The Forge Archives

Roleplay is about us, the players, making decisions.  In Gamism its what Challenges are to be met and then addressed in what fashion.  In Narrativism it's what Premises are to be created and then addressed in what fashion.  In both cases there is a metagame decision being made as to what we as players are going to engage with.  Once we have decided what we are engaging with we put the decision into action in the SIS.  Now these decisions about what we are going to engage with do not have to be overt, it can be those elements of the Situation that just catch our interest and we decide to start interacting with.  These, what am I interested in addressing question can also be overt and even discussed out loud, the point is that there is a decision being made beyond what GNS mode am I interested in playing that takes place outside of the SIS.  As was lamented indirectly in a number of earlier threads, its not enough to say that a Gamist player is interested in Challenge and then present any ol' Challenge and expect said player to engage.  So we understand that said player doesn't have just a generic interest in Challenge generally, but has an interest in certain types of Challenge.  IOW a Gamist player has an interest in engaging in certain forms of Challenge and games can be designed that address all different form of Gamist interests.  However all these games, in all their forms, still at the root do focus on Challenge and that is what makes them Gamist in design – actual play usage withstanding.  The same general tenants can be applied to Narrativism and its focus.

Having said all that, the question I come to ask is what is the focus of Sim, i.e., how does it address Situation.  Simulationism is fundamentally different from G/N in that both aspects of Character must always be (paradigmatically speaking) employed inviolate.  In Narrativism Character/corpus need not necessarily be present for the player to address Situation in a way that addresses Premise IOW corpus can be disentangled from Situation yet the player can still address Situation for the purposes of addressing Premise.  In Gamism Character/persona can be disentangled from Situation and the player can still effectively address Situation for the purposes of addressing Challenge.  Obviously this will not always happen, nor must it happen, but what it does mean is that maintaining the integrity of the Character corpus/persona unity is not the metagame priority in G/N.  Maintaining the integrity of the address of Challenge or Premise is the metagame priority.  

I posit that in Sim maintaining the integrity of the Character corpus/persona is a metagame priority for the purpose of addressing Situation.  The question becomes, what does that mean exactly and what are the implications?  For example, in all Gamist designed games we know that its about Challenge – its just a matter of how and what form is emphasized and served up.  The same with Nar – how do we facilitate the address of Premise and what form will that take?  In what forms do the metagame interests of Simulationist players take shape?  Even though the limiting factor of Sim is ostensibly entirely in game, i.e., Character, unlike G/N which are by definition driven entirely outside the SIS, I posit that Simulationists also approach Situation with a metagame interest driving as well.  

What is that metagame drive?  Is it to live the Dream?  Is it to experience the Dream?  If so, what does living or experiencing the Dream mean? How can this be facilitated by design or approach?  If it is living the Dream, then I would say that it is made manifest by living the decisions and experiencing the things that a Character in that given Situation would face.  I am not speaking of "Immersion" nor do I wish any conversation about "Immersion" please, it is irrelevant.  A player need not identify with their Character, but if said player finds no resonance with their Character I find that to be nearing a rather paradoxical Situation.  For a player not to be interested in their Character as a Simulationist is equivalent to not being interested in the Challenge as a Gamist or the Premise as a Narrativist.  Again here things are a little different in Sim– it is not enough for a player to have an interest in their Character but they must also have an interest in the Situation as well, and in a manner that should line up with the Character's interest as well.  There is a triangle of interest in Sim (Player interest in Character, Player interest in Situation, and Character interest in Situation (justification)) that is different from Gamism/Narrativism (Player interest in Challenge/Premise, Player interest in the specific Situation, but Character justification is not a priority).

Is it Discovery?  What are we finding?  I do not believe it is Discovery alone, but rather the intricate dance between the immediate act of creation and the act of discovery following.  I do believe that Discovery is a much more important drive in Sim than in Gam/Nar, but I do not believe it is the end all be all.  As roleplay is the act of creating, creating facts into the SIS, there must be a strong drive to create as well.  By create I mean all forms of create which, among many other things, I would include creating strategies to address Challenge, creating moments to Premise, as well as creating responses that reveals Deep Character.  How much one enjoys creating as opposed to Discovery varies from player to player, but I do not think that Discovery defines Sim, however it is more important than in G/N.  Never the less, is it something that needs to be facilitated?

If form follows function, and the form of Sim is Character persona/corpus unity what are the implications (functions) of that?

In short – what is the Metagame of Sim and how can it be facilitated?  Many of the same kinds of metagame issues arise in Sim as they do in Gam/Nar, but historically they have either been ignored and then dealt with in an ad hoc manner or have be tried to be stamped out of existence leading to all sorts of problems.  While the goals of Sim might be to make the Dream as pervasive as possible during play, thus creating a belief that all metagame issues must be banished, I believe in many healthy Sim games that the metagame is handled in game, or conversely just moved to the bookends of the game itself.  I also think that the ignoring or marginalizing of metagame is a TRAGIC mistake of Sim as practiced and preached historically and has done enormous harm to the mode.

Some thoughts and questions.

Aure Entaluva,

Silmenume.

Of all the three modes as defined simulationism is the only one not marked as being a retreat.  Gamism is a retreat from stepping up to any challenges that matter.  The display of guts and strategy necessary to defeat an imaginary dragon?  Compare it to judo, sunday-morning football, chess, going on who wants to be a millionaire, playing poker for pocket change.  Gamism revolves around very low stakes indeed.  Narrativism is the same.  Don't have the guts to talk about relationship-issues with your friends?  Play Sorceror.  You don't even have to be aware of the premise stuff you're "addressing" everything can happen on a nice safe covert level.

Within the model, simulationists are the only people engaged in the act of roleplaying for it's own sake.  If you commit to imaginatively exploring hobbiton and the experience sucks in and of itself, then you just wasted an afternoon.  That's three hours you don't get back, dude.  Doesn't matter how many xp you nabbed or what troubling human issues you tackled if hobbiton fell flat as an area of exploration then you and your group suck.

Simulationism doesn't have a metagame goal, thank god.  If it did there would be no room in the model for people who actually enjoy exploration.  People who don't have the balls to step onto a judo mat to find out if they have any strategy and guts, people who don't have the balls to say to their girlfriend, I not sure impressing my friends with how pretty you are is enough to put up with your sarcastic comments, those guys can play G and N.  People who enjoy exploration for it's own sake are lucky enough to play S.

[for the sake of clarity before someone rushes to fast to the reply button I'm going to close with a note that I don't think G and N are a waste of anyones time - no one, I repeat no one, is being attacked here - I've just adopted an extreme position in order to emphasise the central point that simulationists roleplay for love of the game, not for love of the metagame]

QuoteIs it to experience the Dream?

I wouldn't call it a dream, but it's to feel that the imagined world has an independent reality of sorts of it's own. Not to "know" that it does, for it doesn't. But just to feel that it does.

