Forum changes: Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.

Main Menu

'Game', 'simulation' and DitV

Started by droog, October 14, 2005, 01:19:28 PM

Previous topic - Next topic


On a certain forum, Vincent wrote:
QuoteIf you mean a 100% narrativist game to have no game and no simulation, Dogs in the Vineyard surely is not one.

Any chance somebody could expand on this? The way I read it is, yes, DitV does have a game in it (fun dice mechanic) and it does have simulation (though to my understanding it's actually Colour).
AKA Jeff Zahari

Ron Edwards


When these terms are used just to float in space, then they are useless.

Context problem 1: don't get obsessed with whether a game has any Creative Agenda "in" it. You'll wrap yourself up in a wet sheet that way.

Context problem 2: never mind what someone said in an isolated sentence in an isolated thread. That was a dialogue or small discussion. Dipping it out and trying to blow it up into a generalized point is worthless; you're presenting a vague constellation of possible interpretations.

Specific problem 1: "game" can mean any damn thing anyone wants, at any time. If you want it to mean fun dice mechanics, then it does, and you do that in playing DitV. If you want it to mean Gamism (competition, status on the line, Step On Up), then playing DitV tends to be less effective and satisfying for that purpose, compared to many or even most other RPGs. If you want it to mean sex with donkeys, then playing DitV will, to my knowledge, prove very ineffective and unsatisfying for that purpose. If you want it to mean "the sky is blue," then playing DitV will not verify or satisfy this meaning, although the sky is, indeed, blue (cue long discussion over whether DitV is therefore "wrong").

See what I mean? There's no discussion-point here.

Specific problem 2: Exploration is not Simulationism. Exploration, including Color, is absolutely necessary for role-playing as an activity. Simulationism is an aesthetic priority, an agenda. This is a very basic issue in understanding anything in my essays, so it's kind of awful/horrifying to see it mangled here.



I get it. It's as I thought. Thank you.
AKA Jeff Zahari


Yeah. I have no desire to be correcting anybody about Big Model terms in, y'know, a certain forum.

Dogs is great for narrativist play, if you define narrativist play as we do here. Not so great, necessarily, if you define it any other way.

Droog, if you want to discuss it further, awesome, I'm up for that.



Nnnooo... that's all right. I just hope I haven't hurt your sales.
AKA Jeff Zahari


Oh no, I can't even imagine that you did. But this is pretty far from GNS now - I'll see you over there!