Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 9073911" data-attributes="member: 6696971">I don't know that you're a Purist For System Simulationist (per the essay).  Given my historical exposure to your thoughts on play, I suspect that you're likely a High Concept Simulationist (per the essay) or lean toward the Neotrad classification of the Seven Cultures of Play essay.You can't resolve the mismatch of PFS and N by simply diluting the primacy of Purist For System Simulationism "internal causality-propelled system yielding the experiential quality of exploratory play of setting" as the apex input to play or Narrativism's apex input of "ruthlessly address premise and resolve the rest as you go (retroactively if need be)."  You can't resolve the mismatch by toggling/drifting.  That doesn't resolve the issue of how those agendas and their machinery clash in the process of play (both the cognitive orientation of the participants and the way the game engine's hew to that).  It just puts the GM in the driver's seat of resolving it via system-overwriting "say"...which is a rebuke to the interests of both PFS and N players.Actual Purist For System Simulationists won't have it.  Nor will GDS Simulationists if it harms their challenge-based priorities (who, it appears to me, want their Sim because it indexes and enables a certain brand of Gamist priorities).  Its like trying to resolve casual vs hardcore players in video games or MtG (etc) and the lament over the game-trajectory-impacting dynamics of an emergent meta (how that meta feeds back, or doesn't, into downstream designer tuning and content decisions).It seems to me that you're likely a High Concept Simulationist who is good with GM authority sufficient to dilute system's say (or possibly having so much fundamental GM say in the play loop that the starting position is "diluted system's say") or "discretionally toggle/drift in order to curate play sufficiently to produce desired outputs/arcs/genre emulation" (which this last bit is the apex priority of play).  That won't make PFS or N players happy.Stonetop and DW can surely satisfy a strain of HCS players because they can massage a particular interpretation of integrated textual analysis (muting certain key aspects of the text while taking a sentence here or there to mean a certain thing) to achieve the desired effect of high GM authority over play such that they're meant to discretionally dilute/toggle/drift in order to curate play sufficiently to produce desired outputs/arcs/genre emulation.That is all I have to say on the matter (and all the time I have).</blockquote>

Verification