Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="FormerlyHemlock" data-source="post: 9028688" data-attributes="member: 6787650">(A) To be honest with you I find that whole discussion about bears and goldilocks confusing. &quot;Is this story about a bear a simulation?&quot; is a question which makes about as much sense to me as &quot;how tall is blue?&quot; I was trying to explain to you what simulation means from my perspective (which I believe is the GDS perspective), but I can't talk about bears and Goldilocks. If that's what you're interested in I have to bow out.(B) If you ever have the opportunity to play or run a couple of sessions, I would encourage you to take it. It helped me understand what people like about non-action-oriented RPGs, it helped me understand some of the distinctions between iconic and dramatic heroes in fiction, it clarified my thinking on scene framing, and it changed the way I build NPCs (it's now more network-based with more frequent &quot;fraught relationships&quot;). It also helped me understand some phenomena I see in real life, like the emotional kick some people get out of being the one to deny an emotional petition, even if they don't really want the other results of denying it.(C) The emphasis on plausibility comes from you, not from me. Per GDS, I have been emphasizing intent to extrapolate. Plausibility is a metric of how good the simulation is, but plausible situations can arise through G or D as well as S. Does that unblock you or need I elaborate? I don't want to insult you by stating the obvious here. Edit: I guess I explained anyway, see following post.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="FormerlyHemlock, post: 9028688, member: 6787650"] (A) To be honest with you I find that whole discussion about bears and goldilocks confusing. "Is this story about a bear a simulation?" is a question which makes about as much sense to me as "how tall is blue?" I was trying to explain to you what simulation means from my perspective (which I believe is the GDS perspective), but I can't talk about bears and Goldilocks. If that's what you're interested in I have to bow out. (B) If you ever have the opportunity to play or run a couple of sessions, I would encourage you to take it. It helped me understand what people like about non-action-oriented RPGs, it helped me understand some of the distinctions between iconic and dramatic heroes in fiction, it clarified my thinking on scene framing, and it changed the way I build NPCs (it's now more network-based with more frequent "fraught relationships"). It also helped me understand some phenomena I see in real life, like the emotional kick some people get out of being the one to deny an emotional petition, even if they don't really want the other results of denying it. (C) The [I][B]emphasis[/B][/I] on plausibility comes from you, not from me. Per GDS, I have been emphasizing [I]intent to extrapolate[/I]. Plausibility is a metric of how [I]good[/I] the simulation is, but plausible situations can arise through G or D as well as S. Does that unblock you or need I elaborate? I don't want to insult you by stating the obvious here. Edit: I guess I explained anyway, see following post. [/QUOTE]

Verification