Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 9074613" data-attributes="member: 6696971">[USER=71699]@clearstream[/USER] Three things:1)&nbsp; I'm not sure what work your &quot;pre-load&quot; is supposed to be doing here, but setting content is 100 % not &quot;Story Before&quot; in Blades' Duskvol or Stonetop's Wider World etc.&nbsp; Outside of a few things that are locked in to serve as broad setting parameters for anchoring premise and establishing color, the overwhelming amount of material is mutable or contingent and employed exclusively for framing thematic conflict around the PC-built or overtly evinced interests of the players.&nbsp; It isn't there to serve as metaplot to hook the players, to distribute as breadcrumbs for player engagement and their delight at later reveals, to filter permissible action declarations, or to manage a prescripted continuity/chain-of-events.&nbsp; These differences are vital and definitive in the bright, bold lines they draw between what they do, what the inverse does, and the sort of play it incentivizes and engenders.2)&nbsp; You're kind of doing what I said above (focusing on a particular statement, and one that is rather nebulous, without integrated textual analysis of everything else).&nbsp; Euro said a lot of things.&nbsp; In that same paragraph there are a a lot of words you could be focusing on.&nbsp; Almost surely, the most important are &quot;Explored for the sake of discovery&quot; and &quot;At some point you stumble upon worthwhile insight, and that’s your reward&quot; and &quot;every time it is about the thing in itself.&quot;Put those three together and that is what Sim-priorities are and how they are differentiated from Narrativist priorities.&nbsp; Players in Narrativist games aren't situated (and certainly should NEVER self-orient) such that they are &quot;exploring &lt;Story Before metaplot or prescriptive setting&gt; for the sake of discovery.&quot;&nbsp; There is no &quot;at some point&quot;...its instead at every moment.&nbsp; &quot;Worthwhile insights &lt;into Story Before metaplot or big reveals or prescriptive setting&gt;&quot; are NOT your &quot;reward.&quot; And not only is it not &quot;every time it is about the thing (Story Before metaplot, the model of the world's physics/backstory/cosmology, breadcrumb/hooks and their conclusions/reveals, the march of prescripted continuity, the touring of canonical/iconic material) in itself;&quot; it is NEVER that.3)&nbsp; Here is a good way to look at how a Narrativist would be oriented toward a game constructed around Cormac McCarthy's The Road vs a Simulationist.&nbsp; The barrier to entry for engaging with the material for a Simulationist for The Road is high.&nbsp; They likely become preoccupied by what the nature of the apocalypse is.&nbsp; What is it?&nbsp; Where and how did it happen?&nbsp; Is this a feasible model of such an apocalypse and the collapse of human civilization?&nbsp; Are these roving bands of creatures bereft of humanity fair models for the byproducts of such a collapse?&nbsp; How long has the father survived like this?&nbsp; Is that even possible?&nbsp; He doesn't look like &quot;a prepper with a plan&quot; and he has no supporting social network...its pretty far-fetched that he would have even survived this long let alone with such a vulnerable boy.&nbsp; Etc etc etc.&nbsp; A Simulationist playing a game of The Road would be interested in all of these things.&nbsp; They would want to explore them.&nbsp; They would be compelled to vet each layer of the setting according to their mental model as a barrier of entry for engaging with the material and avoiding being &quot;jarred&quot; or having their immersionist priorities baffled.&nbsp; Once they feel they've initially vetted each layer sufficiently, they'll engage with the prepped material, they'll pursue the breadcrumbs for the payoff of the various reveals...however, all the while, they'll continue the vetting process of internal causality according to their mental model of &quot;best/most likely fit.&quot;&nbsp; What is &quot;onscreen&quot; better respect a serial orientation to temporal and spatial elements and their accounting.&nbsp; No zooming in and out, no hard framing, no cutting in and out such that what is &quot;onscreen&quot; only serves to focus on very particular content, ask and answer questions related to it, and exclude the rest.A Narrativist game would be focused on exactly what McCarthy focused on and wouldn't waste a second of &quot;distraction&quot; (to Narrativist agenda) on any/all of the questions above.&nbsp; The embedded questions about paternal love, protecting your child from the horrors of existence while preparing them for when they have to manage on their own, and &quot;carrying the fire&quot; (being an exemplar to your child specifically) despite an utterly bleak backdrop of hopeless and depravity are what the game and the participants would focus on.&nbsp; Can you do these things?&nbsp; Can you exemplify these things?&nbsp; Can you endure physically, emotionally, ideologically despite the endless confounders against each that you face?&nbsp; Can you keep your son safe?&nbsp; Will he be prepared when you perish?&nbsp; Is there actually any hope...any semblance of humanity out there left?&nbsp; Will you hold it together long enough for it to matter?&nbsp; Finally, you've been on here long enough to read very posters consistently using laments outlined by &quot;contrived&quot; or &quot;continuity and canon cannot be maintained &lt;without x or played in y way&gt;&quot; or &quot;all conflict/fun all the time = no conflict/fun&quot; or &quot;jarring to my immersion&quot; or &quot;shrodinger's &lt; &gt;?&quot;&nbsp; Those posters are expressing an exclusive Sim orientation to running or playing games (and that should be pretty clear).