Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 9071977" data-attributes="member: 71699">I feel you make some excellent points (not quoted, but borne in mind), however I don't find it justified to limit what Tolkien says to just forming a goal. He lays out a theory for why he thinks what he is doing has the effect it has. That theory provides a solid foundation for an applicable technique.I had that concern because you seemed to be saying that X couldn't be a technique for achieving simualtionism because the agenda or purpose of simulationism is Y. That would only be true if system didn't matter, i.e. it was impossible to say that any given technique could matter more or less to a mode of play.You keep returning to what I feel forced to call out as a strawman. I am not arguing that narrativism doesn't value consistency, and my argument that consistency with world-laws can be of special value to simulationism is not refuted by saying that narrativism also aims to produce consistent fiction. What I am arguing is that the terms of that consistency differ.I have said that where internal causes consistently override dramatic concerns, that is more suitable for simulationism than for narrativism. That should be uncontentious as it is a restatement of your second sentence quoted above, unless &quot;relies on no other principle&quot; is not intended to imply consistently doing so. As for what the &quot;internal causes&quot; might be, grasping some as world-laws can be predicted to be effective if Tolkien is right. Ideally discerning what they are and writing them out to give them normative effect.EDIT I just realised that I'm assuming we both would include world-laws among internal causes, or say that the former are a manner of articulating the latter. If that isn't right, then you might have something to say about that!</blockquote>

[QUOTE="clearstream, post: 9071977, member: 71699"] I feel you make some excellent points (not quoted, but borne in mind), however I don't find it justified to limit what Tolkien says to just forming a goal. He lays out a [I]theory[/I] for why he thinks what he is doing has the effect it has. That theory provides a solid foundation for an applicable technique. I had that concern because you seemed to be saying that X couldn't be a technique for achieving simualtionism [I]because [/I]the agenda or purpose of simulationism is Y. That would only be true if system didn't matter, i.e. it was impossible to say that any given technique could matter more or less to a mode of play. You keep returning to what I feel forced to call out as a strawman. I am not arguing that narrativism doesn't value consistency, and my argument that consistency with world-laws can be of special value to simulationism is not refuted by saying that narrativism also aims to produce consistent fiction. What I am arguing is that the terms of that consistency differ. I have said that where internal causes consistently override dramatic concerns, that is more suitable for simulationism than for narrativism. That should be uncontentious as it is a restatement of your second sentence quoted above, unless "relies on no other principle" is not intended to imply consistently doing so. As for what the "internal causes" might be, grasping some as world-laws can be predicted to be effective if Tolkien is right. Ideally discerning what they are and writing them out to give them normative effect. EDIT I just realised that I'm assuming we both would include world-laws among internal causes, or say that the former are a manner of articulating the latter. If that isn't right, then you might have something to say about that! [/QUOTE]

Verification