> Ian you're wrong about Sim. It has nothing to do with emulating the real
> world. Sims concern is fidelity to 'something'. This could be a perceived
> idea of what the real world is like but it could equally well apply to a
> cinematic game of fast paced combat action, Feng Shui for example.
I find the distinction between simulating reality and emulating genre tropes to be significant enough in practice to warrant different terminology. The two approaches require different thought processes when you design rules.While designing Feng Shui (and GUMSHOE) I certainly found it useful to think of them as emulative rather than simulationist. When figuring out how to treat hand grenades, for example, it makes a big difference.
One of the problems of the GNS model is that it tries to mush too many separate design approaches into three molds. We probably need way more terms to describe design approaches, and should be wary about mushing them together. There aren't three styles of filmmaking or painting or music, so why should there only be three approaches to RPG design/play?
On the other hand, questions of terminology can be as obscuring as they are illuminating. Often it's better to zero in on the practical results of various rules choices rather than trying to fit things into neat boxes according to the requirements of ever-shifting terminology. Otherwise you get lost in the short hand.
For example, I find it more useful to say that HQ adjudicates results using the principles of story structure than than to label it a narrativist game. Even though on the surface those two statements seem pretty similar.
Does that distinction make sense to anybody but me?
Take care >>> Robin
Powered by hypermail