Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 9040894" data-attributes="member: 71699">Yes, almost all TTRPG contains some world facts that are external to characters. Hence I emphasise the following dichotomy<ol>
<li data-xf-list-type="ol">players author world facts in light of their dramatic intentions for their characters</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ol">players author world facts based only on assumptions about the world itself</li>
</ol>The former has frequently been described as desirable for dramatic or narrativist approaches, the latter prioritises externally or independently &quot;real&quot; world facts that provide a context for the activities of characters. I'm trying to stress here that I don't see this as about who authors those facts.Some posters argue that simulationism is about prioritising referee authorship of world, and from there identify the significant problem that player goals can run into world facts that thwart them. That misses the lusory attitude expected in this mode. The external or independent world facts form part of the lusory means: they're accepted just like the net on a tennis court - an inconvenience that thwarts some otherwise possible actions.Could be the group collectively switching between authorship and player modes, could be game designers, could be the canon created by some other authors, could be historical, could be procedural.I do take this as a misgiving worth addressing. I ask myself in what ways this isn't all about GM aesthetics? One answer is that in some modes it's perfectly acceptable for it to be about GM aesthetics. That's the preferred setup. However, if that is conflated with simulationism then it would deny simulationism to more collaborative play, and I think that's incorrect.I have aimed to avoid making the kinds of claims you're resisting, except under the specific definition I have provided.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="clearstream, post: 9040894, member: 71699"] Yes, almost all TTRPG contains some world facts that are external to characters. Hence I emphasise the following dichotomy [LIST=1] [*]players author world facts in light of their dramatic intentions for their characters [*]players author world facts based only on assumptions about the world itself [/LIST] The former has frequently been described as desirable for dramatic or narrativist approaches, the latter prioritises externally or independently "real" world facts that provide a context for the activities of characters. I'm trying to stress here that I don't see this as about who authors those facts. Some posters argue that simulationism is about prioritising referee authorship of world, and from there identify the significant problem that player goals can run into world facts that thwart them. That misses the lusory attitude expected in this mode. The external or independent world facts form part of the lusory means: they're accepted just like the net on a tennis court - an inconvenience that thwarts some otherwise possible actions. Could be the group collectively switching between authorship and player modes, could be game designers, could be the canon created by some other authors, could be historical, could be procedural. I do take this as a misgiving worth addressing. I ask myself in what ways this isn't all about GM aesthetics? One answer is that in some modes it's perfectly acceptable for it to be about GM aesthetics. That's the preferred setup. However, if that is conflated with simulationism then it would deny simulationism to more collaborative play, and I think that's incorrect. I have aimed to avoid making the kinds of claims you're resisting, except under the specific definition I have provided. [/QUOTE]

Verification