Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 9072634" data-attributes="member: 42582">I find this a difficult sentence.X is suitable for simulationism or X is suitable for narrativism seems like a sentence-schema in which X ranges over processes of play, including (but probably not limited to) particular techniques taken on by the various participant roles.Whereas internal causes consistently override dramatic concerns looks like a description of - outcomes of decisions? outcomes of play? anyway, some sort of outcome or result. Hence it doesn't seem to be a suitable value of X.Narrativist play relies upon procedures of play, and techniques deployed by participants, that permit and even oblige thematic concerns to come to the fore and to bear upon outcomes.Simulationist play relies upon procedures of play, and techniques deployed by participants, that generate outcomes by reference to internal cause. Those internal causes might be understood to be the movement of physical objects through small regions of space - these are the &quot;kinetic&quot; causes that are represented in the combat systems of RPGs like RM or RQ; or might be understood to be thematically-laden considerations like Dragonlance's &quot;three laws&quot; or D&amp;D's alignment framework; or might be understood to be some set of social and political process the GM has worked out ahead of time, which perhaps would reveal theme when all laid out, as is common in many &quot;event&quot;-based modules.However the internal causes are understood, the procedures and techniques of play that are adopted will ensure that outcomes are generated by reference to them.We can see from this that &quot;internal causes consistently override dramatic concerns&quot; is not a generally true description of simulationinst play - eg its not true of the DL modules, or of &quot;big reveal&quot;-oriented &quot;event&quot;-based play. It may be true of some simulationist play - broadly speaking, what Edwards calls &quot;purist for system&quot;.And we can also see that there is nothing about simulationist compared to narrativist play that makes it more likely that &quot;world laws&quot; will manifest themselves or be identified or be relied upon. Think about the role of Dwarven Greed, or Elven Grief, or Dark Elven Spite, in Burning Wheel - these are mechanical elements of PC build that manifest &quot;world laws&quot; very close to those found in JRRT's work (and not by coincidence - they are the most Tolkienesque presentations of Dwarves and Elves that I know of in any RPG). But they are fundamental to the narrativist play of BW.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 9072634, member: 42582"] I find this a difficult sentence. [I]X is suitable for simulationism[/I] or [I]X is suitable for narrativism[/I] seems like a sentence-schema in which [I]X[/I] ranges over processes of play, including (but probably not limited to) particular techniques taken on by the various participant roles. Whereas [I]internal causes consistently override dramatic concerns[/I] looks like a description of - outcomes of decisions? outcomes of play? anyway, some sort of outcome or result. Hence it doesn't seem to be a suitable value of [I]X[/I]. Narrativist play relies upon procedures of play, and techniques deployed by participants, that permit and even oblige thematic concerns to come to the fore and to bear upon outcomes. Simulationist play relies upon procedures of play, and techniques deployed by participants, that generate outcomes by reference to [I]internal cause[/I]. Those internal causes might be understood to be the movement of physical objects through small regions of space - these are the "kinetic" causes that are represented in the combat systems of RPGs like RM or RQ; or might be understood to be thematically-laden considerations like Dragonlance's "three laws" or D&D's alignment framework; or might be understood to be some set of social and political process the GM has worked out ahead of time, which perhaps would reveal theme when all laid out, as is common in many "event"-based modules. However the internal causes are understood, the procedures and techniques of play that are adopted will ensure that outcomes are generated by reference to them. We can see from this that "internal causes consistently override dramatic concerns" is not a generally true description of simulationinst play - eg its not true of the DL modules, or of "big reveal"-oriented "event"-based play. It may be true of some simulationist play - broadly speaking, what Edwards calls "purist for system". And we can also see that there is nothing about simulationist compared to narrativist play that makes it more likely that "world laws" will manifest themselves or be identified or be relied upon. Think about the role of Dwarven Greed, or Elven Grief, or Dark Elven Spite, in Burning Wheel - these are mechanical elements of PC build that manifest "world laws" very close to those found in JRRT's work (and not by coincidence - they are the most Tolkienesque presentations of Dwarves and Elves that I know of in any RPG). But they are fundamental to the narrativist play of BW. [/QUOTE]

Verification