Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 9683492" data-attributes="member: 42582">I'm not [USER=16586]@Campbell[/USER], but you can see my answer to these questions in my reply to him not very far upthread: <a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/rant-the-conservatism-of-d-d-fans-is-exhausting.712674/post-9683470" target="_blank">D&amp;D General - [rant]The conservatism of D&amp;D fans is exhausting.</a>.I don't think it's about &quot;looking to learn&quot; vs &quot;looking to transform yourself&quot; - that makes it sound like a psychology lecture vs a therapy session!As per my reply to [USER=16586]@Campbell[/USER], I think that the difference is whether the player is proactive about an emotional thematic issue.This can be pretty subtle in the actual moment of play - for instance, when I (pemerton the player) decided that Aedhros would help Alicia, had I stepped out of inhabitation? Or was I going with the &quot;flow&quot; of Aedhros? I can't remember now. My play report says that I &quot;went for the mouldbreaker award&quot; (ie for the dramatic roleplay of a conflict in Beliefs, Instincts, traits etc), but that doesn't necessarily mean &quot;author&quot; stance - maybe I was in &quot;actor&quot; stance, realised where that was taking me, and then thought about it in &quot;mouldbreaker&quot; terms.Had I been concerned to use some external reference to decide what Aedhros would do, we could definitely say that I was oriented in a &quot;sim&quot; fashion, rather than getting proactive. But judging the other way is not so clear, I think. At least to me.As I've posted - especially in my reply to Campbell - I don't agree with this.I think my BW play counts as &quot;narraivist&quot; and not &quot;simulationist&quot; in its agenda, but I 100% want to feel like my character. When I'm playing a BW character, I am not expressing how I perceive the character - that's actually something I would regard as a sim orientation, because it sets up some external correctness condition (ie did I properly express the character) and an important property of a simulation is that there is some sort of correctness condition (either for its process, or its output).The difference, in my view, pertains to the element of proactivity, vs fidelity to an external standard.I do agree that this is one thing 5e D&amp;D seems good for, and even oriented towards.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 9683492, member: 42582"] I'm not [USER=16586]@Campbell[/USER], but you can see my answer to these questions in my reply to him not very far upthread: [URL="https://www.enworld.org/threads/rant-the-conservatism-of-d-d-fans-is-exhausting.712674/post-9683470"]D&D General - [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.[/URL]. I don't think it's about "looking to learn" vs "looking to transform yourself" - that makes it sound like a psychology lecture vs a therapy session! As per my reply to [USER=16586]@Campbell[/USER], I think that the difference is whether the player is [I]proactive[/I] about an emotional thematic issue. This can be pretty subtle in the actual moment of play - for instance, when I (pemerton the player) decided that Aedhros would help Alicia, had I stepped out of inhabitation? Or was I going with the "flow" of Aedhros? I can't remember now. My play report says that I "went for the mouldbreaker award" (ie for the dramatic roleplay of a conflict in Beliefs, Instincts, traits etc), but that doesn't necessarily mean "author" stance - maybe I was in "actor" stance, realised where that was taking me, and then thought about it in "mouldbreaker" terms. Had I been concerned to use some external reference to decide what Aedhros [I]would[/I] do, we could definitely say that I was oriented in a "sim" fashion, rather than getting proactive. But judging the other way is not so clear, I think. At least to me. As I've posted - especially in my reply to Campbell - I don't agree with this. I think my BW play counts as "narraivist" and not "simulationist" in its agenda, but I 100% want to feel like my character. When I'm playing a BW character, I am not expressing how I perceive the character - that's actually something I would regard as a sim orientation, because it sets up some external correctness condition (ie did I properly express the character) and an important property of a simulation is that there is some sort of correctness condition (either for its process, or its output). The difference, in my view, pertains to the element of proactivity, vs fidelity to an external standard. I do agree that this is one thing 5e D&D seems good for, and even oriented towards. [/QUOTE]

Verification