;fix it after the fact because it doesn't make sense&quot; would go across badly.(If not, it just means you're a simulationist/gamist&nbsp; hybrid by GDS standards, which wouldn't be shocking; as I noted, purists were never as common in the wild as they were on RGFA.)_</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Thomas Shey, post: 8966885, member: 7026617"] I was about to discuss what GDS gamism was defined as, but in your next paragraph... Its hard to describe the difference, but GDS gamism very much was supposed to be challenges that were, perhaps, not [I]fair[/I] but at least [I]interesting[/I]. To what degree that applied to "come up with a very limited number of workable solutions and then the problem is trivial" is a matter of perspective, but I'm not sold all that many people find that interesting. Which gets back to the question of how much PCs have access to the the tools for the job, and in some cases, how a gamist will view some on-the-fly assumptions--a GDS Simulationist wouldn't hesitate to patch a hole if it didn't seem like a logical flaw in the problem so much as just something he hadn't thought about. That'd have been pretty bad form for a pure Gamist. If a simulationist of the stripe back then decided that any active opponents involved would have thought of it even if he didn't, he wouldn't even blink about addressing it--and a lot of the people playing with that view wouldn't think anything of it, because to them [I]not doing so would have violated the setting integrity[/I]. See above however. I'm suspecting that sort of "fix it after the fact because it doesn't make sense" would go across badly. (If not, it just means you're a simulationist/gamist hybrid by GDS standards, which wouldn't be shocking; as I noted, purists were never as common in the wild as they were on RGFA.)_ [/QUOTE]

Verification