In simulationism, that's hard -- their agenda is to make a consistent and believable X (where X is a simulated reality, a believable emulation of a genre or world, or whatnot), and they foster it by ? (where the Big Model has a big problem shoehorning Sim into its model in a coherent fashion).
They foster it by agreeing to the operating rules of the emulation, under the interpretation of the referee/emulation designer. That's not hard at all. My empowerment is that the GM has no means or reason to direct my actions.
Look, if I agree to play in one of whswhs's games - and whswhs is an avowed simulationist - then my agenda is to explore the ramifications of a simulated reality. I can keep pushing the boundaries of the world to see how it reacts, and as long as it continues to react in a fashion consistent with the simulated reality, I'm happy. We're both happy, because we're both helping to explore this world and see how it reacts.
As a player I'm totally empowered - if I decide that rather than doing what I'm doing I want to quit my job and become a caravan guard across the desert then I can damn well do that - the GM doesn't have to make the desert exciting enough to challenge my character, he doesn't have to stop me from doing so because it doesn't make narrative sense, and the caravan doesn't have to suddenly be important to the machinations of my evil step-mother and her plans to rule the kingdom because that's what was happening before. He just has to present me with what would rationally be in the desert. That could be glossing over weeks of tedium and exchanging anecdotes with the other guards. It could be getting turned down, or given all the scut work, because I don't have the skills needed to be a caravan guard, if that's what logically happens. But I'm empowered - I can try anything, which might succeed or fail, be incredibly easy or immediately deadly - with no expectation that it will form an interesting STORY. It might just form an interesting LIFE.
I just don't see the argument that Simulation denies player empowerment as holding water. It looks more like this definition of Simulationism was constructed by people who weren't Simulationists and had no interest in talking to them about what they enjoyed in gaming.
Secondary to that, why take an existing, basically functional model and obfuscate it by re-defining all the terms? Was the goal to make communication more difficult?
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2008-04-10 11:27 pm (UTC)They foster it by agreeing to the operating rules of the emulation, under the interpretation of the referee/emulation designer. That's not hard at all. My empowerment is that the GM has no means or reason to direct my actions.
Look, if I agree to play in one of whswhs's games - and whswhs is an avowed simulationist - then my agenda is to explore the ramifications of a simulated reality. I can keep pushing the boundaries of the world to see how it reacts, and as long as it continues to react in a fashion consistent with the simulated reality, I'm happy. We're both happy, because we're both helping to explore this world and see how it reacts.
As a player I'm totally empowered - if I decide that rather than doing what I'm doing I want to quit my job and become a caravan guard across the desert then I can damn well do that - the GM doesn't have to make the desert exciting enough to challenge my character, he doesn't have to stop me from doing so because it doesn't make narrative sense, and the caravan doesn't have to suddenly be important to the machinations of my evil step-mother and her plans to rule the kingdom because that's what was happening before. He just has to present me with what would rationally be in the desert. That could be glossing over weeks of tedium and exchanging anecdotes with the other guards. It could be getting turned down, or given all the scut work, because I don't have the skills needed to be a caravan guard, if that's what logically happens. But I'm empowered - I can try anything, which might succeed or fail, be incredibly easy or immediately deadly - with no expectation that it will form an interesting STORY. It might just form an interesting LIFE.
I just don't see the argument that Simulation denies player empowerment as holding water. It looks more like this definition of Simulationism was constructed by people who weren't Simulationists and had no interest in talking to them about what they enjoyed in gaming.
Secondary to that, why take an existing, basically functional model and obfuscate it by re-defining all the terms? Was the goal to make communication more difficult?