> I suggest you actually read the game sometime, if you imagine this
> to be the case. It is not.
Ah yes, the default to accusations of ignorance.
> Of course, one can declare any part of game-play to be a key part
> of the narrative, and hence by choice that a detailed description
> of same isn't "simultationist" at all, but "narrative". Which is
> part of the perversity of the jargon in the first place, when really
> all that's going on is "more or less abstraction".
No. The subject of the abstraction, and the purposes to which it is being put, have changed. Deal with it.
> seem determined to sabotage _any_ usable measure of wealth in game
> world terms, _even if those game world terms are meaningful in and
> useful to the narrative_.
And in what way is it not useful? It should be clear by now that I don;t accept the existence of the "problem" as you and Julian are describing it. I think you;re trying to use a screwdriver as a spade - complaining that "it doesn't work" is pointless.
Powered by hypermail