Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 8636847" data-attributes="member: 6696971">To stay on topic:1)&nbsp; It is a necessary precondition for functional Gamism that players a priori know for certain that their tactical and strategic moves made will be honored.&nbsp; That they will interact with and affect the gamestate in an encoded way (at best) or a hugely reliable extrapolatable way (at worst) and each of these gamestate interactions will distill Skilled Play as will the collective throughline of them.2)&nbsp; The system I proposed above does not inherently entail honoring the tactical and strategic moves of the players.3)&nbsp; The system I proposed above does not possess encoded interactions with the gamestate.4)&nbsp; The system I proposed above does not inherently entail a hugely reliable extrapolation in which players can infer how their interactions with the gamestate will affect it.Conclusion?As is, this system cannot produce functional Gamism.So the conversational move you make above is to assert the 2 and 4 above will become emergent properties of play.&nbsp; I have to assume that you're appending &quot;given x amount of time played&quot;, because it surely cannot be the case right off the bat.&nbsp; That is, unless, prior to play, the GM codifies a huge swathe of system-related game technology (effectively bringing back all of those things I excised and orienting them toward a Gamism agenda).&nbsp; So the questions I have would be:* If we're just adding all of that back in to ensure (3)...why in the world are we excising it in the first place?* If we're not (re)encoding all of those things up front to satisfy (3), then at what point can we reliably expect functional Gamism to become an emergent property of play because of the accretion of all of these purported, &quot;Gamism-functional&quot; (you've got to do a lot of work to show me functionality...you can't just assume it or smuggle it in) &quot;exogenous rules&quot; or &quot;tacit principles.&quot;&nbsp; Session 3?&nbsp; 5?&nbsp; 8?&nbsp; At what point do these exogenous rules and tacit principles get uploaded to each individual players mental software and stress-tested through play sufficiently to corroborate to all parties both &quot;its happening&quot; and &quot;its functional?&quot;I mean...what work is &quot;exogenous&quot; and &quot;tacit&quot; doing here for actual reliably functional Gamism play that &quot;endogenous&quot; and &quot;encoded&quot; won't do better?!&nbsp; The only work I can imagine &quot;exogenous&quot; and &quot;tacit&quot; doing better than &quot;endogenous&quot; and &quot;encoded&quot; is &quot;to allow the GM to drift play at their discretion to prioritize alternate play imperatives (eg NOT GAMISM imperatives) when they feel the moment (of play) justifies this drift.&quot;</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Manbearcat, post: 8636847, member: 6696971"] To stay on topic: 1) It is a necessary precondition for functional Gamism that players a priori know for certain that their tactical and strategic moves made will be honored. That they will interact with and affect the gamestate in an encoded way (at best) or a hugely reliable extrapolatable way (at worst) and each of these gamestate interactions will distill Skilled Play as will the collective throughline of them. 2) The system I proposed above does not inherently entail honoring the tactical and strategic moves of the players. 3) The system I proposed above does not possess encoded interactions with the gamestate. 4) The system I proposed above does not inherently entail a hugely reliable extrapolation in which players can infer how their interactions with the gamestate will affect it. Conclusion? As is, this system cannot produce functional Gamism. So the conversational move you make above is to assert the 2 and 4 above will become emergent properties of play. I have to assume that you're appending "given x amount of time played", because it surely cannot be the case right off the bat. That is, unless, prior to play, the GM codifies a huge swathe of system-related game technology (effectively bringing back all of those things I excised and orienting them toward a Gamism agenda). So the questions I have would be: * If we're just adding all of that back in to ensure (3)...why in the world are we excising it in the first place? * If we're not (re)encoding all of those things up front to satisfy (3), then at what point can we reliably expect functional Gamism to become an emergent property of play because of the accretion of all of these purported, "Gamism-functional" (you've got to do a lot of work to show me functionality...you can't just assume it or smuggle it in) "exogenous rules" or "tacit principles." Session 3? 5? 8? At what point do these exogenous rules and tacit principles get uploaded to each individual players mental software and stress-tested through play sufficiently to corroborate to all parties both "its happening" and "its functional?" I mean...what work is "exogenous" and "tacit" doing here for actual reliably [I]functional Gamism play[/I] that "endogenous" and "encoded" won't do better?! The only work I can imagine "exogenous" and "tacit" doing better than "endogenous" and "encoded" is "to allow the GM to drift play at their discretion to prioritize alternate play imperatives (eg NOT GAMISM imperatives) when they feel the moment (of play) justifies this drift." [/QUOTE]

Verification