thread: 2009-05-07 : Explaining the Right to Dream
On 2009-05-12, valamir wrote:
I read your formulation of "A Right to Dream" and the don't-deny-me-my-wish-fulfillment angle. And I buy that. That seems a reasonable description of this thing called a "Right to Dream".
Using "Right to Dream" to identify this wish fulfillment activity is certainly a more appropriate label than Simulationism is. And ripping this behavior out of Simulationism where it never belonged makes me happy. That hatchet job of a Right to Dream article which combined this wish fulfillment stuff with legitimate Simulationist stuff willy-nilly still frustrates me to this day.
But here's the problem I'm having. I'm not seeing what you just described here as a Creative Agenda...for much the same reasons that back in the Forge days people came up with ideas like The Beeg Horseshoe because Right to Dream Simulationism didn't seem valid as a Creative Agenda either.
Now that you've distilled Right to Dream down to this core notion of character fulfillment...it strikes me as having even less validity as a Creative Agenda.
So what I'd love for you to be saying is: "let's rip all of this Right to Dream stuff out of the definition of Simulationism and stick it somewhere else as its own thing...so that Simulationism can finally get its due as a fully realized Creative Agenda free of all of this other stuff Ron saddled it with." I'd be cheering at that, because I've been trying to do that for years.
But it doesn't look to me like that's what you're doing.
I'm concerned that what you're actually doing is affirming taking this Right to Dream stuff as the Big Model Creative Agenda...leaving the actual Simulationism parts as a collection of techniques but no longer at the level of Creative Agenda.
If that's the case...I can't buy into that at all.
Can you clarify where this Right to Dream discussion is going...how are you fitting this discussion of "wish fulfillment" back into the Big Model? As a CA...or as something else? or what?
