Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Balesir" data-source="post: 5612961" data-attributes="member: 27160">Simulation (as a general term) has never been restricted to the "mechanical world".  You can simulate social interactions, worlds with alternative physics and carefully defined "magic"; if "simulationism" was restricted to meaning "simulating the real world" we would need to invent a new word (independent of roleplaying gaming) to mean "simulating some other reality".  The very fact that saying "simulate another reality" makes sense demonstrates that this is not what the word means.Absent this clash of meaning, The Forge (and Ron Edwards, specifically) is free to define a specific meaning, within the general meaning, for discussions pertaining to roleplaying systems on his own site.  Others may find this meaning useful, and provided it is specified as the particular meaning in use, this is valid, also.pemerton has already explained, with admirable brevity, the difference between Narrativism (which he likes) and High Concept Simulationism (which he doesn't).  In the first the 'plot' is created/generated by the players, in the second it is set by the genre and the system and is there to be explored by the players rather than created by them.  Those two cases might look the same to you, but I see the distinction quite clearly.That's a form of simulationism, sure.  So is Mage: the Ascension modelling its marvellously innovative magic system - or Pendragon modelling the Arthurian Age or Call of Cthulhu modelling H.P.Lovecraft's horrific imaginings.And without specifying what the theme of those narratives are going to be.  Every game will generate a narrative, just as every game will have some sort of coherent "world model".  That is one reason why just defining the words "narrativist" and "simulationist" (not to mention "gamist") in the "common meaning" way is not useful for discussion.M:tA is a cool game, but it is in no way "Narrativist" in the Forge sense.  It might be possible to generate some Nar play with it, but the themes of Magick are already set by the game system, they are not amenable to independent exploration.  In other words, it's primarily a Simulationist supporting system.OtE, on the other hand, is amenable to Nar play, I think (having never actually played it, mind).Sigh - that has been addressed so many times it's wearing really thin.Other than that you hate what you think Gamism is about, do you actually have any justification for this?  Good Gamism supporting rules are anything but arbitrary and will both simuate a coherent world and generate a narrative - neither of which make the result either Simulationist or Narrativist nor even mean that it will primarily support those modes.Seriously, if you don't want to bother to understand, fine, but don't just attack what you clearly don't comprehend.I get that you dislike Gamism - or, at least, what you label as Gamism in your own mind - but dismissing what other people enjoy as "what you have before you add something worthwhile" because you don't personally care for it is just rude.</blockquote>

Verification