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: 8630317" data-attributes="member: 7025508">Not uneven in definitional breadth. This guy sure did:Oh please. We are talking about categorising social constructs describing subjective experiences. Of course is vague! That's not even criticism, it is acknowledgement of obvious!Terrible naming wasn't the point. That story there are more aspect to stories than the narrative was. And narrativism definitely cares about some of them. Oh please, this is getting tortured! You have utterly failed to provide any coherent definition of 'internal cause'. Is surreal story has 'internal cause' then basically everything has. This goes directly back to the criticism of GNS sim basket being 'all the rest' without any actual coherent unifying logic. You could have fooled me!  The premise of the model is to show the distinctiveness to the story now for the people who are interested in that playstyle. That, it indubitably does. It just has little use outside of that. Basically no one outside Story Now enthusiasts ever talk about narrativism, or at least in the sense as defined in GNS. But unlike you I don't think these categories are anything objective. Any such classification must make choices of which differences are seen as fundamental and which merely incidental. And that's in the eye of the beholder. The question really is to whom the model is supposed to be useful.Except the whole point was that there are two agendas. And there still is but they're not in conflict.  It's not a red herring that you completely change the parameters! This is about D&D. If anyone would be aiming for hard core simulationism they wouldn't be playing it in the first place. What is sought here is merely diegetic justification for hit points and the ability for the combat system to generate evocative fiction. I mean this example was literally about how I approach this, so I think I have a decent idea of the goal. But perhaps that you think that one who aims for such light simulationism would actually desire far more extensive simulation is again an indication of the confusion caused by the concept of incoherence, which implies that one should stubbornly max one thing?And that is completely another matter. However, I don't really see any reason why one could not devise a more accurate simulation which would still fulfil gamist needs for scorekeeping and completion. But that of course depends on what style of gamism one cares for.  And in any case, hacking D&D probably would be a poor way to approach it, it would need to be constructed rather differently from the ground up. I mean it was about mine handling of HP. I also still think that Apoc World does good job at harmonising genre emulation with narrativism. I'd think the burden of proof would be on the side of idea that the 'incoherence' between different baskets of GNS is more liable to lead to a conflict than 'incoherence' between creative ideas within one basket. I have seen no proof of such. That some times some creative agendas are in conflict is not in dispute. Also that overwhelmingly most successful and popular game ever balances several agendas and that the one time it tried to be more purist and lean more heavily on one it got rejected hard might say something about the validity of this incoherence concept in practice...</blockquote>

Verification