Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 8630631" data-attributes="member: 6696971">Here is why Edwards bins High Concept and Process into the same bin; Simulationism:Its because the apex priority of play is about the experiential quality of exploration which is underwritten by a type of causality (which the examination of it and leveraging of it/focus upon it is nearly always front-and-center as it either sufficiently facilitates the experiential quality or it doesn't and it becomes a failure state of play); (i) Genre/Trope/Drama Logic or (ii) a kind of Classical Causality formulation where internal causality consistency leads to navigation via system observation and deduction (Process Sim for short).Almost universally, folks who say "system doesn't matter" are saying it because the above is their apex priority for play.  (a) They are concerned overwhelmingly or wholly with a matrix of that italicized bit above + one of those two bolded bits and (b) they feel that you can just free form your way through play with a GM fulfilling the role of "causality coordinator and mediator", governing action declarations based on their personal sense of things.  When things go wrong, they'll mash those two together and who the hell knows at any given point what form of causality will govern a given collision of imagined space meets player action declaration.  This is a failure condition because it injures the experiential quality of the exploration and the reliability of the causality of the system.Almost universally, these folks talk about "actor stance exclusivity" and use the terms "(high) immersion" or "verisimilitude" as a precursor to play at all.Its about "the sensory experience of being there (like causality, color is deeply and pretty much universally foregrounded in our deep interest in setting, characters, and the situations the world affords the characters or what situations they get into)."Its about "the focus upon the internal logic/causality of the system (not RPG...the world) your character is inhabiting and interacting with (the experience of it and the reliance upon it)."Conflict is not consistently (certainly not relentlessly) foregrounded.  Its foreground/background orientation skews dramatically toward the latter (its simmering, its sought, its revealed and uncovered via exploration).  In High Concept Sim it will skew more toward foregrounded than backgrounded, but they both relatively skew as backgrounded.  On a thematic neutrality : themed to premise, they both skew toward neutrality though High Concept Sim will skew more "themed to premise" than Process Sim.  [HR][/HR]With Gamist play and with Narrativist play, none of the above are true.1)  Pretty much universally, Gamist and Narrativist priorities come lock, stock, and barrel with an orientation of "system (totally) matters" and "system's say" is incredibly important.  You can't just freeform your way to successfully resolve the agenda of these two types of play with a GM fulfilling the role of "causality coordinator and mediator."  First off, the experiential quality of being there isn't the thing.2)  The experiential quality of exploration underwritten by a type of (in the cross-hairs) causality is not only not the point of play...its entirely possible (maybe even likely) that such an orientation to play is barely a passing parameter in any given individual participant's or the table collective's mental model.  You won't see this preoccupation with "actor stance exclusivity" or "(high) immersion" or, on the rare occasion that this interest ticks above normal, it certainly won't be considered a failure state if you or the table collectively aren't ensconced in/observing either of these (preconditions for play).  Your orientation to stance and immersion is typically multivariate across the through line of play and even at any given moment!3)  The only time causality focus enters into it is when you're relying upon it to manage your OODA Loop (Oberve > Orient > Decide > Act) to make an inference for a skillful play in Gamism.  Causality is a means to an end in Gamism...it isn't an end unto itself.  The concern for some kind of incoherent red-pilling isn't because "it draws you out", but rather because the procedural integrity of play (its ability to distill skilled play from poor play) is compromised.4)  The orientation to color and situation in Gamism and Narrativism are entirely different from Simulatonism.  Color is overwhelmingly backgrounded in Gamism and Narrativism.  On occasion when Color is foregrounded that means its relevant to distilling skillful play from poor play or provoking a protagonist to act or to fold (and learn about the nature of their inner workings and their place in the world as a result).  This is also what the vehicle of situation is for in these games.  Its not a vehicle for ensuring the (first person exclusive) experiential quality of exploring a system underwritting by a certain sort of logic/causality (immersion).  Its a vehicle for distilling skillful play from poor play or provoking a protagonist to act or to fold (and learn about the nature of their inner workings and their place in the world as a result). 5)  Conflict is everything to Gamism and Narrativism.  Its constantly, relentlessly foregrounded.  Damn near every moment of play is bursting/rife with it.  While thematic neutrality vs themed to premise isn't the overwhelmingly massive ordeal it is in Narrativism, Gamism still features this profoundly more than Process Simulation (because detecting theme/premise will be a parameter for the calculus - causality is means...not end - of a Gamist players ability to play skillfully).</blockquote>

Verification