thread: 2005-04-25 : Technical Agenda
On 2005-04-30, Emily Care wrote:
Technical Simulationist
The rules work on the pretense that they directly represent the fictional stuff. They leave organization of the players' interaction strictly unspoken. (Of course they do organize interaction, but indirectly and often without consideration. I consider this pretense socially destructive.)
What I see in this is that the rules as written are incomplete in a simply technical simulationist system. They require the addition of rules that are often unspoken or are part of the oral culture of rpg: ie gm fiat, gm as social arbiter, parties must "stay together" etc. Social constructs & agreements are made that end up being coersive or socially stunting. The reason for them is to act as crutches for the inadequacies of the rules set.
The simple fact that games may now actually address how players interactions are organized is one of the biggest steps forward that have been taken.
