<sigh!>
Gareth :
> P'raps - but that is not the interesting bit,
> the interesting bit is
> the change in the function of the mechanics from "modelling the
> world" to "modelling the character".
Y'know, from a purely _narratological_ POV there is absolutely * no * difference whatsoever between the two (and yes, your non-stop mishandling of the word "narrative" calls for use of my Lit-Snob cap).
The strict difference between the "simulationist" and the "narrativist" approaches is that simulationism treats the game-world as a mechanically static background, whereas a narrativist approach can treat a mountain, a horse, a herd of sheep in the same way as other characters.
In fact, contrary to Gareth's suggestions, it is _simulationism_ that places all of the _focus_ on the characters, whereas _narrativism_ can and does place narrative focus on other story elements as "characters" (using the "broad" narratological definition of the word).
>> The difficulty grokking how Wealth works in HW
>Oh, I grok it just fine, thanks. But how did we get back to
> that topic?
What ?
Narrativist Wars : Episode II : Attack of the Straw Men ???
> And, can you have a narrative without
> characters? No.
Yes !!
Hardly at all in RPGs admittedly ...
But certainly in wargames ! :-)
> In fact, narrative is the exploration of character,
No : Narrative is the description of events as they occur within a framework of time. The scientific description of the formation of a black hole is a narrative with no characters. The abstract description of the functioning of a HW rule is a narrative without characters.
Unsuccessful sessions of RPGs produce narrative without exploration of character.
I might add that the exploration of character has little to do with HW rules discussion. Except in discussions about HW keywords, which * do * have a characterisation purpose ; but you should note that keywords (and Ability names) are not actually narrative functions but descriptive ones.
Except of course that many of these words carry within them the means to unlock our imaginations in certain preordained ways (Hunt, Run, Climb, Fly, Bureaucrat, Warrior, etc), helping (or _causing_ if you are an Evil Chomskyite) the particular kind of fun that there is in a HW game. This isn't a function of HW resolution systems.
In fact, going further down this road
the word Wealth is evocative of money, treasures, Loot, estates,
and other forms of assets and liquidities. If we are to
* narrate * these elements, the abstractions of the Wealth
ability as you interpret it are actually a hindrance to
our understanding what's going on, and therefore constitute
poor narrativism (if we _must_ bandy these
dire analytical terms about).
> and the observation of the
> growth of character as the conflicts which they experience are
> resolved. "who did what to whom and why" is the basis of every
> story. Character interaction is the meat on these bones.
> This game is intended to address story structure directly,
You are essentially telling us that HW doesn't have the wargamey approach of, say, D&D. Or RQ. Wow.
One might be more impressed with your views if you started talking about the "story-telling" approach instead of bandying your rather annoying semi-controlled lit-jargonisms, as straw men to defend ideas that no-one even attacked in the first place !
No, not all stories involve penny-pinching. No, sums of money shouldn't occur in every HW game. No, an improved method for tallying your Wealth in real, game-world,_story_ terms isn't a simulationist approach.
> to embed
> the mechanics in the narrative (character driven) structure rather
> than just in an abstract model of a world in which the characters
> move about. That is what distinguishes it from systems
> primarily modelling a worlds cause-and-effect from a simulationist
> angle.
... And ?
>> Oh, I grok it just fine, thanks. But how did we get back to
>> that topic?
> Because, I started to ask if you were running the game in real-time,
> essentially simulating the life experience of the characters, or in
> a dramatic structure with explicit episodes. It might be that if
> you are using the constant time structure, you are trying to adjust
> wealth to reflect the current cash value of a character and not
> seeing the reset-to-default effect; this was the point about the
> BatCar.
Translated into English : You, Alex, might be an Evil Simulationist.
It might be that there are other reasons for wanting the Wealth rules to reflect the current * Wealth * value of a character, as related to various TNs found elsewhere in the game, so as to enhance one's narra^h^h^h story-telling.
A very important element in story-telling is : Realism.
Unrealistic details damage a narrative.
Bad "simulation" damages an RPG.
Sorry, but these rants against a _non-existent_ "simulationist" approach by some list members are becoming unbearingly tedious.
Julian Lord
Powered by hypermail