Forum changes: Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.
Started by Frank T, August 31, 2006, 02:15:57 PM
Quote from: Frank T on August 31, 2006, 02:15:57 PMThroughout the five or so sessions that we played, fictional content was amazing. We really dug the atmosphere of 1900 New Orleans, the sense of danger and stress, and furthermost the alluring and disturbing sensation of taking on the role of a really brutal, or, in my case, cruel and remorseless creature. The integrity and power of our shared imagination was clearly the focus of play, with strong emphasis on our characters. The GM was challenging us in all kinds of ways, leading to the abovementioned manifestations of supportive elements of other CAs, but there can be no doubt that our actual CA was crystal clear Simulationism.How did the system tie into that, you ask? Why, we gamed the system for combat effectiveness as well we should (supportive Step On Up, check), however never sacrificing the inner logic of our characters and the game world. The reward system was not really relevant at the mechanical level, but the social reinforcement was so powerful and intact, with so much feedback from player to player going on, that no mechanically enforced reward was really needed.
QuoteThe integrity and power of our shared imagination was clearly the focus of play . . .
QuoteAlso, I really carefully chose that phrase, "the Right to Dream." People always seem to get hung-up on the Dream part, when it's the Right which distinguishes this CA. That was a big disappointment to me in the responses to the essay. Perhaps this clarification of "the Dream" will help people to focus, now, on the Right.As in, "it's my right to have my imagination validated for its own sake" [reflexive]And, "play it right" [transitive]And, "the right [way to look at it] shall prevail" [interpersonal, social]
QuoteWhen the Big Model says "supportive", it means "supportive" as in "necessary", not as in "not getting in the way too much".
QuoteCan you show me an example of play that shows how (not just what) you and your friends added to the "package"?
QuoteCan you show me an example of play that shows a "potential violation" of this package in your game and how you and your friends proved that the package was resilient against violations?
QuoteCan you explain how you celebrated in this resiliency?
QuoteI suspect, when you were doing the thing you're calling Gamist-supportive, that you were really doing classic Sim stuff with regards to System. Recall that the "package" includes all elements of Exploration, including System. I suspect that you were "doing it [System] Right," and not really trying to Step On Up.
QuoteFor a given instance of play, the three modes are exclusive in application. When someone tells me that their role-playing is "all three," what I see from them is this: features of (say) two of the goals appear in concert with, or in service to, the main one, but two or more fully-prioritized goals are not present at the same time. So in the course of Narrativist or Simulationist play, moments or aspects of competition that contribute to the main goal are not Gamism. In the course of Gamist or Simulationist play, moments of thematic commentary that contribute to the main goal are not Narrativism. In the course of Narrativist or Gamist play, moments of attention to plausibility that contribute to the main goal are not Simulationism. The primary and not to be compromised goal is what it is for a given instance of play.
Quotesolid Simulationist play, with moments of strategizing and moments of thematic content that support what's going on