Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 9042982" data-attributes="member: 82106">See, I agree that you do all these things. As I said in my last post, I'm no language policeman to say you can't use 'simulationism' and such words pretty much however you want. Ron Edwards certainly did, as did many people (as I can attest) on alt.rec.games and at Together Net, etc. etc. etc. in the early days (of the 'net, though it was earlyish days for RPGs too). The point where we break, perhaps, is simply at the point where people start telling me that my narrativist play doesn't contain equally consistent and plausible fiction! I'm not simulating anything, and yet here I am at the same point you simulationists are at. What that tells me is that simulation, in a literal formal sense, is not on the table here. Honestly, I think Micah Sweet pretty much nailed it. Stylistically the sort of approach that is generally being touted as simulationist (and where actual simulation is asserted by at least some) has more to do with a sort of 'third person play' where situation and setting (in some order) take almost complete precedence over character. Micah seems to define it in terms of a sort of notion that verisimilitude demands this lack of emphasis on character and thus the very idea of drama. This part is a matter of taste, which you all are welcome to assert as anything you wish of course. So, I don't think our differences actually have much to do with realism/verisimilitude/simulation or whatever you want to call it. I think they have to do with the difference between character as having precedence over setting and situation, or vice versa. Ron Edwards, like it or not, analyzed and diagnosed this entire subject quite effectively nigh onto 20 years ago at this point. I can add very little that he didn't say way back then.</blockquote>

Verification