[HR][/HR]They're two very different ways to orient toward games, to design games, to run games, to play games.&nbsp; They serve different appetites.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Manbearcat, post: 9074613, member: 6696971"] [USER=71699]@clearstream[/USER] Three things: 1) I'm not sure what work your "pre-load" is supposed to be doing here, but setting content is 100 % not "Story Before" in Blades' Duskvol or Stonetop's Wider World etc. Outside of a few things that are locked in to serve as broad setting parameters for anchoring premise and establishing color, the overwhelming amount of material is mutable or contingent and employed exclusively for framing thematic conflict around the PC-built or overtly evinced interests of the players. It isn't there to serve as metaplot to hook the players, to distribute as breadcrumbs for player engagement and their delight at later reveals, to filter permissible action declarations, or to manage a prescripted continuity/chain-of-events. These differences are vital and definitive in the bright, bold lines they draw between what they do, what the inverse does, and the sort of play it incentivizes and engenders. 2) You're kind of doing what I said above (focusing on a particular statement, and one that is rather nebulous, without integrated textual analysis of everything else). Euro said a lot of things. In that same paragraph there are a a lot of words you could be focusing on. Almost surely, the most important are [B]"Explored for the sake of discovery"[/B] and [B]"At some point you stumble upon worthwhile insight, and that’s your reward" [/B]and [B]"every time[/B] [B]it is about the thing in itself."[/B] Put those three together and that is what Sim-priorities are and how they are differentiated from Narrativist priorities. Players in Narrativist games aren't situated (and certainly should NEVER self-orient) such that they are "exploring <Story Before metaplot or prescriptive setting> for the sake of discovery." There is no "at some point"...its instead[I] at every moment[/I]. "Worthwhile insights <into Story Before metaplot or big reveals or prescriptive setting>" are NOT your "reward." And not only is it not "every time it is about the [I]thing [/I](Story Before metaplot, the model of the world's physics/backstory/cosmology, breadcrumb/hooks and their conclusions/reveals, the march of prescripted continuity, the touring of canonical/iconic material) in itself;" it is NEVER that. 3) Here is a good way to look at how a Narrativist would be oriented toward a game constructed around Cormac McCarthy's The Road vs a Simulationist. The barrier to entry for engaging with the material for a Simulationist for The Road is high. They likely become preoccupied by what the nature of the apocalypse is. What is it? Where and how did it happen? Is this a feasible model of such an apocalypse and the collapse of human civilization? Are these roving bands of creatures bereft of humanity fair models for the byproducts of such a collapse? How long has the father survived like this? Is that even possible? He doesn't look like "a prepper with a plan" and he has no supporting social network...its pretty far-fetched that he would have even survived this long let alone with such a vulnerable boy. Etc etc etc. A Simulationist playing a game of The Road would be interested in all of these things. They would want to explore them. They would be compelled to vet each layer of the setting according to their mental model as a barrier of entry for engaging with the material and avoiding being "jarred" or having their immersionist priorities baffled. Once they feel they've initially vetted each layer sufficiently, they'll engage with the prepped material, they'll pursue the breadcrumbs for the payoff of the various reveals...however, all the while, they'll continue the vetting process of internal causality according to their mental model of "best/most likely fit." What is "onscreen" better respect a serial orientation to temporal and spatial elements and their accounting. No zooming in and out, no hard framing, no cutting in and out such that what is "onscreen" only serves to focus on very particular content, ask and answer questions related to it, and exclude the rest. A Narrativist game would be focused on exactly what McCarthy focused on and wouldn't waste a second of "distraction" (to Narrativist agenda) on any/all of the questions above. The embedded questions about paternal love, protecting your child from the horrors of existence while preparing them for when they have to manage on their own, and "carrying the fire" (being an exemplar to your child specifically) despite an utterly bleak backdrop of hopeless and depravity are what the game and the participants would focus on. Can you do these things? Can you exemplify these things? Can you endure physically, emotionally, ideologically despite the endless confounders against each that you face? Can you keep your son safe? Will he be prepared when you perish? Is there actually any hope...any semblance of humanity out there left? Will you hold it together long enough for it to matter? Finally, you've been on here long enough to read very posters consistently using laments outlined by "contrived" or "continuity and canon cannot be maintained <without x or played in y way>" or "all conflict/fun all the time = no conflict/fun" or "jarring to my immersion" or "shrodinger's < >?" Those posters are expressing an exclusive Sim orientation to running or playing games (and that should be pretty clear). [HR][/HR] They're two very different ways to orient toward games, to design games, to run games, to play games. They serve different appetites. [/QUOTE]

Verification