Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 6361056" data-attributes="member: 4937">Just as a caution here, while I agree that Gygaxian play is undoubtedly 'gamist', I think it is also undoubtedly 'simulationist' as well.&nbsp; Don't pigeonhole his thoughts into a single narrow convenient box.&nbsp; In FORGE speak, that the system had two goals makes it the equivalent of 'badwrongfun' since according to the theory no system is able to fulfill both goals at once well.&nbsp; Such a system and its designers are supposedly be confused, discordant, conflicted, or whatever PC term they are calling it now.&nbsp; However, I argue that the theory is wrong.&nbsp;&nbsp; No system that isn't able to fulfill multiple aesthetics of play can claim to be truly deep and satisfying in the long run.&nbsp; So when you look at Gygaxian play, you could get 'stuck' because being stuck fulfilled multiple aesthetic goals of play.&nbsp;&nbsp; Failing sucked for sure, but the only thing that would have sucked worse would have been not allowing failure because it undermined everyone's presumed goal of feeling like real participants and even heroes in a real fantasy world.&nbsp; It was a challenge to step on up to for sure, but it was also a logical result within the simulation of the living world as a whole.&nbsp; The DM had in Gygax's mind no responsibility for seeing any individual challenge could be overcome.&nbsp; In Gygax's mind, the party 'fails forward' simply by taking a different corridor.&nbsp; The party, or (and this is key) a different party with perhaps different players could perhaps find a way to open that 'unopenable' door.&nbsp;&nbsp; And incidentally, that is a narrativist goal as well, because it meant that that party would now have a unique story which could be shared with the other players perhaps after classes the next day.&nbsp; So you can see that Gygax here even had an aesthetic of play the GNS theory doesn't encompass - play as a way to create a sense of shared community.&nbsp; And incidentally, that may not be GNS but it is for many players a primary goal of play.&nbsp; The challenge, drama, and sense of being in an alternative world can be for a player entirely secondary to that.To understand Gygax fully, I think you have to play the way he was playing.&nbsp; I certainly didn't appreciate that until I was running a game in a similar fashion.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 6361056, member: 4937"] Just as a caution here, while I agree that Gygaxian play is undoubtedly 'gamist', I think it is also undoubtedly 'simulationist' as well. Don't pigeonhole his thoughts into a single narrow convenient box. In FORGE speak, that the system had two goals makes it the equivalent of 'badwrongfun' since according to the theory no system is able to fulfill both goals at once well. Such a system and its designers are supposedly be confused, discordant, conflicted, or whatever PC term they are calling it now. However, I argue that the theory is wrong. No system that isn't able to fulfill multiple aesthetics of play can claim to be truly deep and satisfying in the long run. So when you look at Gygaxian play, you could get 'stuck' because being stuck fulfilled multiple aesthetic goals of play. Failing sucked for sure, but the only thing that would have sucked worse would have been not allowing failure because it undermined everyone's presumed goal of feeling like real participants and even heroes in a real fantasy world. It was a challenge to step on up to for sure, but it was also a logical result within the simulation of the living world as a whole. The DM had in Gygax's mind no responsibility for seeing any individual challenge could be overcome. In Gygax's mind, the party 'fails forward' simply by taking a different corridor. The party, or (and this is key) [I]a different party with perhaps different players[/I] could perhaps find a way to open that 'unopenable' door. And incidentally, that is a narrativist goal as well, because it meant that that party would now have a unique story which could be shared with the other players perhaps after classes the next day. So you can see that Gygax here even had an aesthetic of play the GNS theory doesn't encompass - play as a way to create a sense of shared community. And incidentally, that may not be GNS but it is for many players a primary goal of play. The challenge, drama, and sense of being in an alternative world can be for a player entirely secondary to that. To understand Gygax fully, I think you have to play the way he was playing. I certainly didn't appreciate that until I was running a game in a similar fashion. [/QUOTE]

Verification