Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 9081157" data-attributes="member: 71699">Rather than respond to each of these in detail, I'll just suggest reading back through them and asking yourself which are intrinsic to and required by sim, and which are just a list of things some GMs have traditionally done that aren't that satisfying. And which have parallels in every game text (preloading playbooks with distributions of outcomes) or are down to principles that are not welded to any mode (do what system demands).Regarding the unavoidably pejorative - "whatever crap they want to". At the heart of sim-play are constraints on what participants say next. Internal cause is king; that's not some whiney guy in a big house you listen to when you feel like it, that's the ruler who lays down the law. To the extent that play you've observing isn't respecting constraints, it's haphazard in its simulationist ambitions.Somewhere near the outset of this particular excursion, I used contrasts like "the old road to sim" and "the new road to sim" and I said thatI've been observing play and assessing what I'm observing. Sure there is some of what you describe. I don't like it particularly, but it's there. I also see some of what I describe. But let's say you indeed do find yourself in a desert, then read my words as a manifesto signposting the way to water. I'll draw attention to a couple of lessons of particular importance<ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">The ludic-duality (player as simultaneously audience and author). Leveraging this reveals sim-utility in game texts like Ironsworn and (I feel morally certain) Stonetop. It fuels worldbuilder-RPG, and suggests sim games that haven't been designed yet</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">The substantial deconstruction and reconstruction of GM authority. Of course, this was driven by nar, for which it was imperative. None of what has been learned needs to go ignored by sim, and nothing intrinsic to sim necessitates ignoring it. When a group sit down for sim-play, they experience a sim-parallel to "tell me where to punch and I punch there": as players and GM work collaboratively. (Anyone who doesn't think so should ask themselves why not? Especially if they are finding working collaboratively satisfying in other modes of play.) When [USER=13383]@robertsconley[/USER] talks about going where his players lead, I'm seeing this - whether self-reflectively intended or no - in action. (Likely I take it further than he does!)</li> </ol>The refutations to my manifesto that I'm looking for will show me that something about sim makes it inevitable that what I say cannot pave the path of the righteous. No one has shown that. Which brings us back to this, where you startedIn committing to a fixed identity for sim, folk risk allowing outdated constructs to smother a vivid and enduring mode of play. Sim delivers on some of the most fundamental urges of roleplaying - exploration and immersion. (Maven alert: they're not private to sim, and there are other urges.) Through well-constrained, collaborative play, participants achieve elevated appreciation (including emotional) and understanding.</blockquote>

Verification