To get this, other metagame priorities can't rear up visibly in such a way as to indicate that the world isn't independent. It's the independence that's important. If the world gets linked back to the real world, then it suddenly feels just an arttifact of play - it no longer feels independently real.

Of course some people would say that this is the I-word that I'm describing...

Mike

I played a game in January where about an hour and a half of game play focused on a meal I ate. I got my (sorry, Calithena's) young protege, from an isolated island on the edge of the world, to try various dishes she had never experienced before. I discussed getting a ship built with a local shipbuilder, since the one I had shown up on was wrought from shark-hide and whalebone, and I had a long sea voyage in front of me.

That was the 'heavy role-playing' part of the hour and a half, about twenty minutes of it. Most of the rest went like this: Del would describe a dish, how it was put together, how it tasted. I would mentally savor it and add certain details, or ask him questions about how it compared to real-world dishes or other dishes that I (sorry, Calithena) has sampled in his game-world. I would 'eat' them, and then the indigenes would bring out another platter of their cuisine for my delectation.

I can still smell that slow-roasted pork we tried after the fish, which of course I never smelled at all, sitting here at my computer four months later, and taste the raisin-rum drink in the stone cups, and remember the expanse of tropical ocean unfolding before me as I emptied a bowl of the local hashish after the long dinner was finally concluded. In fact, I'll probably take those memories with me to my grave.

So there's my answer to the question.

Sean, you rule.

Quote from: Mike HolmesIf the world gets linked back to the real world, then it suddenly feels just an arttifact of play - it no longer feels independently real.

What about high concept sim? Think of the campaign Neel described (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?p=118729#118729) recently where his play group had watched hk-action everyday for a week running prior to game, where everyone embodied the genre to the hilt and flowed together.  Unless they were playing narrativist unbeknownst to me (which is entirely possible) there was a strong connection between ingame and metagame texts, that enhanced the sim experience, instead of detracting from it.

I think this is a running disconnect between how you and I look at it, Mike. It think we're just seeing different sides of the same coin.  Looking back on my own light-bulb moment (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=5479) about the sim metagame and comparing your (slightly less long ago) discussions  (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?p=69240#69240).

However, Jay, you seem to be saying that character integrity and justification of actions based on "character" motivations is definitive of sim play--that may be a bit to limited, as Sean's example shows.  If you loop it back to in-game consistency, then you've got Mike's ideas( of a year ago anyway) in a nutshell.  

--Emily

Hi Emily!

I will comment on the other posts when I've more time to reply, but this one I can do quickly.

Quote from: Emily CareHowever, Jay, you seem to be saying that character integrity and justification of actions based on "character" motivations is definitive of sim play--that may be a bit to limited, as Sean's example shows.  If you loop it back to in-game consistency, then you've got Mike's ideas( of a year ago anyway) in a nutshell.

The problem may be a vocabulary usage on my point, but I don't think my assertions exclude Mike's ideas as you've indicated them.  The idea of a metagame does allow for the elements that Sean spoke about in his post, or at least I am not making any attempt to exclude them.  In fact I am saying that metagame elements like Sean's are as much a part of Sim, and are actually part of the driving force, as much as the metagame of Challenges is to Gamism.

By Character motivation I am making reference to "in-game" consistency - consistency of Character.  Note that I indicated that "character" motivations are not the sole motivator, but rather that player actions in game need to be justified in one form or another via Character motivation.  Whether that be retconning or by limiting actions ahead of time, justification is a process of attending to "in-game" consistency.  The justification process can be completely transparent or not, but I do believe that justification/"in-game" consistency of Character corpus/persona is a hallmark of Sim, but not the only one.  It is a hallmark in the same what Challenge is a hallmark of Gamism and Premise is of Narrativism.  Or at least that is thesis I am putting on the table for examination.

Note - I am not saying that Character motivation is what drives play.  Rather I am saying Character motivation is what limits the address of Situation in the same way that Challenge limits the address of Situation the same way Premise limits the address of Situation.

What I am saying is that Sim players have a metagame goal, like Gamists and Narrativists which both drives and limits play.  Sim players play for a reason - what is that reason?  How is that reason to play made mainfest in play?  How can we make ourselves aware of that reason as DM's?  How can mechanics be employed/created to facilitate this metagame goal?

By integrity of character I mean continuing to limit oneself in the same way the Gamists limit themselves in the address of Challenge.  If Gamists this break in integrity in addressing Challenge is a dysfunction known as cheating.  In Narrativism this break in integrity in addressing Premise results in flawed or nonsensical play.  I don't know if there is such as thing as cheating in Narrativism per say, but if a player crumbles under the weight of the Premise and punts by avoiding it all together I would suspect there would be some hard feelings at the table.  So I extend this analogy to Sim via Character integrity.  Whatever difficulties we run into, i.e., Situation, we are expected to limit our response to a situation, that challenges us as creators, to come up with a response that is both novel yet constrained by character integrity (corpus/persona)/in-game consistency.

Aure Entaluva,

Silmenume

Quote from: Silmenume
What I am saying is that Sim players have a metagame goal, like Gamists and Narrativists which both drives and limits play.  Sim players play for a reason - what is that reason?  How is that reason to play made mainfest in play?  How can we make ourselves aware of that reason as DM's?  How can mechanics be employed/created to facilitate this metagame goal?

I believe the metagame goal of Sim is escapism, to leave this world behind and explore other situations and settings that one would never have the chance to explore in reality.  Narrativism uses the game to make a comment on the real world, gamism uses it as a test of tactical and strategic ability that exists beyond the game, but sim is an escape from the real world.  It's goal is to provide an experience that is different from reality but consistent enough with it to feel real.

I dont think that published systems have had any problem providing this and that sim has been served fairly well by the major game publishers. There are a plethora of interesting gaming worlds out there which provide plenty of setting material, I will admit they have glossed over situation leaving that up to the individual players (GM) to create for themselves.

Not surprisingly, I disagree, Jay. I think you are again commiting synecdoche--confounding the part for the whole, the example for the category.

Character is not sacred nor central in simulationism.

Don't misunderstand me. I agree that the vast majority of simulationist play revolves around character. If you accept that Multiverser is a simulationist game, it clearly revolves around character--the player characters are the only thread that ties world to world, as everything else, including the system, changes around them. I agree that character can be the anchor in simulationism.

I disagree that it must be the anchor. I think you can have absolutely simulationist role playing games in which each player plays a nation, or an ideal, or an emotion, or a military unit.

I think your insistence that character is the lynchpin of simulationism is very limiting to the concept.

Quote from: Thus when youFor a player not to be interested in their Character as a Simulationist is equivalent to not being interested in the Challenge as a Gamist or the Premise as a Narrativist.

I find I must disagree with this.

There have been people who have argued that narrativism, in particular, was all about character; that was wrong. In short, for a player not to be interested in their character as a simulationist is equivalent to not being interested in character as a gamist or in character as a narrativist.

