> 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.
Or wealth. Or relationships. Or Magical Items of Great Power.
> Yes !!
>
> Hardly at all in RPGs admittedly ...
>
> But certainly in wargames ! :-)
Point conceded - I should have said "story". A Narrativist RPG design is intended to promote and assist the development of story. A simulationist design is intended to model the subject world.
As you correctly point out, there can be narrative without characters, but there can be no story.
> Unsuccessful sessions of RPGs produce narrative without exploration
> of character.
Right.
>
> 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
Wealth is such a keyword. Selecteable? No, but thats what it is.
> of fun that there is in a HW game. This isn't a function of
> HW resolution systems.
It is not a function of the RESOLUTION mechanics, no. It is a function of which aspects the designers embodied in the mechanics. The use of fuzzy references and the like is deliberate, not accidental.
>
> 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).
No. Whats "going on" is a change of the characters wealth rating as implemented by GM or player. What happens in the game world is the detail you use to rationalise the change. Therefore, trying to build a method which starts with the game world as the point of departure and procedes to define a character attribute is going backwards against the system design.
> No, sums of money shouldn't occur in every HW game.
?? I have no objection to such.
> No, an improved method for tallying your Wealth in real, game-world,
> _story_ terms isn't a simulationist approach.
In STORY terms characters get richer or poorer, as dictated by changes to their Wealth attribute; thats what the rating tracks.
> Translated into English : You, Alex, might be an Evil Simulationist.
OK, enough with the insults. My playing style is primarily Gamist- I am not casting aspersions at simulationism at all and I would thank you to stop attributing such straw men to me. But I'm also smart enough tyo recognise that just becuase I like apple pie does not turn a cornish pastie into an apple pie. Simulationism is a laudable and worthy goal, but then you are using the wrong system to achieve that goal.
> 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.
I think you mean "to aid description". Nonetheless, the point remains that the wealth attribute DOES reflect the current wealth of the character, in exactly the same way that the characters Close Combat reflects their current skill.
By analogy, you would also need more detail to understand what the characters skill is composed of; how much training they had, how much is force and how much finesse. Whether they are atll or short, muscular or skiyy, whether they are a bold, aggressive fighter or a sneaky defensive one. But in practice, these are unnecessary - this detail will be provided by the player, in fact MUST be provided by the player - during actual combat, as the player, yes narrates, their actrions and behavioour. You DO NOT need to have a list of causes which produce game mechcanical effects; we need a list of effects which have many different potential game-world causes.
> A very important element in story-telling is : Realism.
If you so choose.
> Unrealistic details damage a narrative.
OK. But so far, we have text published on the mentality of the heortlings, their religion and whatnot, and little or nothing about the physcial existance of heortlings, in terms of clans on the ground, how many cattle they have, what their populations are, etc. Don't you think you should wait for these to be published before you start complaining that there is insufficient detail? The mechanic is NOT broken - the mechnic is universal and needs to be able to record different types of wealth in different societies; it MUST be abstracted from the physical composition of wealth in any given culture.
> Sorry, but these rants against a _non-existent_ "simulationist"
> approach by some list members are becoming unbearingly tedious.
And yet you persist into trying to go from cause > effect, directly opposed to the way the rest of the system works. Why?
Powered by hypermail