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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Crimson Longinus" data-source="post: 8628802" data-attributes="member: 7025508">I mean I wouldn't try to shove everything Edwards tries to put under simulationsim in one basket to begin with. Coming up with any coherent descriptions for such an effort seems impossible.That's not necessarily even fiction! Guns and castles are real. And it is utterly absurd to conflate enjoying technical manuals of WWI tanks with enjoying Macbeth!Then why mention it as defining feature of simulationism if it is present in other styles as well?Then why mention having a point as defining feature of narrativism, if it happen in other styles too?Then don't obfuscate this by talking about the subject matter, as that can be shared with the other styles, if it is the method that is distinctive!The first logically always entails the possibility of the second. Even if the GM wouldn't intentionally engineer a situation that would test the commitment (though many would) such a situation may nevertheless arise due the events unfolding at the table. Is it incidental emergent narrativism then?  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f914.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":unsure:" title="Unsure    :unsure:"  data-smilie="24"data-shortname=":unsure:" />I mean, of course it is! Why on Earth would you doubt it? This has absolutely nothing to do with the system.It is exceeding common for campaign themes and character concepts to have open questions that need to be resolved in play. In fact, I have hard time imagining situations where this at least implicitly wouldn't be the case even if it wasn't clearly articulated.Things like "don't split the party for a long time so that other people have to sit for hours watching you to play solo" or "don't generate intraparty conflict to the point that the characters can no longer work together if you want to keep playing these characters" are simply practical parameters that people might adopt to sensibly use their possibly very limited gaming time, and I wouldn't extrapolate from them any great creative agendas. Any game probably has some such practical limits.Taking GM's plot hooks might be about this as well, though one I have seem more often is that if the players want to take the game into drastically new direction, it might be polite to do it in the end of one session rather than in a beginning of a new one so that the GM has time to prepare. How necessary such practices are of course depends on the GMs improvisational skills and how prep heavy the system is. As a GM I generally prefer systems that are not terribly prep heavy exactly for this reason as I don't want to be tied to my prep and want to be able to let the game go into any direction the players want to take it.But yes, beyond such practical considerations there indeed is a question of how much and how can the players influence the trajectory of the play. And this of course is a spectrum, not a binary, so that's why it feels odd to me for you to ask whether I see the difference. I see the spectrum, I see no stark dividing line.</blockquote>

Verification