Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="1Mac" data-source="post: 5967576" data-attributes="member: 48998">They kind of are though. It's what I meant by the common definitions being "congruent"—not "identical"—to the more jargon-y GNS definitions. GNS simulationism is about internal consistency in the game world, which are enhanced by granularity (solid rules for social conflict are more consistent than the GM winging it) and real-world realism (unless we have a setting- or genre-specific reason to believe otherwise, we tend to assume the game world functions like the real world). Likewise GNS narrativism is about interacting with dramatic themes, which lends itself to "getting in character" in a way the other modes don't (as an aside, your second definition sounds a lot like railroading, which I've never heard described as narrativist).This is also congruent to GNS gamism, which is about accomplishment in the game world. The player plays to be an awesome monster slayer; that's a gamist goal in the Edwards sense. The fact that he uses system mastery to achieve this is an interesting but tangental issue, and the rules don't have to be at all chess-like for this to be true.A "gamelike agenda", to use my preferred word choice, would be if someone like you describe also insists that the rules be more like chess, or WoW, or any other game, for the express purpose of pulling him out of the game world and reminding him he is playing a game. That would be very strange, and at any rate incongruent with the GNS sense of gamism.</blockquote>

Verification