The simulationist is interested in learning, in knowledge, in discovery; he is driven by curiosity. Just as most narrativists address premise through character, most simulationists approach discovery through character. I have argued elsewhere, however, that both may be done in pawn stance. It is actually easier to do simulationism in pawn stance than to do narrativism in pawn stance; there is a sense in which it is difficult for the premise to matter to the players if it does not matter to the characters, but there is no sense in which information that matters to the players has to matter to the characters. We can play with a simulationist agendum aimed at discovering much about the setting, the situation, the system, even the color, without our characters being more than audio-video probes through which we view these.

Certainly creation is part of it; but creation is itself part of discovery--even those of us who create are discovering as we do so, learning what the world of our imagination could contain. Discovery is not passive, any more than addressing premise or meeting challenge. It can be creative.

Quote from: Later, youWhat I am saying is that Sim players have a metagame goal, like Gamists and Narrativists which both drives and limits play. Sim players play for a reason - what is that reason? How is that reason to play made mainfest in play? How can we make ourselves aware of that reason as DM's? How can mechanics be employed/created to facilitate this metagame goal?

I agree that there is a metagame goal in simulationism; that goal is to discover. It may be to discover through character experience. It may be to discover through intellectual inquiry, completely divorced from character experience.

Your repeated emphasis on the place of character in simulationism is a red herring. Character is one of the five elements of exploration; all creative agenda explore all five elements, and all have within them significant variation in the importance of each in exploratory terms from one game to another, one group to the next, one set of preferences to a second.

Yes, character is often very important in simulationism. However, sometimes it approaches insignificance--just as it does in the other agenda.

--M. J. Young

I agree with MJ, no surprise.

Think of it this way - I get the same kick out of playing a country in some wargame simulations that I get in sim RPGs. I don't even have to play a character at all. All that has to happen is that I get a sense of the things simulated having an "objective" existence (again, not an actual objective existence, but a feeling that there is one). That we're putting the theoretical objective existence before any other secondary priority. Privileging it.

It may be harder for some to do this without acting through a character, but that's just a sub-preference, as MJ points out.

Mike

I would like to thank everyone who took the time to make a considered response.  This topic is something that is dear to me and everything everyone has to say is deeply valued – so THANKS!

Quote from: Various posters above

Quote from: Ian CharvillIf you commit to imaginatively exploring hobbiton and the experience sucks in and of itself, then you just wasted an afternoon.

Quote from: Mike Holmes

QuoteIs it to experience the Dream?

I wouldn't call it a dream, but it's to feel that the imagined world has an independent reality of sorts of it's own. Not to "know" that it does, for it doesn't. But just to feel that it does.

Quote from: Sean...Del would describe a dish...how it tasted. I would mentally savor it ...
then the indigenes would bring out another platter of their cuisine for my delectation...
I can still smell that slow-roasted pork ... and taste the raisin-rum drink in the stone cups...
I'll probably take those memories with me to my grave.

Quote from: CaldisIt's goal is to provide an experience that is different from reality but consistent enough with it to feel real.

All emphasis, bold and italic, are mine - Silmenume

While the sample here is obviously unscientifically small, all the above indicated that experiencing an artificial reality of one sort or another as the reason to play or the source of pleasure derived from playing.

Hey Ian.  I believe the example you gave was a metagame goal.  That goal was to have a good time experiencing time spent in Hobbiton.

Having seen that experiencing is vital to Simulationist drives, how can this experiential process be enhanced/amplified/distilled?  This is especially difficult for Sim since experiencing has a connotation of passivity while roleplay is an active form.  CA's are defined by how players address Situation, e.g. doing something (that something being acting on a conflict).

Some very important ideas arise out of this.  First Sim is not Exploration.  Exploration is merely the process, which includes the Lumpley Principle (System), whereby elements (constrained to Character, Setting, Situation) are added the Shared Imagined Space.  This is no mystery, yet we must be careful when we say things like, "I liked exploring the forest."  That is a perfectly valid statement for a Character in game, however, for a player stating that outside the SIS problems arise.  Did said player mean he enjoyed having his Character knock around the forest (experiential – thus fulfilling or satisfying a personal desire of said player) or is said player making a reference to the process of Roleplay – creation of facts into the SIS?  From a player, not Character, perspective it is illogical to say, "I like Exploring Setting," unless he meant he enjoys the actual process of creating Setting elements (like a forest) into the SIS.  Why is this important?  Because much of Sim play has been confused by the conflating of these two meanings, and their differences are profound.  One is experiencing that which is, walking around an extant forest in the SIS, and the other is creating a forest where none was before in the SIS.

Second Sim has an unusual tension in it that Gamism and Narrativism do not.  Sim does place a premium on the experiential process as an end unto itself.  There are two basic avenues of experience that I see in Sim, passive (sensual – things are described directly to the player or are observed as things are described by other players at the table) and active (the act of doing as experienced via the player's Character).  The main problem that I have seen with Sim is that quantity of detail, mostly of Setting, is equated with richness of game experience.  But that is only half of the equation and is a passive process for the players; someone else is creating the information into the SIS.   What about the process of experiencing what it is like to be someone else?  Even if the player relates much detail about what they are doing, unless it affects Situation it is still a non-CA event, it doesn't move story forward nor does it address Character.  While one may spend much time describing clothing, mannerisms and affectations (which is basically Setting or Color), all that detail reveals NOTHING about the character/nature of the fictional being.  So how does one experience the life of another, by experiencing the same sensations (passive) and the same conflicts (active) that such an individual faces.  How are the conflicts differentiated among individuals?  By having each Character have different motives/desires/drives.  How can this process be made richer, fuller, and more manifest?  How does one balance the passive process with the active process since both are or can be fascinating?

There is the flip side to this experiential coin in Sim.  Again Sim is unique in the marriage of Situation/Character.  One could play oneself in a fictional Situation even if the Setting was contemporary or known to the players.  However they are still engaged in a fictional event (Situation) doing things that they would not normally do, or why go through the process of fictionalizing what they could already do in their daily lives?  Heck, one could even play oneself, in a familiar Situation in a familiar Setting, say at a bar picking up a girl, which in real life they might be too shy to do.  However, that they are actually picking up the girl in game, something they might be too shy to do in real life, is a fictionalization of themselves; they are no longer who they really are but projecting a fiction of whom they would like to be.  The character has ceased to be an accurate representation of said player and has become someone slightly different, someone who is more confident than that player really is.  This does not mean such an activity is not worth while, quite to the contrary, a person can gain much from such a process, but it supports my argument that rarely does anyone truly play oneself when they are claiming to do so, they are playing a characterization or a projection of who they think they are or who they would really like to be.

Does this mean all Sim players play Sim because they want to Explore Character specifically?  No.  Don't be silly!  However in Sim a player cannot address Situation without Character.  Unlike Gamism, which also requires that Character must present to address Situation, Simulationism demands that the manner of said address of Situation must be limited by the Character corpus/persona unity.  However, if a player only has an interest in addressing Situation and has little interest in developing their character, they should at least like the nature of the Character enough so that they can address Situation in a manner they find enjoyable as that Character will delimit how that players addresses Situation.  However if a Sim player has no interest in developing their Character at all, and Character limited interaction with Situation is the defining element of Sim, much the way Challenge limits the interaction with Situation and defines Gamism, then one wonders why said Sim player is even bothering to play as they are not expressing a CA.

