Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Balesir" data-source="post: 6575926" data-attributes="member: 27160">I think this reveals quite nicely a part of what Ron Edwards was going on about when he wrote about &quot;agenda&quot;. It relates strongly to the question &quot;what do you want (your character) to make decisions about?&quot;He identified three specific agendas. I have no idea if that list is exhaustive - I suspect not. On that list was &quot;exploration for its own sake&quot;, or what was dubbed &quot;simulationism&quot;. That's what I see as an agenda, here. Exploration of &quot;the thing&quot; (imaginary place, imaginary situation or whatever) is valued; the &quot;thing&quot; itself is valued and expected to be a pretty bauble to look back upon in memory. There's a sense I get that looking back on the importance of that, at the time arbitrary, decision is valued because of the interest it holds in the context it gains in retrospect.&quot;Narrativism&quot;, on the other hand, involves wanting decisions about &quot;Story NOW&quot;. Interesting, dramatic/emotionally dissonant decisions to make during play - i.e. right now. Not in retrospect - in play.Illusionism will always matter or not depending on agenda (this being the type of meaningful decisions you want), it seems to me. If the first agenda is not important to you but the second is, then the &quot;turn left/right&quot; illusion won't bother you at all, but one concerning a plot twist will. If, on the other hand, the first agenda is really your main focus but the second is really not why you play, then the left/right illusion will screw with your head, whereas a pre-scripted plot twist will not - it will just be part of the interesting, intricate &quot;thing&quot; you explore, and then get to admire afterwards. What many folk want, I suspect, is a mixture of these, but alas there are inherent conflicts because of just such classes of &quot;illusions&quot;.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Balesir, post: 6575926, member: 27160"] I think this reveals quite nicely a part of what Ron Edwards was going on about when he wrote about "agenda". It relates strongly to the question "what do you want (your character) to make decisions [B][I]about[/I][/B]?" He identified three specific agendas. I have no idea if that list is exhaustive - I suspect not. On that list was "exploration for its own sake", or what was dubbed "simulationism". That's what I see as an agenda, here. Exploration of "the thing" (imaginary place, imaginary situation or whatever) is valued; the "thing" itself is valued and expected to be a pretty bauble to look back upon in memory. There's a sense I get that looking back on the importance of that, at the time arbitrary, decision is valued because of the interest it holds in the context it gains in retrospect. "Narrativism", on the other hand, involves wanting decisions about "Story NOW". Interesting, dramatic/emotionally dissonant decisions to make during play - i.e. [B][U][I]right now[/I][/U][/B]. Not in retrospect - in play. Illusionism will always matter or not depending on agenda (this being the type of meaningful decisions you want), it seems to me. If the first agenda is not important to you but the second is, then the "turn left/right" illusion won't bother you at all, but one concerning a plot twist will. If, on the other hand, the first agenda is really your main focus but the second is really not why you play, then the left/right illusion will screw with your head, whereas a pre-scripted plot twist will not - it will just be part of the interesting, intricate "thing" you explore, and then get to admire afterwards. What many folk want, I suspect, is a mixture of these, but alas there are inherent conflicts because of just such classes of "illusions". [/QUOTE]

Verification