Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="hawkeyefan" data-source="post: 9030652" data-attributes="member: 6785785">Sure, I think it's okay to have different priorities at different times in a game, or with different people. This is also related to a question I asked to [USER=6747251]@Micah Sweet[/USER] ... if a GM has simulation as a priority, I don't know how visible this may be to the players. Certainly most games present plausible events based on what's already happened and what makes sense. How do players know what priority a GM has? Do they all need to be on the same page? Does simulation or any other play priority mean different things to the different participants? I don't think it's specifically about better so much as more important in some way. Like... higher in some way, hence, on a pedestal. But regardless, when someone places a priority above others, that's what they're doing. It doesn't mean that they think their way is objectively better than others.... it means it's their view. People have flat out said they place importance on simulation over gamism and narrativism, or on narrativism above the others, and so on. I think you're being awfully specific on this definition and we're getting into the weeds. What about the rest of the post you quoted, but left out? Let's move on from the semantics and discuss the actual question. Here it is again: Do you think that the idea of simulation becomes more important than what's actually happening at the table? Do you think that folks may at times attribute their aesthetic choices to simulation? How does a GM untangle simulation from all the other elements and considerations of craft? Given the potentially wide range of possible outcomes of any action, how do we settle on one outcome over others in a simulation?What's actually happening at the table that gets labeled as simulation?</blockquote>

Verification