Does this mean that players must address Situation at all times?  No.  Like Gamism and Narrativism one can spend (much) game time addressing other things as well.  Unlike Gamism and Narrativism, both which have matured nicely and have effectively identified how to sharpen their particular focus on Situation, Challenge and Premise addressing, both of which are active processes, Sim right now has not figured out how to amplify and focus the address of Situation.  Sim is the red headed stepchild of roleplaying because many games and many game designs don't instruct players or the GM how to or even that they ought to spend effort on the Character/Situation portion of Exploration.  If roleplay is CA, and addressing Situation is the expression of CA, and Sim game designs are almost criminally negligent in pushing the developing of Situation its no wonder that Sim has so many incoherent game designs.  How likely is a game to have a coherent CA in operation is there is little instruction on how to develop or focus Situation address?  And here's the really difficult part, its not just any Situation that will do, it has to fit the interests/needs/motives of the Character and the Player.  Since Character interests are really player interests, which are metagame interests, we come back to the question of – What are the metagame interests of Simulationists and how do we best facilitate those interests?  This is handled effectively in games that have coherent Narrativist supporting mechanic designes because they allow for the dynamic metagame addressing of Situation via active overt Premise creation.  Can such an overt process be applied to Simulationism, even if it were to take place outside of a game?  Is there something about Simulationism that can be focused upon like Premise or Challenge?  Since Sim ostensibly operates entirely within the SIS how do we identify and allow for the metagame goals of players to integrate seamlessly into the roleplay process, which places great value (we do not have to say demands) transparency?

Quote from: M. J. YoungCharacter is not sacred nor central in simulationism...

...I disagree that it must be the anchor. I think you can have absolutely simulationist role playing games in which each player plays a nation, or an ideal, or an emotion, or a military unit.

I cannot disagree with you more.  Character is to Sim what Challenge is to Gamism and Premise is to Narrativism.  One cannot play Sim without a Character.  Period.  If a person were to play a nation then their Character is either the nation of the agents thereof.  The same goes with a military unit – that military unit is said player's character.  The key is that any Character must be intelligent (capable of thought – not inanimate) and capable of affecting the world around it.  An individual cannot experience what its like to be a concept.  One can experience a person running a nation or commanding a military unit, but one cannot experience being a concept.  Whatever Character a player is playing, it must be capable of human traits – it must be anthropomorphized.  Thus if one were to play such things as a nation or a military unit, they would either have to be anthropomorphized so as to be playable in an RPG or one would not be roleplaying.  If one were to play an ideal, that ideal would first have to be personified into an intelligent agent then thrust into play.  As far as emotions go, an emotion is a description of a state of being.  Playing an emotion, not as a character, but as a self-contained entity is patently absurd – it is a straw man argument.  I agree that one could play a being that had no other essence than anger, but once again you come back to Character.  One could use anger as part of a Premise or as fuel to address Challenge, but not as a Character.

As far as your statement that Discovery is the motivating goal of Sim I would address you to this link Creative Agendas, Aesthetic Purism, and 'the' Social Mode (http://indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?p=119050#119050/), specifically these portions –

Quote from: Eero TuovinenThe fact that you started play to get to know each other doesn't control play decisions, so it's not an agenda. Ice-breaking, dating, teaching.... these do not trigger specific agendas per se, as the players are left free to make decisions according to any agenda even when playing these.

The key word is creative. While you might call a pedagogic goal an agenda of play ("I'll go to the winter palace to illustrate to the other players the excesses of the revolution."), it's not a creative one. I might approach teaching through socratic method (narrativism), illustrative method (simulationism) or through testing and action (gamism) (I've coincidentally written one of each, as I noted some time ago). Teaching as an "agenda" doesn't constrain the play decisions I make, it just constrains methods.

One can easily substitute Discovery (knowledge seeking) for Teaching (knowledge sharing).

Quote from: M. J. YoungThe simulationist is interested in learning, in knowledge, in discovery; he is driven by curiosity.

Of the four individuals who posted above not one listed anything about learning, but rather experiencing.  While they may be the only four, or five as I count myself amongst them, the assertion that all Simulationists are motivated by learning, knowledge or discovery is not supported.  Mike Holmes very clearly stated that he wants "to feel that the imagined world has an independent reality of sorts of it's own. Not to "know" that it does."  Here a Simulationist very clearly states that it is not Knowledge or thirst thereof that drives him.  Yes, Discovery can be a goal, yes it is a legitimate goal, but as Eero Tuovinen put it for more elegantly than I could ever hope to say, it is a pedagogic goal, not representative of any specific CA.

Aure Entaluva,

Silmenume

Quote from: SilmenumeDoes this mean all Sim players play Sim because they want to Explore Character specifically?  No.  Don't be silly!  However in Sim a player cannot address Situation without Character.

Um, sure you can.  Say I'm playing Universalis, but I haven't yet created any Characters in the game.  What do I control?  Well, I can bid coins to control the Situations that are developing for other people's characters, and I can do other things, like suggest Tenants and stuff, if it's earlier enough in the game.  The Exploration has already begun, because the group is imagining things together.  Play had begun, because there are some game entities that are "doing" things.  I don't see why this couldn't be Sim play.

You seem to be assuming that character is the only conduit through which people enjoy Exploration (or, at least in Sim play), which I don't agree with at all.  There have been games where I've enjoyed experiencing someone else play more than I've enjoyed playing myself.  Was I still engaged with the game? Yes.  Was I doing Sim through my character?  No, not really.  I was watching the game as a player (not a character) and enjoying the Exploration from that POV.  Sim play does not have to involve heavy immersion.

Quote from: Jonathan Walton

Quote from: SilmenumeDoes this mean all Sim players play Sim because they want to Explore Character specifically?  No.  Don't be silly!  However in Sim a player cannot address Situation without Character.

Um, sure you can.  Say I'm playing Universalis, but I haven't yet created any Characters in the game.  What do I control?  Well, I can bid coins to control the Situations that are developing for other people's characters, and I can do other things, like suggest Tenants and stuff, if it's earlier enough in the game.  The Exploration has already begun, because the group is imagining things together.  Play had begun, because there are some game entities that are "doing" things.  I don't see why this couldn't be Sim play.

Well if that isn't a splash of cold water in the face, I don't know what else would qualify.  I am going to have to meditate on this for a while.  Thanks for bringing this functional example to my limited attention.  I don't know if this totally destroys my theory or merely indicates it needs some tuning up.  It would seem to appear to violate the internal causality clause of Sim, but obviously that needs some looking into on my part.

Quote from: Jonathan WaltonYou seem to be assuming that character is the only conduit through which people enjoy Exploration (or, at least in Sim play)...

