Trying to define S, like G/N, by its relationsip to conflict

[Mike Holmes]

Not buying it. In Sorcerer the player doesn't have any more control over what the conflict is, or what the outcome is than when playing D&D. Oh, he can indicate to the GM what's interesting to him, but that's no different than a player who likes gamism telling the GM what challenges he likes to overcome.

The differences in conflics presented for each of these is in terms of what the player chooses to address. Does he look at a problem and see a premise to answer? Does he see a situation to create through? Or does he see a challenge to overcome personally? I think "control" is a non-issue.

Mike

[Silmenume]

Good stuff - I apologize that I will probably not be able to respond until the 9th as I am going out of town to roleplay for a week.

Have a great 4th everyone!

Aure Entuluva,

Silmenume

[Silmenume]

Hey Mike,

I think you are right.  Control might be more frequently seen in Narrativism, but it certainly is not definitional, and therefore is a non-issue.

[Silmenume]

I'm not sure if this is good netiquette to post twice in a row no a thread, but here goes.

Conflict has a two fold role that I can see so far in Exploring.
[list=1][*]Conflict provides the motor for addressing.
[*]Conflict provides risk which enhances the intensity/vividness of the Exploration process.[/list:o]In Gamism and Narrativism role 1 is the most important and role 2 can vary in importance from low to high.

In Simulationism the order of importance is reversed and this is why Sim tends to feel and play so differently than Gam/Nar.  Thus role 2 of conflict becomes of primary importance in Sim which is to provide risk so as to enhance the intensity/vividness of the Exploration process.  What was listed as 1 now takes on a secondary role and can vary in importance from low to high.

The problem here in Sim, that isn't really as much an issues in G/N is that historically the first role was never understood and the second role was not really understood to be under the tight control of Internal Causality.  I am not speaking of resolution mechanics, but rather conflict/Situation creation, Character revealing play via conflict work.  So what happened?  It was thought the conflict was either not important or well integrated into play so as to consistently foster the Dream.  The more conflict, the greater the likelihood of Dream support.  But the problem of subjecting conflict creation to the strictures of Internal Causality was never supported either.  So conflict was never really used or it was never understood that it moved "story" forward and in a certain direction.  Thus if you are looking for a hardcore Sim game philosophy you needs lots of high risk conflict and it must all be generated according to internal causality norms especially those related to social structures.

That is what conflict's relationship to Simulationism is.

Think not so much in terms of the beeg horseshoe but rather a 2 pronged pitchfork with G/N on the forks and S being the handle with conflict avoidant (yet to be named) play sitting at the base of the U where all three CAs meet.