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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8629451" data-attributes="member: 16814">Genre isn't even in GNS baskets.  Simulationism isn't emulation, it's internal cause.  So, if you're doing genre by following genre logic to resolve actions, then you're in Simulationism.  Having flavor or trappings of genre isn't this, though.  If I set the stage for an encounter in the shadow of a burnt out megatank, where various mutants are facing down a PC, that's not calling for genre logic to resolve actions, it's flavor.  It's not simulationism.  If, however, the PC declares pulling their gun and gunning down the mutants in waves, and the GM says "sure, awesome, note perfect, you do so," that's resolving according to genre logic.  But this isn't how AW works.  Instead, the player states what their character is doing, and if that triggers a move, then a check is made.  This trigger isn't based on genre logic, or if it makes sense to do so, or if there's some cause/effect implicated -- it happens no matter what.  Make a move, do the move.  There's no auto here.  And the result isn't going to be based on genre logic, either, but rather on what the check result is and how that restricts the GM to respond.  Fail, and the GM is restricted to making a move against.  This might involve pulling from genre logic, but it's not ever required for it to do so.  It's only if the genre logic also happens to do what the GM's move is supposed to do -- challenge the PC's core questions -- that it even slips in.  If genre logic says something that doesn't align to the result, genre logic loses -- it's what gets discarded.So, if adherence to genre internal cause is a thing, it's entirely secondary in precedence, and there only if it aligns to the primary drivers of play, which is to put the PC's essential questions under pressure and find out how they get answered through play.This resolution loop being entirely dissociated from any kind of genre logic or internal cause and the direction that it must be so to follow the agenda and principles of play completely move the game away from simulationism.  It doesn't care to replicate genre, unless it's convenient to do so.  It's just borrowing genre for stage dressing.  You see this in Vincent's comments posted above, where he points out that the key points of contention in AW aren't genre elements at all.You praising AW has nothing to do with the fact that you're denying the play of others.  Not saying you don't like it, not saying that you don't understand it, but outright says that they are wrong about how they've been playing and that the game is doing a different thing altogether.  You deny.  You deny in your claim that the game could only work with some "bizzare commitment to the purity of some ancient game theory."  Aside from the fact that this is another ad hominin attack, questioning the motives of players rather than addressing the stated play in an attempt to dismiss that play, this is entirely dishonest from the point of view of the topic of discussion -- the discussion is about and around that exact game theory.  We've taken that as the basis for this entire discussion, so tossing it out to attack others is part and parcel of the denial of play.  That AW is self-proclaimed Story Now, that AW was written in 2010 when GNS wasn't ancient by whatever standard you're using, that the designer was quoted above confirming these assessments you're dismissing  -- all of this goes directly to your motivated denial of play.  You're effectively calling people in this thread lying liars that lie or deluded fools that don't even understand how they're playing a game.  There's zero curiosity shown.</blockquote>

Verification