Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ratskinner" data-source="post: 6241036" data-attributes="member: 6688937">My personal shorthanded take on how things shook out at the Forge:Gamist: for the sake of the player(s) experiencing the challenge and thrill of victory. &quot;<a href="http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/21/" target="_blank">Step on up</a>&quot;Simulationist: for the sake of the player(s) experiencing how the setting would work. &quot;<a href="http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/15/" target="_blank">The Right to Dream</a>&quot;Narrativist: for the sake of the player(s) experiencing the &quot;authorial&quot; thrill of exploring a dramatic conflict/tension. &quot;<a href="http://www.indie-rpgs.com/_articles/narr_essay.html" target="_blank">Story Now</a>&quot;The links are to the &quot;definitive&quot; articles for each concept. They are not light reading, but aren't like an economics textbook, either. Personally, I think the best way to figure out the differences is to&nbsp; play games that are strongly devised to focus on one or the other.None of the three are technically &quot;opposites&quot; of the others. However, Forgies tend to think that a game that didn't pick one or the other as its base would be &quot;dysfunctional&quot;. I disagree, and have played at least one game that strongly hit two of them simultaneously (Gamist and Narrativist, in this case). I'm fair sure I can envision a Sim-Nar game (with the allowance that the Sim be genre-sim). I think a Gamist-Simulationist game would feel fairly contrived in nature (that is, the setting would need to openly acknowledge the artifacts of gamism creeping into its reality) maybe something like Erfworld could do it.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ratskinner, post: 6241036, member: 6688937"] My personal shorthanded take on how things shook out at the Forge: Gamist: for the sake of the player(s) experiencing the challenge and thrill of victory. "[URL="http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/21/"]Step on up[/URL]" Simulationist: for the sake of the player(s) experiencing how the setting would work. "[URL="http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/15/"]The Right to Dream[/URL]" Narrativist: for the sake of the player(s) experiencing the "authorial" thrill of exploring a dramatic conflict/tension. "[URL="http://www.indie-rpgs.com/_articles/narr_essay.html"]Story Now[/URL]" The links are to the "definitive" articles for each concept. They are [I][U]not[/U][/I] light reading, but aren't like an economics textbook, either. Personally, I think the best way to figure out the differences is to play games that are strongly devised to focus on one or the other. None of the three are technically "opposites" of the others. However, Forgies tend to think that a game that didn't pick one or the other as its base would be "dysfunctional". I disagree, and have played at least one game that strongly hit two of them simultaneously (Gamist and Narrativist, in this case). I'm fair sure I can envision a Sim-Nar game (with the allowance that the Sim be genre-sim). I think a Gamist-Simulationist game would feel fairly contrived in nature (that is, the setting would need to openly acknowledge the artifacts of gamism creeping into its reality) maybe something like Erfworld could do it. [/QUOTE]

Verification