NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Crimson Longinus" data-source="post: 8629999" data-attributes="member: 7025508">I  understand that the subcategories exist. But if we assume that the theory is no biased, then breadth of every basket should be roughly equal. So that two different things in sim basket are not vastly more different than two different things in nar basket. And I don't think this is true. Also, why nar basket has no subdivisions? Because it actually is 'size' of subdivsion of the other baskets!Holy hyperbole, Batman! Me wanting to lump narrativism with dramatism is no more erasure or denial of playstyle than you wanting to lump non-story-now dramatism with simulationism. And yes, of course all these are 'loose descriptions' this is not hard science. Also, me saying that I think some pseudo-intellectual framework about elf games is flawed is not a personal insult to you. It wouldn't be that even if it was your theory and it isn't. Good, thank you, this indeed is a great example!Close enough.Bob cares about the functioning of HP as defeat-o-meter in the game, right? As long as they do that, Bob's good? In such situation these things are weakly harmonised. Every participant gets what they want, there is no conflict. Probably 'good enough' for many tables, though ideally Bob would pay attention to the fiction too and I would pay attention to the gamist 'win conditions'. And as we both can do those things without harming out primary desire, we might as well and everyone is on the same page and perfect harmonisation has been achieved!Sure. That you could in theory harmonise two things doesn't mean that this is always done.What's going on in this example, is that there are two desires that are very different, but they actually work on different levels, so at least in theory they can be harmonised. That we supply the HP with fiction doesn't diminish their function as gamist tool. Thus it is perfectly possible to fulfil both goals at the same time. Much harder conflict to solve would be if different desires existed on same axis. Like in the other tread where this came up some people had different fiction they wished to associate with the hit points (they measure will to live instead of injury.) Now harmonising those is next to impossible!The issue with the incoherence of course is not the idea that different desires might conflict. Of course they can! It is the idea that they automatically will, and that the GNS baskets are any sort of sensible indicator of on which axis the conflict will be most likely to occur.</blockquote>

Verification