Brian Gleichman posts, in part:
The result was that the Threefold didn't speak to Brett or
myself (and any number of others who came and left over the
years), but it still stole terms we'd like to use for their
original meanings
One of the issues with trying to figure anything out is that one comes
up with new concepts for which there isn't any preexisting
terminology, or comes up with precise definitions for concepts that
were previously fuzzy. One has to use some kind of terminology for
those concepts.
Yes, this often conflicts with other peoples' use of the same words.
That's why, when trying to enter an ongoing discussion on a topic, it
behooves people to understand the definitions that are being used,
first. The term "work" has a very precise definition in physics; if
you want to understand or use physics, where work is defined in terms
of force and distance, it's pointless to insist on using your own
preexisting definition of the term that is married to concepts like
money and labor that have nothing to do with physics.
I disagree that your own or others' definitions of "simulationism" are
any closer to the "original" meaning of the word than the use of the
term with respect to the threefold. For that matter, what you mean by
simulation is almost certainly different from what Brett meant by
simulation. It's better to avoid the term and use other terms that
are less confusing, like "realism" or "accuracy" or "consistency".
I do agree that use of the term "simulationism" has caused confusion,
and I tend to avoid it for that reason. However, I don't agree that
using different terminology can entirely prevent the problem. I
strongly suspect that I would have similar problems with Champions'
use of the the term "world explorer" that you have with
"simulationism" in the threefold. It just happens to be that the
Champions term doesn't step your your toes, so it doesn't bother you.
I've also come to reject the claim that the Threefold was
useful in understanding other styles. Warren has spent what
seems a significant degree of effort understanding mine-
but often notes that he still doesn't.
Understanding isn't a binary thing. I believe I understand your
gaming style, including its gamist elements, much better than I did
when you first showed up in the newsgroup. However, I think there are
things that I still don't understand fully and would like to
understand better. Likely that will always be the case, no matter how
much I do come to understand.
I'd also note that the elements of your gaming style that I'm most
interested in now have, I suspect, little to do with gamism. It
strikes me, for example, that your concept of what a paladin should be
is orthogonal to the issues that the threefold addresses. In fact,
that's one of the reasons I'm interested in exploring it: it seems to
be a game style issue that has nothing to do with the threefold.
Warren J. Dew
|
