Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="hawkeyefan" data-source="post: 9028912" data-attributes="member: 6785785">I would agree that the bear example is a poor one. I'd much rather read an actual play example that helps illustrate what folks are trying to say. But folks seem reluctant to share those.It seems like a bit of color and nothing more. It didn't become meaningful in any way. I don't see how such a detail couldn't be narrated as part of setting the scene. On its own, it feels pointless and incomplete regardless of play priority. I would certainly give it a try if the opportunity comes up. I'm pretty open to new games. I have a bit of a backlog of games I want to get to the table, though, so I don't see it happening anytime soon. I don't think the emphasis on plausibility comes from me... it came from [USER=23751]@Maxperson[/USER] and his example. I was questioning it because plausibility was the only element I could see at play. And narration. The GM narrated something because it was plausible. I don't think that is enough for simulation purposes, but I'm not sure what else people might think would make it so. I'm not sure your elaboration below does much to help. Given that the orcs' temperament and all other related factors are traits interpreted and likely determined by the GM, I don't see what is added beyond plausibility. What's the starting point of simulation for the orcs? What is the GM simulating when he decides the orcs will kill the princess at sundown? The emotions of orcs? What's the method of determining these things? Also, I don't know if "absence of metagame-driven motives" is all that feasible. Certainly all of this is happening because it's a game. I'm not trying to dismiss simulation as a goal, or a mindset... I'm trying to understand what it involves. Because I think it has to be something beyond mere plausibility because that's present in non-simulation focused games.</blockquote>

Verification