There’s two more posts in the series. The second one just went up- likely while you were composing this comment. The last one should be up in a few days. “The point” might be a little more clear after those.

Anyway, glad you enjoyed the post! I’m surprised to see this up on Mendel’s Theory Watch blog, since I only wrote it for my own benefit (and some people in my play group), but it’s nice to see that other people find it interesting.

But I’m not sure what the point is.

Both the definitions you give Gamism and Simulationism are inaccurate enough that you aren’t really speaking to the ‘trademarked’ terms. (Trust me, I was on the Forge when ‘the Big Model’ was conceived. Shared Imaginary Space was my idea.) Yet this article is basically trying to describe them. At least superficially.

Beneath that, I see a couple of very, very important points. They become almost completely obscured by GNS terminology justification and even that sounds somewhat apologetic. I would like to see you delve deeper into these points.

The points you are making, in essence, are, ‘can you have fluff without the crunch’ and ‘can you have crunch without the fluff’. You sketch out some needs for crunch in fluff-play; crunch that emulates the verisimilitude of the milieu, but then you say you can’t answer. I think if you get rid of the ‘Simulationist’ label, you could discuss this just fine.

Likewise, you touch upon how fluff gives more interesting context to crunch play (and you don’t really let the label ‘Gamism’ get in your way). In the future, do me and your audience a wonderful thing by just giving us your thoughts without humbling them to Forge theory. (Looking at what you have here, I’m pretty sure you’re bound for a falling out with them eventually, anyway.)

All that aside….

I’d like to add to your ideas about fluff-play needing a bit of crunch by suggesting one of the alternate ways dice work. They create information. How many orcs are there? How far did that fly? Did he drown? You could simply fiat over all of that (what people assume freeform is doing), but you know what?

That all seems arbitrary.

With a bit of crunch you create suspense; you create a mood of the unknown, of things to be ‘looked into’.

Way back in ancient history, Steve Jackson Games release the rules engine for GURPS early (probably to make enough money to print GURPS). This was called ‘Man to Man’; it was basically a combat system sharp enough for arena combat between individuals…and nothing else. Truly crunch without the fluff. It was interesting until you got the hang of it. What did you do after that?

Make up stuff.

You rightly point out that the addition of fluff to a crunch-based game creates interest, intrigue and importance. I would like to see you go farther into this as well. You ideas are new and interesting; don’t hide them behind someone else’s terminology. Misidentifying their work and hiding yours in it does neither of you good. (You aren’t recruiting for them right and you are drowning out your own ideas.)

I look forward to reading your blog and have added it to my feed reader. Keep up the good work!

Fang Langford
Come see my new centralized blog! scattershotgames.com