Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 9028984" data-attributes="member: 71699">Awhile back we were discussing simulationism and naturally earlier thought on the subject came up. Questions like this one often ariseTo which one possible answer is thatSuch a take might appear to either deny the possibility of simulationist play, or express skepticsm as to the possibility of knowledge about simulationist play. But the discussion goes on to accept the possibility and develop some knowledge about itYou might at this point recognise the author, Ron Edwards. Someone who so far as I can tell had no empathy with simulationism, but (or on account of that) was able to discuss the mode with a certain objectivity. He lands onHe gives the mode the byline "The Right to Dream" and concludes that it is focused on having the experience for its own sake. Perhaps without noticing that this is true of game play in virtue of being game play. He questions whether enjoyment of the experience for its own sake can really stand up, in the long term.My thinking is in part based on his discussion. I say there is a model and the group has heuristics that map to future states. There should be nothing surprising there. It's practically a restatement of what a game is. However, in the immersionist or simulationist play I'm concerned with there are some things that matter<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">That there should be referents, which can be previously imagined (i.e. preestablished) referents. That means I am not sure that no-myth play can be simulationist.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">That the functions themselves (heuristics, whatever you want to call them) are proper subjects for attention. I'm not just interested in the scene elements (e.g. the bear in the Goldilocks scene) but also in imagining the relationships and dynamics. I ought to know why the bear is thirsty and have in mind a cause (function, heuristic.) I have in mind simulation, not narration.</li> </ul>Those factors to me make it right to say that simulation is being used or done, and to find other descriptions inaequate. I would say that other descriptions reveal more attempts to understand the mode using the language of other modes, with foreseeable lack of success. It is separated from ordinary language use in the ways I have outlined.</blockquote>

Verification