Actually, my earlier thesis, which is now being strongly reconsidered, is that character was the only conduit with which people could address Situation in Sim play. And as a result of that "necessity" there was an inborn need to enjoy that limitation or at least attend to it while addressing Situation.  I did not mean to say or assert in any way that Character is the only reason people enjoy roleplaying Sim.  That enjoyment can come from many places, its just that if one does not enjoy Exploring the character itself, then the limitations or lens that Character brings to bear on Situation ought to be resonant with the player in the same was Challenge or Premise resonates with the player and limit or focus the address of Situation.  IOW a Gamist player should at least enjoy the Challenge he is facing or why even bother?

I fully agree with you that one can be passive at just watching a game unfold while the "camera" is focused elsewhere and still be fully attentive and engaged.  Remember one cannot overtly express CA at all times.  My point was that the Sim CA was made manifest in Situation much like Challenge and Premise are made manifest in they way they address Situation.  A CA is made apparently over a long period of time precisely because overt CA expression does not happen all the time.  Not happening all the time includes times where the player is not adding the SIS via Exploration – IOW the camera is not on a given player.

Quote from: Jonathan WaltonSim play does not have to involve heavy immersion.

While there is no exact or near exact definition of Heavy Immersion, I strongly agree with you nevertheless.  Please understand that when I say that in Sim the address of Situation is (or I thought it was) limited solely via Character (which is not the same as saying all acts of Exploration must occur via Character – which is something I not saying) that is not the same as saying that Sim play in any way requires immersion, heavy or otherwise.  I am saying Character is the limiting factor of addressing Situation, not that one must immerse themselves in that Character.  While Gamism is defined by its address of Challenge on a general theoretical level; practically what that means is that the player is specifically constrained in his address of any specific situation based upon which specific Challenge is in operation.  The same goes for Simulationism.  The question is what do we substitute for Challenge?  My thesis was that it was Character motivation/desire/drive.  In a strange way I thought the Id portion of the Character was the drive (which substituted for the driving desire to address Challenge or Premise) and the Super Ego was the limitation in the address of Situation when the Id faced obstacles – conflict.  Hence the all in one Character drive and limitation thesis for Sim.

Thanks for your thoughts.

Aure Entaluva,

Silmenume.

Quote from: Jonathan Walton

Quote from: SilmenumeDoes this mean all Sim players play Sim because they want to Explore Character specifically?  No.  Don't be silly!  However in Sim a player cannot address Situation without Character.

Um, sure you can.  Say I'm playing Universalis, but I haven't yet created any Characters in the game.  What do I control?  Well, I can bid coins to control the Situations that are developing for other people's characters, ...

I don't mean to nitpick, but isn't this one of the things about Universalis? That is, it's not your character and the other players' characters but all of the players have equal right to all of the characters in play?

If so, then your example does not contridict Silmenume since characters were used in exploring. In fact, even if that's not how Universalis works (or could work) I think that you have characters in action to address situation. Who owns them or not doesn't mean anything. Situation = Setting + Character + Situation. So long as a character is involved, I would call it necessary to exploration.

Well, sure, Jack.  But Jay was saying that individual players create Sim play by having their Characters respond to Situation.  I was saying that Character isn't the critical component.  Say, for instance, that I suggest "There should be a dark evil spreading over the land."  Now, I suppose you could stretch things and say that the "dark evil" was a Character that I spontaneously created, but I don't think so.  I think it's an example of using Setting to create a Situation for other people's characters.  You could play an entire game, in a heavy Sim style, without a character of your own, just manipulating Setting and adding Color, for instance.

Quote from: Jonathan Walton"There should be a dark evil spreading over the land."

Well, I dunno. Maybe I'm not cut out for this discussion. What you have here is a good start and a good start is half begun. That is, how long before a character, any character, must appear in this story about the dark evil? Does it matter that a character does not appear in this first sentence?

I see it like this:

On Wednesday, my mother, aunt Betty, cousin Rob, uncle Mike, aunt Jean, our neighbor Frank, and the 1987 Denver Broncos, all....

This is the begining of a sentence. Obviously, after the elipse would be a verb such as "did stuff" or whatever.

With the quoted sentence above, you have started a story without introducing a character yet. But I think it would be difficult to go much further without a character coming about. Either a cast of character or like you had suggested, the land and darkness themselves become characters in a sense.

I wonder if it's worth focusing on setting the stage like this as an example of a play without actors, if you will, when eventually the actors will step out of the wings? That is, if it were possible to play this way entirely, then OK, but if not, it's strikes me as looking at a sentence fragment as proof that a sentence can be written without a verb (and it doesn't, you see, because it isn't a sentence but a sentence fragment)

Jack, I agreed with you on the necessity of Character.  What I'm saying is that individual players don't require their own characters for Sim play or you can play Sim withou having a character of your own.

There still have to be characters, but they can be other player's characters.

Quote from: Jonathan WaltonJack, I agreed with you on the necessity of Character.  What I'm saying is that individual players don't require their own characters for Sim play or you can play Sim withou having a character of your own.

Ah, then we argee, then.

Quote from: Jack Spencer Jr

Quote from: Jonathan WaltonJack, I agreed with you on the necessity of Character.  What I'm saying is that individual players don't require their own characters for Sim play or you can play Sim without having a character of your own.

Ah, then we argee, then.

OK – here comes the great irony in all of this.

My assertions about Character and Situation in Sim had errors but not for the reasons stated above.  My assertion wasn't about character ownership at all, but that in Sim players could only address Situation via a character.  It didn't matter whether the player owned the character or not, just that he was using a character under his control at that moment when he was addressing Situation.  In other words, the action of addressing Situation had to be handled entirely insitu, no metagame tools allowed.  But the information given here (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?p=119689#119689) as well as the many actual game examples given at the Universalis site (http://universalis.actionroll.com/ExamplesOfPlay.html) clearly demonstrated otherwise.

I will say that reading those examples was both fascinating and down right troubling (for my theory that is!)  The game examples were definitely not Gamist nor Narrativist in nature, they were Sim, but in a manner I had never seen before.  So much of the effort and focus was on Situation that I was really treading water trying to fit it into my Character centric model.  And it finally dawned on me...

Sim isn't about Exploring Character per say, its about the interaction between Character and Situation.  The key is that in Sim there are two general areas that can be focused on while addressing Situation.  The most common form is addressing Situation via Character via limitations and how Character does respond/grow while working out the problems in the Situation.  The less common form, and the one that is so amazingly handled in Univeralis is focused on creating Situation and then throwing characters at it to see where the Situation ends up.  Universalis is a Situation focused game, but Characters must be employed in order explore the Situation and see what happens.  What ties these two seemingly unrelated forms of Sim together is that they both focus on the actual interaction between the two elements, Character and Sim as the means by which they attain their goals.  We mix Character and Situation together to see what happens and have a good time doing it, they just come at the problem from two different sides and with two different emphasis.

