The meta post concerns this question: Can I understand the 'right to dream' by choices central to the agenda?
The question is on hold for being too broad. I really don't see why this is the case, as I explicitly say what kind of answer would be good and provide examples, which are not very verbose.
A good answer provides an example of right to dream / GNS simulationist agenda and the central creative contributions/choices therein, or argues why providing such is not possible (and hence why this interpretation of creative agenda concept is flawed).
Earlier, I give examples of central creative contributions. One of them, quoted here for reference:
Tactical figure chess; the system might be for example D&D 4: The central choices are the actions you take in tactical play - where you move, what powers you use, etc. The central choices are framed by character build, fictional events in play, and previous tactical choices. The consequences of the tactical choices clearly show up in play and reveal whether the choices were good or not.
An answer of similar nature, but related to a right to dream agenda (princess play, for example, but any sim agenda is equally acceptable), would likely be of similar length and an acceptable answer. A better answer would consist of a couple of such examples.
Alternatively, an explanation why this is not possible would also be an answer. It would likely be a longer one, though I don't know how long. A brief argument should be manageable in the format of this site, I think.
How and why is this question too broad?
Someone also voted to close as unclear. As should surprise nobody, I also don't see this.
The structure of the question is as follows:
- I give a way of understanding a theoretical concept.
- I state that I can understand A and B very well in this way. Can C also be understood in this way?
- I give examples A1, A2, A3 and B1 that apply this way of understanding the concept to A and B.
- Can this be done for C also?
I also edited in part 2', which includes the common definition of the concept in question.