NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 8630916" data-attributes="member: 82106">I cannot say without knowing WHY this is happening... If the "you're" is the GM, then it seems to me it is basically Simulationist play, the GM is simulating a drama. There's a FEELING of drama, just like in a TV show, but just like in the show, the people experiencing it are an audience, they are not CREATING the drama, so the agenda, IMHO is a type of simulationist agenda (and this is where the chosen name for this may create issues for people). I think it might have been better for 'Simulationist' to have been called something like 'Modeling', because that's what it does, its goal is to model something in play. Drama is a bit different from say 'a certain kind of dialog' in that it is a trait, not a thing, and thus you cannot say that modeled drama is just a model OF drama, it is itself dramatic in character. Still, fundamentally, from an RPG perspective it falls into the category of RPG play which attempts to evoke a specific kind of situation, trait, or character in play.And this is really why IMHO, and [USER=42582]@pemerton[/USER] strongly supports this <a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/supposing-d-d-is-gamist-what-does-that-mean.687974/post-8629457" target="_blank">here in post 975</a> that GNS is HIGHLY coherent in terms of placing things in bins which share deeply significant attributes. After some study of both GDS and GEN material I could not find anything like the same level of coherence in either of those models. In fact they seem almost more like exercises in calling out traits of games/play styles and attaching labels to them than anything else. That's a PART of constructing an analytical framework, but IMHO GNS moved to another level in terms of grouping things together according to attributes which are really distinct and predictive.This is not to say that we can't take from other models and use some of their labels and observations, nor that any given model is a 'last word' on the subject, by any means. At the very least, even if GNS was super successful in one sense, it isn't necessarily fit to all purposes, far from it. I mean, I'm pretty well educated in physics. I would never try to apply Relativistic Quantum Field Theory (even if I could handle the math) to a problem of celestial navigation which is far better handled using classical Newtonian Mechanics (and maybe a damned Hamiltonian or three, curse that).</blockquote>

Verification