Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 8625589" data-attributes="member: 42582">I already posted about this upthread. To repost:There is also Campbell's post upthread:Edwards's characterisation of two sorts of simulation as simulation is not arbitrary. In both cases the goal is a certain experience of the fiction for its own sake. He is very clear that they use different techniques.In my view much of the discussion in this thread, and perhaps on these topics in general, becomes muddied by the fact that discussants want to talk about techniques as if that settled the issue of creative agenda. Edwards is very clear to keep them distinct. And I think this is part of the strength of his analysis.For instance, and to point to another difference between RM and RQ:In RQ, PC development is primarily driven by random improvement rolls. In RM, PC developement is chosen by the player. Thus, the player can use PC development to send signals to the GM in a way that support narrativist play. This is a real thing that I've experienced, and shows a technique that was intended, initially, to serve a simulationist purpose - the PC improving in accordance with their will and ability to learn - being drifted to serve a narrativist purpose although the actual PC build mechanic hasn't changed.And the distinction between techniques and creative agenda is also crucial for understanding a lot of D&D play, given that most D&D players use closely related techniques (PC build and resolution mechanics, GM pre-authorship of setting elements and situations for the players to engage via their PCs, etc) but some use this for fundamentally gamist play, while others are predominantly aiming at high-concept sim, focused (as Edwards puts it) on characters-face-problems. Most discussion and conflict in the D&D-verse seems to revolve around this difference of agenda. Part of what prevents amicable separation or recognition of differences seems to be a premise that shared techniques must entail shared creative agenda.</blockquote>

Verification