In Universalis they are not playing with Premises, but story ideas – conflicts!  Then Characters are thrown in to see where the STORY goes!  In Character focus Sim the Characters are the focus and situational elements are developed around them to see how the Character's respond.  It's still Sim because it's that Char/Sit interaction for its own sake – not for Victory or Theme but just because we find that Char/Sit dynamic fascinating!  Characters in Situation focus games (Universalis) while lesser in importance, do serve a vital purpose and are created specifically so as to be able to support the address of the specific conflicts that have been created by the players.  Not any ol' Character will do!  Oh no!  They must have a reason for being brought into the Situation.  Note - this is quite the opposite historically of most Character focus Sim games which regularly fail utterly to design Situations that are specifically tailored to facilitate the address of Charter and by extension Player specific needs and desires.  Char focus Sim still needs to grow up.  

In both these styles of Sim play, its not an either or, but a slider between the two extremes.  However it appears that the forms these two focuses take in actual play, while both Sim, are radically different from each other.

Anyhow, that is my epiphany for the night.  I think it is pretty spiffy and goes along way to explaining what Sim is about and its metagame goals.  At least I think so.

Any comments?

Aure Entaluva,

Silmenume

I think Jay has resolved much of this already; but let me take a peek at a few points.

Quote from: Jay a.k.a. Silmenume

Quote from: M. J. YoungCharacter is not sacred nor central in simulationism?

?I disagree that it must be the anchor. I think you can have absolutely simulationist role playing games in which each player plays a nation, or an ideal, or an emotion, or a military unit.

I cannot disagree with you more.  Character is to Sim what Challenge is to Gamism and Premise is to Narrativism.  One cannot play Sim without a Character.  Period.

Quote from: Jay then

Quote from: M. J. YoungThe simulationist is interested in learning, in knowledge, in discovery; he is driven by curiosity.

Of the four individuals who posted above not one listed anything about learning, but rather experiencing.  While they may be the only four, or five as I count myself amongst them, the assertion that all Simulationists are motivated by learning, knowledge or discovery is not supported.  Mike Holmes very clearly stated that he wants "to feel that the imagined world has an independent reality of sorts of it's own. Not to "know" that it does."  Here a Simulationist very clearly states that it is not Knowledge or thirst thereof that drives him.  Yes, Discovery can be a goal, yes it is a legitimate goal, but as Eero Tuovinen put it for more elegantly than I could ever hope to say, it is a pedagogic goal, not representative of any specific CA.

Quote from: JackWell, I dunno. Maybe I'm not cut out for this discussion. What you have here is a good start and a good start is half begun. That is, how long before a character, any character, must appear in this story about the dark evil? Does it matter that a character does not appear in this first sentence?

Quote from: JaySim isn?t about Exploring Character per say, its about the interaction  between Character and Situation....What ties these two seemingly unrelated forms of Sim together is that they both focus on the actual interaction between the two elements, Character and Sim [sic] as the means by which they attain their goals.

Universalis is an excellent example of simulationist play in which situation can be addressed directly by players without the intervening instrumentality of characters; thanks go to Jonathan for calling it to our attention.

It also points up another overlooked fact in this discussion: the referee in a simulationist game is also playing in a simulationist mode (if the group is playing coherently), and might not at any point invoke a character to do so. What Universalis brings into focus by giving to every player is the same credibility that is given to the referee in a more traditional game: the ability to define and manipulate setting, situation, and color directly, without the intervention of character.

I'll point to my Applied Theory article to remind 1) that characters in role playing games are tools for exploration, which work best when they are designed to do the job for which they are intended, whatever that job may be; and 2) that although it is unusual, it is not inimical to simulationist play to apportion credibility such that players can directly impact setting and situation without the instrumentality of characters (stance), for which Universalis is a fine example.

You challenge my assertion that "Discovery" is the metagame goal of simulationism by citing several people who speak of "Experiencing" as the point of play. The problem is that this is not a contradiction. Experiencing is a subcategory of Discovery; it is direct learning, understanding something by experiment.

I had a notion of an example for this; it may be superfluous now that Universalis has been mentioned, but I'll sketch it very briefly anyway. At the moment there are a couple of robotic probes on the surface of Mars. It would not be difficult to hypothesize a similar group of probes sent to a distant planet perhaps in another stellar system. These are the player characters. They have specific abilities selected from a list, based on cost factors. They are limited artificial intelligence probes whose mission is to gather information about the planet that their creators might find interesting, and to transmit that information back to earth several light years away. As player characters, our involvement is entirely in discovering the setting; situation is extremely limited, and character is nearly non-existent. However, if I can be interested in the information such real probes provide (which I am), and I can be interested in imaginary worlds in great detail (which I am), this becomes a simulationist role playing game in which I am exploring a planet as a robotic probe. Setting is everything in this game, and as long as there is detail to the setting, the game remains interesting.

I once played in a Multiverser world for a very long time in which all I did was explore the setting and devise protections against its dangers so I could continue to explore the setting. I discovered a great many things about that place that no player had ever known before, uncovering its history, biology, chemistry, and more; but I never came to the end of what was there. Character mattered only in that I imputed to my character the desire to know these things, so I could discover them. Situation mattered only in that I was attempting to stay alive and continue exploring. It was a setting-driven game at that point, and I loved it.

So one problem with your assertion that the character/situation connection is the vital element of simulationist play is that it isn't; simulationism may well be the agendum in which the character/situation connection is the least important.

Which is the other problem with your assertion: the character/situation connection is of vital importance in both narrativist and gamist play, to the degree that "characters" are employed. That is, stepping away from "character" and talking about something less specific, let's call them "player agents"--the entities within the game over which the players have control. In gamism, play revolves around player agents facing challenge in situations. In narrativism, play revolves around player agents acting in ways that address premise and produce theme. That character/situation link is vital to play in those agenda. Yet as I just suggested, heavy exploration of setting may be a very intense simulationist experience, within which neither character nor situation are terribly important except as they support exploration of setting. The player agent in that case is a pawn used to convey information from the game world to the player. It could very much be one of those robotic probes in my suggested exploratory role playing game.

I hope this helps.

--M. J. Young

The one example of play that really comes to mind, and I'm not sure if this was referenced, was the game in which I and two friends played out "the future" of Earth's history. There were no characters, per se, created. I think Bill Gates got mentioned, but he was merely color. The only created components were nations, and organizations like the UN and mass endavors like, IIRC, there was a lunar colony or somthing. It was all kept on the macro level to ensure that we'd get through several decades at least.

From one POV, nations in this game were characters. That is, they were entities to which actions were attributed. But the problem is that's the point where setting and character start to blur. When is something setting, and when is it character? In Universalis we just don't make a distinction. It's a "Component" in the game. And players use components to create action with meaning. And that's the important part.

Mike

Quote from: Mike HolmesFrom one POV, nations in this game were characters. That is, they were entities to which actions were attributed. But the problem is that's the point where setting and character start to blur. When is something setting, and when is it character? In Universalis we just don't make a distinction. It's a "Component" in the game. And players use components to create action with meaning. And that's the important part.

