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: 8630482" data-attributes="member: 16814">You have a low bar.  Apocalypse World doesn't operate via genre logic.  You aren't going to experience a Mad Max movie by playing Apocalypse World.  It doesn't deliver these things.  Is the post-apoc flavor?  Yup.  Is this sufficient to say that the point of the game is to experience the genre of post-apoc?  Nope.GNS is about the agenda of play -- what do you want most out of this play.  AW doesn't deliver post-apoc experience as the focus of play. It uses the genre to place the fiction and only as much as needed.  A game set in a blank, white, four walled space doesn't resonate well, so there's enough setting to place the play and that's it.  Play isn't about experiencing the genre, but about your character.  Setting details only come up as needed and when they add flavor because they are never the focus of play.  You will never have moments where you're discussing the scarcity of water in the worlds, or how water exists, or even where it is any any point of play.  If it comes up, it will be set dressing only.If this is sufficient for you to claim simulationism, then you're showing that you do not understand how that is used or defined in GNS.  If you're merely claiming "genre emulation" as some thing you've defined yourself to mean something, then it's largely irrelevant to the discussion of GNS.  Feel free to create your own model, and we can discuss that elsewhere.  I'd be happy to discuss what you mean by genre emulation and how it identifies and separates games (so far, I don't see it being absent in any game, but you tell me how it's useful in your thread about your model).That's a genre?  Flashbacks are genre? The mere presence of a flashback mechanic is enough to satisfy genre emulation? Apparently genre is a very broad term with how you're using it.  Also, entirely irrelevant to the discussion of GNS, as I note above.Sure.  I agree.  However, you're telling me my play and what I want from it doesn't exist and is instead the same as this other thing I tell you it is not.  Ditch the models -- you've not yet successfully described what I'm getting from play and have instead substituted in this thing that I do not want from play.  And you've done this by smearing terms to be as generic and wide as possible in the hopes that it nets my play somewhere so you can claim it.  It still doesn't, but by maintaining you efforts you're denying my play exists at all.A more fruitful discussion would be to start by acknowledging my play, asking questions to understand it, not refute it or make it sound like something else, and when you've grokked it enough you can describe it back to me such that I recognize it, then you're on solid ground to refute it.  Prior to that, you're just lancing strawmen.</blockquote>

Verification