thread: 2005-04-25 : Technical Agenda
On 2005-04-27, Vincent wrote:
Victor: Here's where technical simulationism differs from effectivism:
Technical simulationist: "I spent 35 years as a professional locksmith" means more effectiveness in play than "I've jimmied three cars." The player's effectiveness in play corresponds strictly to the character's effectiveness in the fictional setting.
Effectivist: "I spent 35 years as a professional locksmith 1d6" means less effectiveness in play that "I've jimmied three cars 2d8." The player's effectiveness in play is divorced from the character's effectiveness in the fictional world, but refers to it; they may line up with one another, they may not.
Over the Edge is effectivist because your character's trait is worth the same dice whether it's "I'm a former Eagle Scout" or "I'm a super-effective assassin/survival/scout android from 2559."
(Proceduralism then goes one further: the player's effectiveness in play doesn't have anything to do with the character's effectiveness at all. PTA's Screen presence, fan mail - they're wholly the player's.)
Okay, so: "...is there a necessary connection between strictly representional mechanics and insensitivity to the social situation?"
Yes.
Say you decided to make Dogs in the Vineyard into a technical simulationist game. Everything works just the way it already does, except that during character creation everyone is required to give their most fictionally-effective traits high dice and their least fictionally-effective traits low dice. Furthermore they have to check and balance against one another, so that if my most fictionally-effective trait is "I broke horses for five years" and yours is "I broke horses for ten years," I have to put lower dice in it than you.
See how this would be automatically socially destructive?
