Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 9029003" data-attributes="member: 71699">I am most likely mistaking your arguments. On surfact, to me, it feels like you could be eliding the "cause" part. What I have described as proper subjects for attention in simulationist play. I would say all RPG play is normative. Simulationist play attempts to be highly causative.Additionally, I suggest (and dug my heels in on suggesting, in our previous thread) that simulationist play also requires referents. Some mistake this to mean it must take the real world as a referent, and they get stuck on wanting to simulate the real world or nothing at all. That's not the case: it is only the case that there must be referents.Thus I describe distinctive simulationist play as requiring models (structured referents) with functions (causes, however we've chosen to embody them.) These are not only necessarily incomplete, but also pragmatically.When another poster described reaching a scene with a dragon up thread, they were not concerned for causation. It was not of concern to them if they had a model in mind that included dragons, nor whether any imagined causalities in that model should lead to a dragon appearing in this instance. Their focus was the drama of the thing.I'd agree with placing it into your second category. I then draw from that, that simulationist play can occur even if models are not externalised. That among other things inclines me to say that models are internalised. Etc.Yes, I would count PC build rules as myth. I also count system parameters that imply specific meanings myth. Perhaps I should see my views in this respect as a denial of the premise that no-myth play ever arises... but of course to see these things in stark black and white is seldom correct. If no-myth allows character build rules and game parameters that imply meaning, then I agree with you that it's not inconsistent with simulationism.</blockquote>

Verification