NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Enrahim" data-source="post: 9714818" data-attributes="member: 7025577">I cannot talk for [USER=71699]@clearstream[/USER] . I think I am engaged in several layers of this.- On the level of game I have expressed strong sceptisism with regard to whe value of having a "simukationist" classification at all.- On the level of play I have tried to amplify [USER=71699]@clearstream[/USER] 's recent musings about self reported experiences, as I think this is indeed a promising way to assess level of simulative experience in actual play. However I am sceptical to if this can be used as a clasification as "simulationist. I believe all RPG play likely contains some extent of these experiences, but that it could provide a basis for an ordering- On instances of play I have been quite alone in strongly advocating the concept of supporting or hindering a given simulation. I think there are aspects of play that can be identified as doing one or the other; and that as such this could be used as a basis for classificating the given aspect in that instance of play "simulationistic".This is a bird's eye perspective, that my remaining reply fit into.I think I am not part of that "consensus". I have been speaking up regarding the single play instance, as I find it very interesting to analyse (more of that below). However as you can see above I hold different stances on the play and game level.<a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/rant-the-conservatism-of-d-d-fans-is-exhausting.712674/post-9713797" target="_blank">Y</a>es, but that phrasing is from my understanding taken more or less directly from Eero Tuovinen, and i guess was used when replying you as an assumed common language ground. I read [USER=71699]@clearstream[/USER] 's post regarding experience as an attempt to introduce a new language and methodology to approach talking about simulation. I find this promising, and hence I didn't like seeing this mixing of what I consider "new" and "old" language.I say it is far from obvious that they are applicable. The issue is that in my quick reading they appear to not be applicable at all, but I have not done the work of deep diving into the terminology to see if there might be some understanding of the terms involved that would indeed make it applicable. I don't like to be associated with a claim I do not understand how can be true myself, even if it might be true.However a bit further down I will try to dive a bit deeper into the situation.I already addressed this concern in the post you quoted. Indeed the entire next paragraph was meant to clarify this, but in particularWas intended to clearly call out that the tick tack toe example was only relevant for this particular possible scheme of classification.However, now comes the announced analysis. You here make a claim that there was a causation between the action, and the immersive and noetic experience. This is a different way of trying to extend the concept of simulative experiences into a classification scheme for instants of play than the one I proposed, that merely required correlation. The big problem with this is suggestion is that causation is insanely hard to establish - in particular in terms of human experiences.Imagine ripping this incident completely out of context, and say that your first session of play stared with you asking "what do you want to do with the runes?" The player now utterly confused utters "read them I guess? Is this some sort of map?" You procede to roll some dice and declare "Yes it is indeed a map". Would that player when asked indicate they had an immersive experience, and that they got a sound dose of noetic satisfaction? I would expect a heavy no on both, and very empathichaly on the second, as this session in no way started as they would have expected.But this is likely true for any isolated incident no matter how simulativistic whatever is going on in that moment is supposed to be. Hence I do not think we can find a way to clearly establish a causation  between a single incident - the experience is a product of many things that lead up to that moment. You could point out that the play didn't ruin the experience, but neither did the tick tack toe game.This is why I think that for single incidents it is more useful to look at what we want to simulate rather than the similative experiences, as I think it then is possible to point to causation. For instance if we want to simulate that there tend to be rain in the tropic, and we have a table with weather that is rolled every day - it is actually possible to say something about if this table supports the desired simulation by looking at distribution of outcome.So in this perspective: What did you want to simulate when the runes were resolved?A resolution isn't an experience in this context. The experience is something personal to the player. If it can be said to be a constituent part depends on what is the threshold for considering something constituent. If it is a thing that happened as a integrated part of the activity that provided the experience, then yes - this was a constituent element of a simulationistic experience in my understandings of those words.("Integrated" is my attempt to exclude tick tack toe, while quite clearly including the runes resolution. However I think the edges of this concept is to fuzzy to make it immediately useful for wider application as basis for a "simulationistic" term based on correlation. I am also sceptical to the usefulness of such a term with this basis, even if we manage to make it well defined)--------Finished up the part addressed to me. Will se if I have more to add from the rest of the post later.</blockquote>

Verification