Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8630067" data-attributes="member: 16814">No.  You're doing an is/ought thing.  GNS isn't saying how games ought to be, but rather classifying what is.  That doesn't require any kind of symmetry to avoid bias -- in fact, often a forced symmetry is a sign of bias!  To give the obvious example of life taxonomy, there are far, far, far more things under the phylum Arthopoda in the Kingdom Animals than there are under all of the rest of the Animals phyla combined!  This isn't showing bias.  Your premise here is badly flawed.No.  Dramaticism's definition denies narrativism.  Narrativism isn't a subset of dramaticism, it's a different objective thing.  Dramaticism is focused on telling a good story.  Narrativism doesn't care about that at all.  Saying narrativism is a form of dramaticism is denying narrativism.Putting Dramaticism into Simulation in GNS doesn't erase dramaticism because sim in GNS hold to internal cause.  Telling a good story holds to good internal causes.  These are chosen for the outcome, but a good story has a throughline of good internal cause.  This is different from the process-sim or purist-for-system end of simulationism, but that's because that end cares about different sources of internal cause -- they also don't care about story but rather that the system generates logically following fiction.So, no hyperbole, you're showing you do not understand the distinction of what narrativism is, that or not understanding how dramaticism was defined.  And your combining of the two erases one.Yes, well, when you say that my play must just be me being engaged in pseudo-intellectuallism (ie, false thinking) it's kinda hard to then say it's not a personal insult.  You've just engaged in an ad hom again, here.  You keep engaging ad homs.  At some point, the denials of making it about the people and not ideas stops working.  I'm not like angry or raging or anything.  I post forcefully when I'm cheerful.  I'm not that, either, here, just tired and frustrated with hearing the same things over again from people unwilling to even consider that I'm not an irrational person engaged in pseudo-intellectualism to lie to myself.  I mean, the usually paired accusations of elitism are missing, so kudos on that.No, because there's not agreement and shared agenda here.  This only works because Bob is being good natured and just ignores the GM, and because the GM is using hitpoints in a gamist way (no mechanics changed) and pretending to simulation.  Hitpoints are still not actually simulating anything if Bob can freely ignore the narration -- there's no internal cause to the narration that requires Bob to pay attention to it.But, that aside, we're still in a place where the goals aren't harmonized because no shared agenda.  Bob and the GM are playing different games that happen to overlap -- they are not harmonized and working with each other, they're both engaged in their own play and choosing not to have it interfere.  If your definition of "harmonize" is this, then I'm okay with 'sometimes you can just ignore a different agenda at the table and get away with it.'  People are capable of all kinds of things, and, given so many stories told at ENW that mirror this, it seems like it's a common thing to ignore bits that bother you so you can continue to play.You just papered over a conflict by pointing out that, in one configuration, it can be ignored.  This is a fairly interesting statement, which I covered above -- the ignoring is because the description of hitpoints as wounds does no further work and has no further meaning so the gamist can just ignore it as flavor.  You haven't actually implicated simulationism here. Sorry, didn't really mean to pick a trick example but it seems I have.  So let's explore something related but different.  Bob's PC takes a major hp hit -- say 90% in one go.  The GM narrates that this shatters Bob's arm (using GM fiat to do so).  Bob doesn't care, because it doesn't really matter.  He goes to swing his greatsword at the foe, but the GM interrupts and asks how he's swinging a greatsword with one hand?  NOW Bob is incensed, and now we have a clear conflcit in agenda.  The GM has narrated something that adheres to their internal cause assessment, but Bob doesn't want any of that -- he still has hp left so should be at peak fighting condition!  You cannot harmonize these things.But, if you insist, and since it's your assertion, please do come up with a scenario in play that harmonizes two agendas.  If any rules need to be changed or a ruling made to enable it, please call this out.</blockquote>

Verification