Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 9229706" data-attributes="member: 6696971">I would say that your model fails both Gamists and Simulationists [USER=71699]@clearstream[/USER] .* If you're a player in challenge-focused play with a certain sort of systemitized engine (like Moldvay Basic), paramount to play is (i) the currency of turns with respect to various clocks/upkeep (wandering monster, light, rations/water, rest requirement), (ii) your strategic exploration of your environment to mentally model risk/limit costs/amplify gain, (iii) your assessment of your individual competencies + your team's competencies, (iv) your assessment of the various threat levels of dangers/obstacles, and (v) the attendant evaluation of your governing decision-space (both moment-to-moment and the throughline of it).For people playing these game engines, there is a serious cost to the foiling of their System 2 (logical analysis, deliberation, reason, associative memory) thinking as it pertains to the task resolution model inherent to these games where competency-assessment and management and &quot;nothing happens&quot; or &quot;the GM saying no&quot; is weighed in the costs of (i) and (ii) above (and the cascading effects of this) and in the added duress it places on (v).The granularity of action/space/time (and how it indexes the game engine), &quot;nothing happens&quot; or &quot;GM says no&quot; as a consequence of action resolution, competency &amp; causality-indexing resolution and monster design (the fixation on PCs and NPCs working off of the same chassis is an expression of this) is important.&nbsp; You don't have to devise challenge-based engines like this, but there are games that do.&nbsp; In those games that do, these salient features of task resolution do featured work.* If you're a certain sort of player in a setting exploration game where the deep-immersionist, experiential priority of &quot;being there&quot;, it seems to be that their reliance upon System 1 (intuitions, substitution-based heuristics, emotions) and how their sense of competency &amp; causality-indexing, their sense of granularity of action and scale, and the propensity for &quot;nothing happens&quot; (because &quot;nothing happens&quot; is a feature of common existence) is extremely important to their sense of being &quot;jarred&quot; vs being autobiographically &quot;immersed.&quot;[HR][/HR]Conflict resolution procedures and resolution techniques/features work against so much of the salient features of task resolution that the players above depend upon (and their System 2 and System 1 thinking is anchored to).&nbsp; And we know this because they've expressed these things for as long as I've been in the hobby with an uptick in the last 20 years in intensity and frequency.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Manbearcat, post: 9229706, member: 6696971"] I would say that your model fails both Gamists and Simulationists [USER=71699]@clearstream[/USER] . * If you're a player in [B]challenge-focused play with a certain sort of systemitized engine (like Moldvay Basic[/B]), paramount to play is (i) the currency of turns with respect to various clocks/upkeep (wandering monster, light, rations/water, rest requirement), (ii) your strategic exploration of your environment to mentally model risk/limit costs/amplify gain, (iii) your assessment of your individual competencies + your team's competencies, (iv) your assessment of the various threat levels of dangers/obstacles, and (v) the attendant evaluation of your governing decision-space (both moment-to-moment and the throughline of it). For people playing these game engines, there is a serious cost to the foiling of their System 2 (logical analysis, deliberation, reason, associative memory) thinking as it pertains to the task resolution model inherent to these games where competency-assessment and management and "nothing happens" or "the GM saying no" is weighed in the costs of (i) and (ii) above (and the cascading effects of this) and in the added duress it places on (v). The granularity of action/space/time (and how it indexes the game engine), "nothing happens" or "GM says no" as a consequence of action resolution, competency & causality-indexing resolution and monster design (the fixation on PCs and NPCs working off of the same chassis is an expression of this) is important. You don't have to devise challenge-based engines like this, but there are games that do. In those games that do, these salient features of task resolution do featured work. * If you're a certain sort of player in a [B]setting exploration game where the deep-immersionist, experiential priority of "being there"[/B], it seems to be that their reliance upon System 1 (intuitions, substitution-based heuristics, emotions) and how their sense of competency & causality-indexing, their sense of granularity of action and scale, and the propensity for "nothing happens" (because "nothing happens" is a feature of common existence) is extremely important to their sense of being "jarred" vs being autobiographically "immersed." [HR][/HR] Conflict resolution procedures and resolution techniques/features work against so much of the salient features of task resolution that the players above depend upon (and their System 2 and System 1 thinking is anchored to). And we know this because they've expressed these things for as long as I've been in the hobby with an uptick in the last 20 years in intensity and frequency. [/QUOTE]

Verification