Forum changes: Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.
Started by John Kim, December 26, 2003, 05:17:24 AM
Quote from: SilmenumeFor a player who might be described as expressing himself in a Simulationist fashion he might have been motivated by the following -To experience what it is like to live the life a knight fighting against impossible odds.To experience what it's like to save the life of another.To experience what it's like to be in deadly combat. To experience what it means to operate under the bonds of Chivalry, Duty, etc....The Simulationist desires to experience the life of the character, hopefully in a fashion that is exciting and interesting. The interesting thing is that exciting and interesting fashion of experiencing things leads to exciting and interesting stories. The important thing to remember is that the Simulationist does not enter into a game with the number one priority of creating a story; it's just that the game, by virtue of exploring character and situation automatically leads to story creation.
Quote from: There, IThis is an interest in information for its own sake, in discovery, in exploring ideas and places and things.That's what simulationism is like: it's mind-expanding, in that we're learning about something. It might be learning about people, or about places (real or imaginary), or about situations or color or just about anything else.....but if you love learning about something, then that's what the core of the simulationist experience is: learning about something.
Quote from: M. J. YoungJay's emphasis on immersion as a hallmark of simulationism...
Quote from: M. J. YoungTo determine by experimentation whether a knight of that level of ability is a match for a dragon of that design.
Quote from: Ron Edwards"... Hard Core occurs when Gamist play transmogrifies into pure metagame: Exploration becomes minimal or absent, such that System and Social Contract contact one another directly, and, essentially, all the mechanics become metagame mechanics."
Quote from: M. J. YoungTo attempt to test certain strategic and tactical possibilities (weapon choice, choice of ground, and others) to see whether these make a difference in the outcome of such a battle.
Quote from: M. J. YoungIn response to the recognition that a character of this type would in fact risk his life to save a princess from a dragon, even if the player does not have any particular desire to do so.
Quote from: M. J. YoungTo cement a political alliance with the knight's family and that of the princess which will improve the player's opportunities to explore the milieu.
Quote from: SilmenumeThe one hallmark of Simulationist play that I do stand by is the very vital need to maintain the internal causality of the Shared Imagined Space. The corollary to that is that meta-game is kept to a minimum. Other than that, just about anything goes for Simulationist play. It is for this very reason that I believe that Simulationist play is so diverse and rich in experience....Once again you have a meta-game agenda when you speak of the "player's" opportunities. This could either be Narrativist by virtue of making a decision that purposefully opens up story options, or Gamist if the player is seeking to gain some sort of competitive advantage over the other players or the GM. The key here is speaking of the player and not the character, which automatically pulls one out of Simulationist mode of play.So I say again - Simulationism is not synonymous with "immersive," but it is about the desire to experience things while maintaining internal causality as a high priority.
QuoteIn response to the recognition that a character of this type would in fact risk his life to save a princess from a dragon, even if the player does not have any particular desire to do so.
Quote from: John KimImmersionist is a style of play and game design which focusses on in-game causes, reducing the visible impact of non-representational elements like plot points, scene breaks, and narration assignment.
Quote from: Ron EdwardsWell now, I'm all confused.1. John, I do consider internal causality to be the primary definitional concept for Simulationist play. I've expanded it well beyond "physics in the game world," such that it can be applied to, say, character psychology or genre-faithfulness, but the idea remains the same. At least it does in my mind.I cannot for the life of me imagine how you see my definition of Simulationism as differing from yours. "Prioritizing Exploration" and "prioritizing internal causality" are synonyms. What could one prioritize about Exploration per se except its own internal causes, of whatever sort? There isn't anything else.
Quote from: Ron EdwardsWait, wait ...John, here you say in post #1 that Simulationism is all about internal causality. "Yup!" I say. Then you say in post #2 that it doesn't, and that I don't understand.
Quote from: Ron EdwardsRejecting "genre-faithfulness" as a basis for Simulationist play is ipso facto inconsistent with the internal-causality criterion - I don't care how passionate they were about it. All that is "Judean People's Front vs. People's Front of Judea" to me; their individual possessiveness of it (based on internal-causality-of-what) isn't worth much critical attention. And none of it invalidates my point - that you say internal causality is the key to Simulationist play, and so do I. I permit a much broader scope for that principle than the folks you're referencing, that's all.
Quote from: Gordon C. LandisThat the prioritization of internal causality by rgfa-Simulationists excludes certain methods is important - they won't enjoy play that thinks you can prioritizie internal causality by, say, referencing genre. But in GNS terms, that doesn't change the fact that both the rgfa-Sim group and the genre-fidelity group are prioritizing internal causality. They just have different opinions/preferences about what that means and/or how to do it.