Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 9079718" data-attributes="member: 71699">I'm not making any assumptions in that direction, although I do not see that as terrifically salient. I am thinking of a GM who intends to facilitate simulationist play, responsive to the claim thatIt strikes me that one could take both our sentences to be addressing unwitting GMs from the perspective of designers. I don't see that making any difference, because they need those concepts and they make them non-neutral.Maybe that sentence parses misleadingly? I'm echoing Tuovinen,There could be some obscuring semantics here. I take "internal cause is king" to be a element of a simulationist creative agenda. A related element is its purpose.the bolded words form dividing lines between central technique (the attempt) and driving purpose (anticipated results). Both are part of a creative agenda. Maybe I'm misusing some of those terms? Gaming lexicons are in a state of flux anyway. None of that concerns me too much because what I'm aiming to convey isn't about those semantics.My sense is that Edwards - lacking empathy for simulationism - performed a strong analysis yet was unable to get to the heart of the matter. Or to put it from another perspective, each time I read Edwards "Right to Dream" I find myself feeling that yes, this is all interesting and in many places accurate, but that's it. It leaves me dissatisfied... empty of emotional response and without intellectual fuel. (Contrast with "Story Now" which from about the third read on I found thrilling!)  I read Tuovinen and his analysis resonated, drawing strong emotional response, plenty of head nodding, a great deal of - yes, I recall observing that too, and oh, that's perceptive, I can do some work with that.I should have said "in accord with" as I'm articulating what I take to be the upshot, consciously phrased to mirror yours provocatively. I'm not too concerned if it's not dead-on. It's the forceful resistance and provocation I'm most interested in. However, I found this continuation of Eero's thoughts (in comments) interesting. I'll quote it extensively here as it's rather buried on the original page.This too - by my lights - emphasises that making internal cause is king isn't why simulationists sit down to play.</blockquote>

Verification