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: 8630410" data-attributes="member: 16814">Uh-huh.  And your evidence for definitional breadth being lacking is... the number of things in the bins, right?  Because you haven't once talked to definitional breadth before (and not yet, it seems, either) but rather to the number of things included in each bin.  In fact, definitional breadth seems very much a stand in for 'number of things defined' which isn't even a different argument. Right.  That's saying that, objectively, the way narrativism is defined differs from how dramaticism is defined.  I can point to the objective existence of these definitions.  The actual things defined haven't been claimed to be objective.  The different is.  I can look at the one definition, and then the other, and objectively state that there is a difference.Come on, man.Ah, well, then, there's no use talking about it at all, is there, in any manner.  If subjective is a cause to reject, and all thinking about RPGs are subjective, why does this board even exist?  Nothing can ever be useful, right?This is a bogus claim that tries to say that since there's some slop, it's all bad.  It's a slippery slope argument.I can't parse that second sentence and it seems critical to your point.  Narrativism does not care about story -- that's what happens when you put what happened together.  It doesn't particularly care that it might be incoherent, or that it doesn't come close to a good story, or what structure it has.  Narrativism is specifically about the very moment of play -- what does your character do here, when put under this pressure, and how does that turn out.  This doesn't really care how that outcome works in any kind of story or what that story looks like.  It's about experiencing that moment, in the now.  Hence Story Now.This has been explained before.  You keep denying it and insisting that Story Now is actually some other thing.  When this is pointed out, you deny this denial.That I'm not agreeing with your strawmen?  I agree, that can be very frustrating.It's defined in the essays.  I've decided to stop providing you with restatements of definitions that are in the source material.  By now, you should be able to answer these questions for yourself.  Not doing so, and insisting that it's my fault I haven't provided you the information already posted once again, is making me do your homework.  If you want to argue these points, it's on you to argue them, not me to provide you with the information you plan to use to argue.Well, in this very thread I both XP'd and publicly commented on a poster that said that the discussion has helped them understand Story Now and that it has also reinforced why they dislike it so much.  I was excited about this, because it was a principled disagreement -- understand the opposing argument and articulate what you disagree with.  So far, you've not shown you've done the former.  I'll be happy to hear your disagreements when it doesn't come with blanket misrepresentations.  Disagreement isn't misrepresentation.No, because Edwards himself is a fan of Simulationist games.  Loves them.  Talks about them.  Has a webpage where he posted vlogs discussing play and often features Simulationist games.  So, no, this claim is false.  Why it was useful at the Forge is because it is the first fully clear articulation of Narrativism, which already existed in some form in the wild, but was a primary focus of the development discussions at the Forge.  This is a difference -- what the essays were meant to do vs what people found useful in them at that time in that place.  It's indisputable that the Forge was the crucible from which many modern Story Now games emerged -- most after the Forge closed but using it's thinking to inform their design.  However, this doesn't discredit the essays, because they also have helps some simulationist games and are often referred to in simulationist discussions.  It's a form of the genetic fallacy, where you swap what a thing was used from by some as impugning the thing.  However, in this case, it's even more bankrupt because what it was used for was to develop new games -- hardly a terrible outcome that should be shunned.The usefulness of a model is in prediction.  I know [USER=42582]@pemerton[/USER] had words against this before, but I think that entire discussion was wrongfooted.  Prediction in this case is in the sense means that when you apply the model to data not used in forming it, does it still provide useful results.  That's undoubtedly the case, here.  The GNS model explains quite well almost all of the common arguments/issues/problems about 5e on these very boards.  Is it complete?  Does it explain everything?  No, of course not, but it's clearly extremely useful and helpful in predicting the kinds of problems that can occur but also in explaining why they occur.No, you said they agree before the game.  You didn't explain how they could agree and maintain the different agendas, so it appears you meant they agreed to the agenda.  If you're not saying this, then you need to do a bit more to show how these two things were agreed.Thank you, but I was already aware it wasn't a red herring.  I noted that my original example was an unintentional trick questions because play required abandoning the simulationist agenda so that it pretty much didn't matter.  I thought that unfair, so I revised the example so that simulationism was maintained and presented strongly so that we could see the nexus of the conflict.Diegetic justification that doesn't have any impact isn't simulationism, it's just flavor.  This was the crux of the 'trick' I inadvertently included in the original example -- that D&D regarding hitpoints is unabashedly gamist, always has been, and that there's no simulationsim here, just some veneer of flavor that gets applied.  You can tell because no wound described with damage ever matters past providing flavor -- there's no impact to any following fiction.  So, in this case, if this is what you do, you're letting go of any simulationist agenda here and going with the gamist one the game provides, but you're telling yourself you've saved it because you added some meaningless narration.Or is there actual meaning to your narration?  It can't be how close a PC is to suffering a meaningful blow (dropping to zero hp) because that's conveyed by the hp total, not the description.  You can tell this because any number of descriptions can be used interchangeably and never make a difference in play.At best, such narration is a signalling tool to other players where there's some prohibition from sharing hp totals between players.  Then it's just a proxy for that information -- it still has no meaningful impact on play.  As such, it's flavor, not agenda. How so?  You claimed it was a contrived example, I provide evidence it's not contrived but autobiographical, and you dismiss this explanation but do not revoke your claim it's a contrived example?  That seems extremely uncharitable.  So far, you've dismissed the example as contrived, and when shown to be not contrived, chosen to dismiss that as irrelevant to the discussion.  You've managed to chain a bunch of dismissals to avoid engaging the issue.  I mean, I get it , fear of a trap or something can be strong, but that's why I've asked for your own examples.  Let's see how that's going....Why so?  You've strongly argued that Apocalypse World needs NO modifications to support simulationist play, but D&D cannot without extensive modification to the rules.  Double standard much?  If agendas are so easily harmonized, as you've also claimed, I don't understand why extensive work must first be done to even consider aligning agendas for D&D.  This doesn't sound easy at all!Genre emulation isn't part of GNS.  Again you step outside the model under discussion and make a claim based on your own set of premises and defintions.  In this case, you've added genre emulation as a thing AND redefined narrativism to something unstated.  I can tell, because whatever you mean by genre emulation, narrativism doesn't care about it and will fight it.  No, the burden of proof is on the people that make the claim.  The incoherence has been given examples -- multiple ones.  I can go to the front page of ENW right now an pull an example of that incoherence:[URL unfurl="true"]https://www.enworld.org/threads/epic-level-1.688219/[/URL][URL unfurl="true"]https://www.enworld.org/threads/where-does-willpower-lie-wisdom-charisma-or-someplace-else.688240/[/URL][URL unfurl="true"]https://www.enworld.org/threads/worlds-of-design-peaceful-solutions-to-violent-problems.687919/[/URL]Super easy.  All of these are fundamentally about a conflict between simulationism and gamism.  Ah, argumentum ad populum.  Is this that same overwhelmingly most successful and popular game ever that requires significant rework to deal with the hitpoint simulationism/gamism problem?  Look, sure, 5e is popular.  But claiming it's popular because it harmonizes different agendas is begging the question (ie, you've assumed the answer in the premise).  You have to support this claim.  "Popular" is not actually an argument for anything other than "what's popular?"</blockquote>

Verification