Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 9031236" data-attributes="member: 42582">For me, this leads right back to the point I made upthread:Purist-for-system simulationism is a simulation for everyone at the table, just as you describe here. It uses tables, often rather complex resolution processes, etc. The whole table gets to see &quot;the imagined cosmos in action&quot;.Whereas (what Edwards calls) high concept simulationism is a simulation for the players, in the sense that they get to experience a fiction beyond their control. But it is not a simulation for the GM, because the GM is deciding what happens (perhaps with some input from mechanical systems at least some of the time).These are very different approaches to RPGing. And I say this based not just on the theoretical analysis, but my experience of the radical difference between RM and RQ play, and AD&amp;D 2nd ed play, as I lived through these in the 90s. (Which is when I was active in club and convention play.)Here I don't think I agree. Simulationism has a concern about the quality of the experience - it should have a &quot;this is how it is&quot; character to it. In purist-for-system play, that's the experience of having those tables etc &quot;reveal&quot; the fiction to you. (Some narrativist RPGs have elements of this too - eg Burning Wheel. Others don't - eg MHRP/Cortex+ Heroic. I'm happy to elaborate as to why if that would be interesting.)In high concept play, it's a type of &quot;experientialism&quot;. As per my posts way upthread about rule zero, I think this can come very close to being told a story by the GM, although the story-telling process is structured a little bit differently from normal, via the imposition of the form of the RPG.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 9031236, member: 42582"] For me, this leads right back to the point I made upthread: [I]Purist-for-system[/I] simulationism is a simulation for everyone at the table, just as you describe here. It uses tables, often rather complex resolution processes, etc. The whole table gets to see "the imagined cosmos in action". Whereas (what Edwards calls) [I]high concept[/I] simulationism is a simulation [I]for the players[/I], in the sense that they get to experience a fiction beyond their control. But it is not a simulation for the GM, because the GM is deciding what happens (perhaps with some input from mechanical systems at least some of the time). These are very different approaches to RPGing. And I say this based not just on the theoretical analysis, but my experience of the radical difference between RM and RQ play, and AD&D 2nd ed play, as I lived through these in the 90s. (Which is when I was active in club and convention play.) Here I don't think I agree. Simulationism has a concern about the quality of the experience - it should have a "this is how it is" character to it. In purist-for-system play, that's the experience of having those tables etc "reveal" the fiction to you. (Some narrativist RPGs have elements of this too - eg Burning Wheel. Others don't - eg MHRP/Cortex+ Heroic. I'm happy to elaborate as to why if that would be interesting.) In high concept play, it's a type of "experientialism". As per my posts [I]way[/I] upthread about rule zero, I think this can come very close to being told a story by the GM, although the story-telling process is structured a little bit differently from normal, via the imposition of the form of the RPG. [/QUOTE]

Verification