Get Emotional!

[Le Joueur]

This is what I understand.

Context

I think role-playing gaming is thinking within the context of the narrative; nothing more is necessary.  Anything that fails to have that does not appear to be gaming.  While some things outside of gaming elicit contextual thinking, nothing that is<or even a role-playing game<behind the bar<ought to be back there, they are working within the context of the bar and the fight and the role-playing game<for<as<do<between<simultaneously.  Since I do not believe one can make a priority out of self and the world at the same time, I fail to see how they can be clearly lumped together, one must take a back seat.  This is not to confuse a Simulationist world with Simulationistic consistency, though.  Most losses in consistency result in failed emotional payoffs.

From what I have read, I believe immersive players do not require as much Simulationist detail in the game, so long as it still creates a venue for their character in the absence.  I do

[Ron Edwards]

Fang,

I think the emotional investment you describe is related, or even identical, to what I called "imaginative commitment" earlier, when discussing Exploration.

To review: Exploration is the starting point or act for role-playing. GNS represents applications/foci/goals for the act.

This is not to undercut or refute any of your post, but rather to agree with and reinforce it.

Best,
Ron

[Le Joueur]

Ron Edwards wrote:
I think the emotional investment you describe is related, or even identical, to what I called "imaginative commitment" earlier, when discussing Exploration.

This is not to undercut or refute any of your post, but rather to agree with and reinforce it.