Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 9031737" data-attributes="member: 71699">Don't follow. Do.It's prioritised. Analagously, virtually every game text has gamist elements. Only some prioritise them. (There's more that can be said here, of course.)A verdict is reached through reference to established referents and relationships, seeking neither to favour or disfavour the characters, but to represent the world as it is.As GM in this capacity is not a player, they share in the attitude of the referee. Miraculous as this impartiality might seem, it is no more miraculous than the lusory attitude itself.If you would sincerely aim to question it, turn first to that.I see it as essential that the world extend beyond the characters. That it be objectively real from their point of view. A world without preestablished facts that players narrate into existence as they play is not external to them in this way. I have noticed avenues for a world established on the fly to go on to be external.Playing to find out in simulationist play is not playing for GM to find out, as they are not a player, but playing for players to find out. Partly. And then all are playing to find out what will happen on account of player decisions.Player decisions are still constrained by legitimation, by their shared project of immersion, by game rules.But perhaps your sense is right that all game worlds require a thread of simulationism. Again, in my view it is about priorities, not purity.I haven't considered simulationist play where that purpose is concealed from players. I'm not sure how that would go. Above I used the term immersionism, which for me better gets at the prelusory goals of the players. But then, sometimes we'll work together between sessions on elements of world and related game mechanics. And per others' examples above, sometimes we'll step out of play to consider specific questions.</blockquote>

Verification