Forum changes: Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.
Started by Jared A. Sorensen, September 07, 2001, 03:40:00 PM
QuoteOn 2001-09-07 15:40, Jared A. Sorensen wrote:Imagine a beeeg horseshoe.
QuoteAt one end of the U is Gamism.At the other end of the U is Narrativism.Right in the center is our buddy Simulationism.
QuoteWhat does this mean? Well, I never really bought the triangle model of visualizing the whole GNS thingie -- partly because I don't think Simulationism is real.G & N don't mix. Why? Because one is competitive in nature and the other is cooperative. But they are very similar in many other ways (not a straight 1:1 identification with character, ie: Stance, rules used to push play along, etc.).
QuoteNow, moving up and down the horseshoe toward Simulationism, well...it's kinda right there staring at you. You can mix N with S. You can mix G with S. But the closer you get to "S" (the middle) the farther you get away from the "trueness" of the roleplaying game.
QuoteBecause a "pure" Simulationist game is not a roleplaying game. If character and player are indistinguishable,
Quote and there's no goal other than to "keep going," then I don't see how that can be a game.
QuoteThat said, I think the middle of the horseshoe is some kind of theoretical "RPG no-man's land" and that all games fall in between S and one end of the horseshoe.
QuoteThe "game" aspect of simulationism is to create the system.
QuoteOnce that's in place, it runs like some kind of machine and churns out "effects" from that one "cause."
QuoteOn 2001-09-09 16:39, Jared A. Sorensen wrote:And if you want proof or whatever, this is where I wave my arms like a chicken and yell, "Lookit me! I'm posting my opinion on the internet! I'm crazy internet-postin' man! Give me some candy!"
QuoteOn 2001-09-09 15:07, Knight wrote:Because a "pure" Simulationist game is not a roleplaying game.Neither is a pure narrativist or gamist game, IMHO.