Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 9029999" data-attributes="member: 71699">That sounds right to me.If you go in with the premise that GM decisions cannot be counted as simulation, then you will (as I have said to others above) be left with no explanation. You've implicitly ruled out from first principles the possibility that "GM decides" can equate with simulation through the way in which they decide.So lets start there, yes. GM decides. What's at issue is how they decide. Above I said that I could not tell from one written example whether simulationism was being performed, and I queried what was meant by "extrapolates". The quick definition I find of extrapolates is - "extend the application of (a method or conclusion) to an unknown situation by assuming that existing trends will continue or similar methods will be applicable." Some are content to leave that as an "authorial decision" which seems to resist further scrutiny. Perhaps some sort of dualistic explanation involving a creative spirit comes into play.Setting aside the possibility of a creative spirit that pops ideas into our heads at the moment we need them, I am going to offer the wild thesis that what GM decides is motivated. Above have been discussed the possibility of motivations that are non-simulationist and I agree that what GM says next can be motivated by a diversity of goals and concerns. That is, I agree that non-simulationist play is possible.As to simulationist play, it relies on assuming, adopting and establishing referents and relationships. A model, if you will. This is a process as fluid and incomplete as thought. When the GM is asked to decide what the dragon will do (where dragons have been established as a referent) they deliberate upon its properties and relationships, and come to a verdict about how it will behave. It will behave as dragons do, and there shall be a behaviour distinctive of dragons (or at least, this kind of dragon) in the world, which will go on to be true at all places in times (barring impinging circumstances.)Very often GM will not rely on their cognitive powers alone to achieve that. Game texts, lore, additional game design, often in incompletely externalised form. That is, a sketch of a mechanic for dragon behaviour might connect with a partial model of dragon behaviour GM has in mind. From time to time GM will be tasked to judge things outside their current model (which, it bears restating, is necessarily and pragmatically incomplete.) They do so with respect for the coherence of their model i.e. within the scope of their conferred expertise in the imaginary domain.I can see two ways this can be misunderstood (and there are no doubt others.) One is on metaphysical grounds. As I alluded to above, under certain world views all of this is unnecessary and improbable. A creative spirit (or something equally inscrutable) really does pop ideas in our heads. Perhaps the spirit can be informed by frameworks and develop feelings about what sorts of ideas are good ones, but this must always fall short of any sort of dispositional model. Another is taking the differences between model representation on organic neurological structures and model representation on other architectures to rule out the former. Especially without making any allowance for the playful purpose (low-stakes) and constraints (comparatively low-investment) of the former. There might even be an assumption that all this has to play out in a highly self-conscious mode of thinking. That, too is mistaken.</blockquote>

Verification