Jay says his game is Simulationist. He may be right about that. What I think though, is that in his description of the question of his duty-vs-friendship issue if there's any "deeper" experience to the question of "what do I do here?" it's based on a recognition of human-condition elements present in the SIS in one's self.

This is the same thing that draws us into a drama vs simply a hypothetical.

Silmenume wrote: Hey Marco,

Marco wrote: Well, I agree: I see lots of premises in play there. If a human experience problem gets too complex, when does it become Sim?

When play does not focus on humankind experience problems. Whereas you see Premises, I don’t see any at all. It’s not because the potential does not exist, rather there is no focus upon the various conflicts as a vehicle for a statement beyond the SIS itself. I am not interested, for example, in plumbing the nature of friendship, but rather in the expression or not of it as a quality of that character – which is one of the ways that meaning is imparted upon his relationship to his oaths, Ranger friends, his wife and step son, etc.

To me Narrativist play is where a Premise is (or several are) mindfully a continually/repeatedly “attacked” from many sides to create one “theme.” In Sim the response to a given conflict has many ramifications that must (should) all be considered in that moment in order to mindfully create the increasingly complex web (history) of meaningful interrelationships of the elements being operated on within the SIS. Think of Chris’ toaster or iron examples.

I don't think so.

Analysis of flim and literature tells us that any meaningful connection we experience with the work comes from relating our own experiences to those of the imaginary situation itself. If there's any meaningful connection it's because of that internal relationship.

That's what, AFAIK, Egri meant by Premise. In a novel or play Premise need not be explict, singular, nor "attacked from all angles." It may co-exist with numerous other premises (after all a play, novel, or movie need not have a singular point of interest nor simple cut-and-dried situations all the way through).

I think that a game with no such connection is, in essence, the more shallow experience one gets from watching a movie that one doesn't relate to. If that describes your game, then I agree with you.*

Note: I'm talking about a player experiencing a relationship to an element of the human-condition portrayed in the SIS. This need not be the definition of Narrativist play (which one may decide relies on other critieria, a more singular forcus, structure of the game, player-feedback, etc.)

-Marco
* NOTE: I say this simply because I think the definition of "connection to human-experience issues in the game" simply implies it. If there's nothing you connect to then I think the experience is intellectual or as one relates to a sporting event. Not as one relates to a drama.