Again, I thought I was posting too much here, so I drop off my reply here, so it atleast get to stretch its legs somewhere:
I think a philisophical gulf is that real life is “kill a goblin, get a reward”, at its base. Even if it’s just harvesting a crop of plants (or cutting down rainforest, if you want an example that nips at the emotions a bit more). Various media like books and film typically examine what we kill and what for. The thing is, not everyone who watches or reads them set out to think about that. Sometimes the movie or book inspires them to do so, which is great. But they didn’t need to think about it.
I think with roleplay, particularly the story now variety, all participants need to go in with that desire to examine the process of killing for reward, because otherwise it just becomes flat out depiction of “kill a goblin, get a reward” without examination of that process. The more participants who go in without that desire to examine, the more gameplay merely depicts “Kill goblin for reward” than examines it.
The thing is, in a movie or book the author doesn’t have to mechanically fight with other peoples mechanical input, to depict some examination of the process. So he can depict an examination fairly strongly and that often inspires others to examine the process too. If, however, he has limited mechanical resources to do so and other people coming in have no desire to examine the process…
Well, it’s just a hypothesis, but the lack of desire to examine the kill process, will swamp the activity.
Which actually makes me think of how simulationism seemed to take over roleplay, over its history.