I think Mike makes a valid point. Does the distinction really need to be made between setting and character or any of the elements like this? Does having them labeled correctly gain anything? Is something gained by proving the existence of "characterless" play, which seems to be the direction the conversation has taken, for good or ill.

Personally, I don't think so. I take the view Mike makes above in the quoted portion. I think of it sort of like a gerund, which is a verb that acts like a noun, as in singing in We admired the choir's singing. Therefore I think Mike took setting elements and used them as character elements because in all roleplaying, all five elements of roleplaying are present.

EDIT: another point in the discussion seems to be some belief that character needs to be one's own character. I don't think that's true, nor do many people here, but it's coming from somewhere, it seems.

Just to throw a monkey wrench into the discussion, what makes Universalis (or The Pool) Simulationist?  I've seen this claim a few times but I just dont get it, it does nothing to help you experience a situation, it doesnt help you 'discover' something only create.  

In his review of the game Ron labelled it narrativist and I can see that since any player can decide what is important in the game by spending coins on it and increasing it's worth or by creating a new scene.

Personally I tend to think of it as something outside of roleplaying and maybe beyond GNS but within roleplaying I dont see it fitting in the simulationist mold.

Hey Caldis!

I love your question, and would love to explore it, but not here please!  I invite you to post a link here to that conversation if you wish, but I would still like to try and discuss what Sim is, not how certain games are or are not Sim as I'm still trying to hash that out right now.

Sorry if I am being a butt head...

Aure Entaluva,

Silmenume

Quote from: SilmenumeHey Caldis!

I love your question, and would love to explore it, but not here please!  I invite you to post a link here to that conversation if you wish, but I would still like to try and discuss what Sim is, not how certain games are or are not Sim as I'm still trying to hash that out right now.

Sorry if I am being a butt head...

Aure Entaluva,

Silmenume

No problem.  I'll start that elsewhere, likely at a later date.  I posted it here because it seemed to fit since it was the main piece of proof used to disprove your inital point, even though in my mind it doesnt.

Hey M. J.,

First of all, for the sake of this particular discourse, I really like the idea of "player agent" as a working definition for Character.  It still implies entity without necessarily denoting individual flesh and blood being.

That being said, the example you gave of the Robotic Probes and your Setting heavy emphasis does not refute my Sim definition (as proposed and still up for debate) of Character/Situation interaction.  To me, your example is the Sim equivalent of low Step on Up, low Challenge Gamist play.  Allow me some latitude, if you would while I try and work out an analogy please!

Lets take a look at the Gamist model

• Competition at the Step On Up level = conflict of interest regarding players' performance and impact on the game-world.
  
• Competition at the Challenge level = conflict of interest among Characters' priorities (survival, resource accumulation, whatever) in the game-world.[/list:u]
  Now lets apply that to Sim –
  
  • Exploration goal/interest at the Metagame level = Desire to create and/or experience a synthetic reality (story creation or Character creation – like story creation, Character creation is not just a one time roll up but the continual process of adding to Character).  (Desire for the kind of Dream)
    
  • Exploration goal/interest at the Situation level = conflict among Characters' goals (survival, desire to explore the imagined physical Setting, whatever) vs. events/elements in the game-world.  (Creating the Dream)[/list:u]
    Low Exploration in both levels = strong focus on the Synthetic Reality but with little desire for conflict resulting in low Exploration of Situation/Character.
    
    To go back to your example, it appeared that you had low or no interest in addressing Situation/Character but a high interest in the Synthetic Reality.  You had a Character, a robotic probe, with a Goal to explore the physical Setting that succeeded wildly.  Little was revealed (or created) about the Character because little conflict (Situation) was encountered, as was a natural consequence of your creative inclinations.  You had a game that brilliantly yielded what you desired; lots of Setting information while creating little Story (few dramatic events) and little Character.
    
    However, had you not addressed Situation at all, met not one single conflict, then there would have been no Exploration as defined in the Big Model.  IOW you would have had a travelogue or nothing more than a description, but no story.  Secondly, if Situation was never addressed then it would have been Zilchplay as no CA could be accounted for.  As you did address Situation, even on an extremely limited basis, a CA could be ascribed, as all the elements of Exploration were then present.  As you have indicated, and I fully understand, you had little if any interest in Situation and Character in the example of play that you had shared.  However, CA expression, how one approaches Exploration, mandates address of Situation as Exploration must include Situation, even if it is in the tiniest amounts, or its not Exploration.  Yet, when you did have to face that rare occurrence of Situation, even if it was something you didn't have any interest in, you prioritized your choice to be that of Character interest (even if it was entirely pawn stance – something like, "M. J. is interested in searching out things in this synthetic world") over Challenge or Premise addressing.
    
    Like low Step on Up/low Challenge Gamism where it would be difficult to even see Gamism in operation as one could easily spent the vast majority of their time enjoying other areas of Exploration, the same applies to the Simulationist example you gave.  In such a Gamist game one could reasonably ask, are they even playing Gamist if they are hardly addressing Situation?  As long as they do approach the few Situations from a Gamist perspective the answer according the Big Model would be, yes.  From another theoretical perspective such play is perilously close to being described as Zilchplay.  This is not to say that such play is without value, but rather it seems to exhibit no discernable CA as it doesn't provide many data points due to the lack of address of Situation.  
    
    

    Quote from: M. J. YoungYet as I just suggested, heavy exploration of Setting may be a very intense simulationist experience, within which neither Character nor Situation are terribly important except as they support exploration of Setting.

    
    There are several problems with this statement.  The first problem is the usage of the term exploration.  You are conflating the general meaning of exploration: To search into or travel in for the purpose of discovery; exploring outer space - with the Forge definition of Exploration as the process whereby information is added into the Shared Imagined Space which process must include System, Setting, Character, Situation (I'm not sure if Color is required or not).  Using the Forge definition within your statement, "heavy exploration of Setting" means creating much information about Setting into the SIS.  Using the general usage of exploration would describe game play whereby player-agents/Characters spent much time investigating the "in-game" geography.  The second problem is the assertion that exploration of Setting (either the act of creating Setting information into the SIS or investigating the fictional geography) is a Sim CA priority.  This conflating of the two meanings is deadly when trying to untangle is this particular problem.  One cannot Explore Color the same way one can explore/investigate Setting.  For clarity's sake I humbly request that another term, like investigate be employed when discussing the "in-game" act of detailed inquiry or systematic examination of geography and leave the term Exploration for the process of adding information into the SIS.
    
    

    Quote from: M. J. YoungWhich is the other problem with your assertion: the Character/Situation connection is of vital importance in both narrativist and gamist play, to the degree that "Characters" are employed.

    Quote from: M. J. Young
    
    I agree that the Character/Situation connection is of vital importance to both narrativist play, but for both of those two Agenda it is a tool/process for addressing Challenge or Premise, things outside the SIS.  With Simulationism I believe the Character/Situation connection is enjoyed for how it affects the SIS as an end unto itself – making more of that evanescent Dream.  This is why I believe Universalis does fall into Sim.
    
