Forum changes: Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.
Started by Marco, September 09, 2004, 02:23:42 PM
QuoteI'd say that in this case, the person is playing Gamist, but at the risk of some incoherence among the group. As I've said earlier, incoherence does not necessarily mean less fun or no fun.I guess it depends of how they tolerate it. If the "tolerance" you're referring to is friendly, it means that the other people in the group are also acknowledging the imaginary audience's validity to the one player, they just don't really feel part of it. If the "tolerance" is instead a matter of "shit, must put up with Bob" and involves a lot of tuning out and maybe bitching about it when Bob's not there, then the Gamist player is a source of some dysfunction (i.e. not fun).
QuoteIn my way of seeing it, which differs a little from the canonical presentation of the Big Model, Creative Agenda isn't the characteristic of an instance of role-playing that makes it worthwhile (or "fun") for the individual. "Worthwhile for the individual" is too varied and for the most part too hidden to infer or compare. Creative Agenda is the characteristic of an instance of role-playing that makes it social. So any answer to questions about the interaction of role playing with society (whether the immediate society of participants, or some larger group taking on an audience role) should fundamentally involve the play's Creative Agenda.
Quote from: MarcoIf I like front-loaded thematic situations with moderate challenge ... ([jargon snipped) under the virt-social contract) then that's even better.
QuoteI'm not sure hanging a singe CA-label on that is of great value to that use of game theory
Quote from: contracycleTerminology which identifies specific TECHNIQUES, and any sets in which they may occur, has yet to be articulated. The CA theory will necessary be a part of such a terminology, but I see no reason to expect the CA theory to be so universalist by itself nor a that the failure to be this descriptive is a weakness.
Quote from: MarcoYou were (IIRC) the guy who argued that Virtualist play was just definitive bog-standard Simulationism--if that's where CA theory starts us then, yeah, I think a lot of work needs to be done since we don't even agree what a technique is under that framework.
Quote from: MarcoI note that "The Unexepcted" is pretty close to my "Intellectual Engagement" observations about the Sim-CA. I think the benefit that one gets from someone else stirring the pot (so to speak) is intellectual stimulation.