Started by David Berg, January 01, 2008, 08:16:04 PM
Quote from: David Berg on November 04, 2006, 09:25:56 PMMatt is the GM; Meg, John, Paul and I are the players. . . .John's character is extreme. He was born and raised as a lizard. He's spent most of his life in the Amazon. Most of his kin hate technology . . . He's played [his character's] views with great passion during discussions with my "death is good" nut and Meg's atheist tech geek.When success is on the line, though, John's decisions are quite predictable -- whatever's most effective. The results follow a pattern illustrated by this example:During a time crunch, he once tried to convey a concept, in-character, by starting with, "You've seen the Matrix, right?" Paul and I instantly gave him odd looks, and Matt yelled, "John!""What, Matt?""Has your character seen the Matrix?""Uh, well, he could have...""When?""Recently. He's been trying to understand his new environment."(Skeptical looks all around.)"Would he understand it even if he did see it?""Oh... probably not. Good point."Sometimes this is followed by a second, more character-appropriate attempt. When it's done well, everyone at the table smiles in approval, and John sometimes throws in something like, "Sorry about the Matrix, I hadn't though it through."On days where someone's mean about calling him on such a discrepancy, or John's not in a good mood, this can go less well. "Matt, you know what I want to explain to the guy, can't we just say my character explains it?!"
Quote from: Ron Edwards on November 13, 2006, 11:45:50 AMSo here's what I mean - if you're in a scenario, then the investigations, conversations, and fights are part of making that basic scenario into the SIS, and resolving it as a feature of an ongoing, developing plot (for lack of a better word). Think of this as "starting large," from the GM's prep, and then you guys all "fill in small" with the characters' actions and their outcome. But then, conversely, those actions and outcomes end up strengthening and making more internal sense out of the big picture, most typically when the GM returns to the prep stage for the next session.In this case, what I'm saying is at first not relevant to GNS, because it's merely the useful interaction which generates an SIS, with a bit of a defined division-of-labor between GM and the rest of the group. No big deal. However, when this is made into the primary, driving aesthetic goal of play, so that the syncretic, responsive attention to the whole SIS' integrity not just a key feature, but actually a goal in action - there you go, that's some Sim for you, baby.
QuoteA great deal of the aesthetic power of Simulationist play, as I see it (and I mean that literally), lies in (a) adding to or developing that package, and (b) enjoying its resiliency against potential violation. At its least extreme, this is pure emulation. At its most extreme, it is parody. In between, you get modifications like "Lovecraft on a starship" or "steampunk fantasy" and so on. In each case, the goals are just as I've stated with (a) and (b).Always remember the (b)! Without it, (a) is merely the chassis for any Creative Agenda.
QuoteAt its least extreme, this is pure emulation. At its most extreme, it is parody.
QuoteHang-up 1: "input-material"?
QuoteI want to run a game where the PCs have a reason to stay together as a group, and that reaosn is going to be that they all want to help, in the way that seems best to them. Helping humans and deities is nice, but the focus is on helping changers
QuoteWe all agreed that (a) our PCs were working together as a group, for some cause greater than individual self-interest, (b) our PCs would initially hold quite disparate metaphysical assumptions
QuoteHow "safe" to play?
QuoteWhat about pushing it 'til it does break?
Quote from: Ron Edwards on January 03, 2008, 01:22:39 PMSo I absolutely must distinguish between Simulationist play as represented by most game design and practice until recently, and Simulationist play as an existing potential activity, in the context of System Does Matter and the Big Model . . . If you look at Frank's posts, bear in mind that . . . he's talking about the latter.
Quoteusing their characters to perform actions ("I try to form the cult!") that create the kind of Situation ("Let's find out what happens!") that pressures the System ("Geez, will we be able to find out what happens?") used for keeping the "inviolable package" safe ("Yep, we were able to find out!