Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="xechnao" data-source="post: 4670504" data-attributes="member: 58105">I had written a thorough response but...something happened and I lost it.<img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/cry.png"&nbsp; class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":.-(" title="Cry&nbsp; &nbsp; :.-(" data-shortname=":.-(" />Let me try to summarize.I can accept &quot;decision&quot; as a valid goal. A &quot;decision&quot; is something we understand as the input in cases where such input is a matter of how we value their outcome. If the way we value the outcome is indifferent to such input then there is no &quot;decision&quot;. So our goal is to create a solid ground where we can value its outcomes based on our input to it. But such a solid ground can be nothing else but socializing on some common ground, be it our neighborhood or our roleplaying game. So, our roleplaying game mechanically must be nothing else but some common ground in perpetuity. You spoke about a field of a &quot;world&quot; so this can very well be it, I guess.What about &quot;narration&quot;? How can we understand &quot;narration&quot; as a goal? Do we need to establish a set of guidelines or rules so we can value &quot;narration&quot;? Right now I am thinking about these contests where you have judges valuing performance by various parameters such as technique, synthesis and overall form. But are roleplaying games something such as this? I think not. So how do we understand &quot;narration&quot; as a goal? Well, we can try to see this in the most simple way possible. One either manages to narrate or he does not. Going even further this could be: one either expresses himself or he does not. But isn't this a necessary and integral condition so that the &quot;decision&quot; game analyzed in the previous paragraph takes place? If so we could eventually say that narration is just a tool that reflects decision. At this point can we say that narration is an actual goal of the game? I would not say so.&nbsp; &nbsp; In the end, the only important mechanical thing seems to be the creation of an understandable and acceptable common world with no end in sight other than our meaningful input. This means that we need to be able to value such input -or, that such input can be valued- by the known value of things in our real life. This means that we need to be able to reflect the various possibilities of inputs with the value of things in our real life. Hence the fundamental importance of simulationism I was talking about.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="xechnao, post: 4670504, member: 58105"] I had written a thorough response but...something happened and I lost it.:.-( Let me try to summarize. I can accept "decision" as a valid goal. A "decision" is something we understand as the input in cases where such input is a matter of how we value their outcome. If the way we value the outcome is indifferent to such input then there is no "decision". So our goal is to create a solid ground where we can value its outcomes based on our input to it. But such a solid ground can be nothing else but socializing on some common ground, be it our neighborhood or our roleplaying game. So, our roleplaying game mechanically must be nothing else but some common ground in perpetuity. You spoke about a field of a "world" so this can very well be it, I guess. What about "narration"? How can we understand "narration" as a goal? Do we need to establish a set of guidelines or rules so we can value "narration"? Right now I am thinking about these contests where you have judges valuing performance by various parameters such as technique, synthesis and overall form. But are roleplaying games something such as this? I think not. So how do we understand "narration" as a goal? Well, we can try to see this in the most simple way possible. One either manages to narrate or he does not. Going even further this could be: one either expresses himself or he does not. But isn't this a necessary and integral condition so that the "decision" game analyzed in the previous paragraph takes place? If so we could eventually say that narration is just a tool that reflects decision. At this point can we say that narration is an actual goal of the game? I would not say so. In the end, the only important mechanical thing seems to be the creation of an understandable and acceptable common world with no end in sight other than our meaningful input. This means that we need to be able to value such input -or, that such input can be valued- by the known value of things in our real life. This means that we need to be able to reflect the various possibilities of inputs with the value of things in our real life. Hence the fundamental importance of simulationism I was talking about. [/QUOTE]

Verification