Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 9331466" data-attributes="member: 71699">First, don't conflate ergodic literature with ludonarrative. If you understand ludonarrative to be applicable only to railroads, then I haven't explained it well enough and you haven't grasped what I have said with the meaning intended.When a player interacts with a game, they experience their interaction, they have awareness of the history of their interactions, they render their interaction in some form (an utterance, the repositioning of pieces, description), other players may experience that rendering, and thus it becomes something that they might interact with. The game-as-artifact, as I have said before is a tool for fabricating that play, and so ordinarily it too contributes a tailored set of signifiers (including dynamic signifiers).A history of interactions can be copied out and form a linear story. A reader can read that story and follow what is going on. This is not ludonarrative. And as you've pointed out in the past, the "story" copied out from an arbitrary game might not present us with anything up to the standard of a piece of dramatic literature.Ludonarrative exists in the intentional assembling and traversing (playing with) of signifiers, and the ongoing experience of that traversal. Between the covers of a book may be a complete narrative, but the record of a single traversal of a ludonarrative cannot completely describe it. One reason being that the player both authors (contributes, organises and renders traversals of signifiers) and audiences (experiences signifiers contributed, organised and rendered by others.)The bolded part is mistaken. If the assemblage changes the story changes, and one must include the player in the ludonarrative assemblage (just I suppose as one must include actors in a play.) Realising they needed to be included inspired and enabled "narrativism". This meets the no A change without a B change requirement of supervenience. (And also happens to be one reason why I'm sceptical of the same game being played by differing cohorts.)Again, you're excluding players from the assemblage. Remember they are author and audience. They're part of the play. Their interactions are rendered for other players, and so in return. Concluding, it seems I haven't been at all clear that players are part of the assemblage (ironic, given we've just spent hundreds of posts talking about whether and how they must be).</blockquote>

Verification