Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="robertsconley" data-source="post: 9043810" data-attributes="member: 13383">I can make a film drama about a medieval life.I can write a novel dramatizing medieval life.I can create a wargame depicting medieval life.Or a board game that focuses on nonviolent aspects of medieval life.Or a computer game that has about living a life of a character in medieval times.All these and more draw on the same wellspring of knowledge of medieval. They can be criticized, praised, and debated about how accurate they are and how entertaining their take is. When done well they can all immerse the participants and leave them with a sense of verisimilitude. But each of them has a different way of doing this due to how they work as entertainment as a result each has their own experience, strengths, and weaknesses. In RPGS, simulationism accomplishes the above by having the referee create a setting, and the players experience it as their characters. But crucially they can only interact with the setting as their character and from the character's PoV. The players do not have any out-of-game mechanics or procedures that they can use to impact the campaign. The referee is the only participant with complete knowledge of what is going on in the setting. The players know what their characters know.When done well the ensuing fog of war adds to the sense of verisimilitude and immersion of being in a world that has a life of its own. The fact the mechanics are focused on how life works in the setting creates confidence that things can be discovered. Which makes the players feel their choices and plans have meaning.This is not the same technique that Burning Wheel, Prince Valiant, and other similar types of RPGs use. As a result is it a different experience despite drawing from the same pool of knowledge for the setting. Finally as I said several times before what I do is a way doing this stuff. Not the only way.</blockquote>

Verification