[Werewolf] Simulationism: Dreaming is cool, but what's with "The Right"?
David Berg:
Quote from: Ron Edwards on January 04, 2008, 12:16:52 PM
(as well as the original constructive denial threads, which I just reviewed)
Would you mind providing links to these? The only one I know of is "ignoring the subjective" (previously linked in this thread).
Thanks, David
David Berg:
I PMed Ron this:Quote
Okay, cool, I'll try to stay focused on "The Right" in the thread, and not get sidetracked by other Simulationism issues. I have this idea brewing, though, and I'd like to hear your thoughts on it
and, to my surprise, he said my idea would be appropriate to add to this thread. So, here it is:
It seems to me like many players have a disconnect, where they say, "If my game is Sim, and that other guy's game is Sim, then 'Sim' is meaningless, because my group's Creative Agenda doesn't resemble his group's." And I think they are quite right in that there is a key "point of play" that is different; it's just that the difference may not be quite of the CA level.
My idea is that the difference lies between the "inviolable packages", specifically because these packages tell you the point of play. Not just the genre, or the setting, but what we're gonna do that'll be fun. So there are as many different versions of "the basic thing that is fun" as there are "packages".
The only thing these different fun activities have in common is the most basic, fundamental platform of why they're fun. And that "why" is the Right to Dream.
So it's correct to say that "this game is fun cuz it emulates X" or "that game is fun cuz it simulates A+B", but that isn't the whole picture. The whole picture is that "this game is fun cuz we have the Right to Dream an emulation of X" and "that game is fun cuz we have the Right to Dream a simulation of A+B."
I don't know what Narrativists tell each other about why they prefer one functional Nar game over another functional Nar game. But this fomulation of mine would seem to give Simulationists a way to talk about their preferences. "That package just ain't my kinda package," like I said w.r.t. Dead of Night, would be a totally valid statement of incompatibility, without having to include, "that CA ain't my CA."
What do you think?
-David
P.S. It would also make sense to me to take "Right to Dream" + "the 'inviolable package' statement of purpose" and talk about them jointly as an individual game's Creative Agenda. This would then render Simulationism a type of CA; there would be as many distinct Simulationist CAs as there would be "packages". Just throwin' it out there; clearly, my understanding of CA in pure abstraction is fuzzy.
Ron Edwards:
Hi David,
The logistics of posting are starting to conflict with real life, so I'll reserve my answer to the last post for later. Here are the links you asked for:
Simulationism aside - This is the parent thread which begins wonderfully, and then demonstrates a whole bunch of people with "Simulationism" written on their dicks, swinging them about. It's pretty much a "state of the art" thread that represents the painful defined-but-not-yet status of the term that persisted from about 2002 through 2006.
Ignoring the subjective - This is the one you linked to already, where the term arose for the first time.
Constructive denial? - This one begins with a terminological question, and then gets into some really great "say it for myself" posts from a lot of different people. It's where the idea really matured. I composed my replies in this thread in the mistaken assumption that you'd read this, which might explain a bit of the confusion so far.
It's not a lot more, but it's helpful to see it all in context, and that last thread is pretty important, I think.
Here are some applications of the term in the Actual Play forum, in chronological order, not including threads you started:
[Transhuman Space] First attempts at Sim play
[Middle Earth - home-brew] - A first, another group with the same play style!
[D&D-like system] Analyzing play styles
[Vampire 2E Sabbat] Of evil and of Simulationism
Play prep and NPCs
The players' role in Participatory play
I'll be back when I can.
Best, Ron
David Berg:
Take as much time as you need, it won't blunt my enthusiasm. I could probably stand to do more reading and less writing for a bit anyway. (Plus less time overall staring at the goddamn computer.)
Caldis:
Quote from: David Berg on January 04, 2008, 02:53:45 PM
P.S. It would also make sense to me to take "Right to Dream" + "the 'inviolable package' statement of purpose" and talk about them jointly as an individual game's Creative Agenda. This would then render Simulationism a type of CA; there would be as many distinct Simulationist CAs as there would be "packages". Just throwin' it out there; clearly, my understanding of CA in pure abstraction is fuzzy.
This idea sounds very similar to the idea of skewers that I think is pretty much canon.
Here's a link that should help. It's not a huge discussion but the first few posts should help or at least show that you arent out on a limb by yourself. :)
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=12597.0
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page