Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Nom" data-source="post: 4241506" data-attributes="member: 56980">Slightly off-topic: part of the issue with GNS terminology is that it uses &quot;narrativism&quot; and &quot;simulationism&quot; in ways that are often not what people default to thinking.&nbsp; If you take simulationism as &quot;modelling driven&quot; or narrativism as &quot;story driven&quot;, you'll end up at a different point than GNS.&nbsp; Further, it talks about modes of play, rather than design principles.&nbsp; Under GNS, it's meaningful to talk about how a system supports narrative play, but less so about a narrative design process.Back on topic:At the design level, I draw a distinction between &quot;simulationist&quot; (not the GNS usage) and &quot;abstractionist&quot; task resolution.&nbsp; A &quot;simulationist&quot; resolution system attempts a tight coupling between rules events and games events, regardless of level of abstraction.&nbsp; &quot;You are trying to do X, so this result means Y and this means Z.&quot;&nbsp; In contrast, an abstractionist model breaks that coupling, and treats the rule and story views as parallel rather than connected. There's no obligation to be able to point to a specific resolution event and a specific story event and show that they are necessarily the same event.&nbsp; Note that I'm using &quot;event&quot; at a very small-scale here, without concern as to dramatic significance.&nbsp; &quot;A swings a sword at B&quot; can be a single event, even if it's just another swing and wouldn't feature in any sort of summary.In a sense, this is similar to &quot;fortune in middle&quot; and &quot;fortune at end&quot;.&nbsp; But I'm focusing on the details of the mapping process between story and resolution mechanics, rather than how fortune is handled.&nbsp; My description is equally applicable if there's no fortune at all.A simulationist design wants its mechanics to be descriptive.&nbsp; A abstractionist design wants its mechanics to be evocative.&nbsp; Usually, both want their mechanics to work at both a resolution and story level; it's how they reconcile these two levels that differs.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Nom, post: 4241506, member: 56980"] Slightly off-topic: part of the issue with GNS terminology is that it uses "narrativism" and "simulationism" in ways that are often [i]not[/i] what people default to thinking. If you take simulationism as "modelling driven" or narrativism as "story driven", you'll end up at a different point than GNS. Further, it talks about modes of play, rather than design principles. Under GNS, it's meaningful to talk about how a system supports narrative play, but less so about a narrative design process. Back on topic: At the design level, I draw a distinction between "simulationist" ([u]not[/u] the GNS usage) and "abstractionist" task resolution. A "simulationist" resolution system attempts a tight coupling between rules events and games events, regardless of level of abstraction. "You are trying to do X, so this result means Y and this means Z." In contrast, an abstractionist model breaks that coupling, and treats the rule and story views as parallel rather than connected. There's no obligation to be able to point to a specific resolution event and a specific story event and show that they are necessarily the same event. Note that I'm using "event" at a very small-scale here, without concern as to dramatic significance. "A swings a sword at B" can be a single event, even if it's just another swing and wouldn't feature in any sort of summary. In a sense, this is similar to "fortune in middle" and "fortune at end". But I'm focusing on the details of the mapping process between story and resolution mechanics, rather than how fortune is handled. My description is equally applicable if there's no fortune at all. A simulationist design wants its mechanics to be [i]descriptive[/i]. A abstractionist design wants its mechanics to be [i]evocative[/i]. Usually, both want their mechanics to work at both a resolution and story level; it's how they reconcile these two levels that differs. [/QUOTE]

Verification