thread: 2005-11-10 : Open House: Ask a Frequent Question...
On 2005-11-22, Vincent wrote:
Curly: Given your affinity for Narr, Vincent—I'm wondering if you think ALL Sim 'monks' are on a preposterous path, not worth taking.
I'm not sure I can piece your real question out of your religious metaphor. Best I can, it's something like "do you, Vincent, think that people who knowingly reject thematic play can nevertheless be fulfilled by their roleplaying?"
The answer is that I hope everyone's basically happy.
But press me and I'll get into it with you, so let's pretend you've pressed me:
I have no confidence that you've successfully divorced thematic play from play using some of a certain body of techniques in your head. My concern with your question is that I'll say "sure, people can be fulfilled even if they knowingly reject thematic play" and you'll think I'm talking about director stance or scene framing or formal situation mechanics. You'll be like, "I've knowingly rejected Dogs in the Vineyard, thus I've knowingly rejected thematic play, thus my play is simulationist" - when in fact all you've knowingly rejected is one narrow approach to thematic play, and the thematic-or-not nature of your play is still unestablished.
Show me the people who've rejected thematic play, NOT who've rejected a particular approach to thematic play, and NOT who've rejected a particular way to talk about thematic play, and THEN we can talk about whether they're fulfilled by their roleplaying. I've never seen it, myself - I've never seen anybody have fun roleplaying when they weren't making thematic statements. That they didn't happen to identify what they were doing as "making thematic statements" isn't relevant a'tall.
This makes Curly go "Thanks"
This makes VB go "hey, Curley -"
I realize I've been giving you the bent-nails end of the 2x4, sorry about that. When I say stuff like "no confidence that you've," do your best to read me impersonally, I'm not really talking about you you.
This makes VB go "also, I spell your handle wrong!"