    I feel, that despite instances whereby metagame tools can be employed to create, manipulate, or alter the outcome of Situation, Roleplay is still basically a process whereby player-agents (to a greater or lesser degree) must grind through "in-game"/SIS conflicts.  This can account for a lot or a little amount of time played, but that basically equates to strong or weak expression of CA.  In what fashion the players approach SIS conflicts determines which CA is expressed.  Strong or weak expression of CA does not directly map to lots of fun or a really shitty time.  I know that I sound like a broken record on this but addressing conflict is the heartbeat of roleplay – no conflict – no heartbeat.  Remove all conflicts and you're not Exploring anymore.  This does mean to imply that all roleplayers must have a love for a rapid heartbeat, high Situation addressing games, to enjoy or love the game they are roleplaying.
    
    

    Quote from: M. J. YoungIt also points up another overlooked fact in this discussion: the referee in a simulationist game is also playing in a simulationist mode (if the group is playing coherently), and might not at any point invoke a Character to do so.

    
    While the DM is a player, his role is very different in a game than that of the players.  And by "DM is a player" I mean that individual who is roleplaying that is at that moment engendering/discharging the powers of DM.  The powers of the role DM are very different from those of the players.  Even in Universalis, where so much credibility is vested into the players to carry out the duties of the DM, at the moment an individual player employs a power of the DM, they are for that moment a DM.  To equate player role with DM role is a little off the mark.
    
    

    Quote from: M. J. YoungYou challenge my assertion that "Discovery" is the metagame goal of simulationism by citing several people who speak of "Experiencing" as the point of play. The problem is that this is not a contradiction. Experiencing is a subcategory of Discovery; it is direct learning, understanding something by experiment.

    
    The problem with that definition is that one can experience without intent and more importantly one can experience without learning.  Learning arises out of experience, thus learning is a subset of experience, not the other way around.  Experience means to become conscious of, as through the emotions or senses, which must happen before anything can be learned.  Thus one can be motivated to create experience for reasons other than learning, such as creating experiences of emotional or sensorial significance.
    
    

    Quote from: Mike HolmesFrom one POV, nations in this game were Characters. That is, they were entities to which actions were attributed. But the problem is that's the point where Setting and Character start to blur. When is something Setting, and when is it Character?

    
    To me Setting is any part of the SIS which is not a player-agent/Character and does not require or provoke a player-agent to make a decision.  A rock is a rock, Setting, unless, frex it is hurtling towards a player-agent then it becomes a Situation event as well.  A huge war could be raging, but if the player-agent is completely unaffected by it that war is Setting, background material and nothing more.  NPC's are Setting unless they conflict with the player-agents even if they are interacting with the player-agents.  Characters/player-agents are as you described, entities to whom actions were attributed that, I am assuming, were under player control at the time said actions were committed.
    
    Wow, once again back to Zplay, and what it means to Explore.
    
    Aure Entaluva,
    
    Silmenume

Quote
The problem with that definition is that one can experience without intent and more importantly one can experience without learning. Learning arises out of experience, thus learning is a subset of experience, not the other way around. Experience means to become conscious of, as through the emotions or senses, which must happen before anything can be learned. Thus one can be motivated to create experience for reasons other than learning, such as creating experiences of emotional or sensorial significance.

I'm inclined to disagree, but I do so from the perspective that all games are autodidactic devices.  That is, lion cubs chasing each others tails might be said to be learning or playing interchangeably; I think it is precisely the case that learning arise automatically from experience that makes experience such a powerful indicator of competence.  I think all the 'sensoria significance' in games is in service to a learning agenda, consciously or otherwise.

QuoteA rock is a rock, Setting, unless, frex it is hurtling towards a player-agent then it becomes a Situation event as well. A huge war could be raging, but if the player-agent is completely unaffected by it that war is Setting, background material and nothing more.

I find myself unable to make the distinction.  That is, sure the war may be off-screen, but if a player character is conceptualised as "on the run from the army", the war has been brought into play (even if perhaps not at the foreground of play).  I can't think of a game setting that is not a moment as much as it was a place.  To my mind, setting and situation are pretty much the same entity.

I will distinguish however betweens situation as expression of setting, and situation as expression of dramatic intent.  this is why I prefer the terms foreground and background to discuss when setting is active and when passive, so to speak.

Jay, I'm not saying that the five elements of role playing don't exist in all role playing. Even when "character" is reduced to "player agent", there is still a degree to which my robotic probes, or Mike's acting nations, are characters available for exploration.

What I hear you say is, "Character and its relationship to situation is always the most important thing in simulationist play."

I respond by saying, "No, sometimes character is very unimportant and sometimes situation is very unimportant, as for example setting may be the most important thing in a specific example of simulationist play." I provide an example.

You reply, "Ah, but character and situation still exist, which is what I'm saying."

Now I can't win. I've never said that character doesn't matter or situation doesn't matter; I've never said that setting, system, or color doesn't matter. I've only said that in simulationism, as in narrativism and gamism, it is possible for any one or more of these to be either a prime focus of exploration or an incidental matter in play, and especially so in simulationism, where the object is to discover that which is explored.

Let's look at it another way, maybe. If your theory is correct, and the relationship between character and situation is the metagame goal of simulationism, then it would follow that this distinguishes it from both narrativism and gamism. Yet it is clear that narrativism and gamism both are most commonly expressed through the character relationship to situation. They are character relationship to situation addressing premise, and character relationship to situation confronting challenge, respectively. So then, simulationism is character relationship to situation to what end? I say it is character relationship to situation for discovery, the creative exploration of elements within the shared imaginary space. Just as challenge can be "we killed the dragon" or as easily "we entered the dragon's cave and got away with our lives and a bit of treasure" or "I'm the only man alive who saw a dragon and lived to tell the tale"; just as premise can yield "power corrupts" or "moral fiber can overcome the corrupting influence of power"; so too discovery can yield information about the character, or the situation, or the setting, or the system, or the color.

Sure, there is always a relationship between character and situation, even when that relationship is "my robotic probe is gathering information on an alien world which its designers should find interesting" and all the discovery is really about the setting. But that's true for gamism and narrativism, too. It is more true for narrativism, where who the character is is far more likely to matter than in simulationism, and therefore must be explored in more detail (caricatures and pawns are effective characters in simulationist play, but almost never in narrativist play). In gamism, the character can be a pawn, but it still has to be a player agent responding to situation. Simulationism makes the lowest demand on the character/situation connection of the three agenda, because it has the greatest range of what can be explored.

--M. J. Young

Hiya,

M.J.'s nailed it, as far as I'm concerned.

Best,
Ron

Just so that we have a common reference points -

• The Shared Imagined Space is a term used to describe the notional arena/stage where the things we are doing are situated with reference to the real world e.g., the contest of Basketball takes place on a court.
  
  
• Exploration is the process whereby any and all information is added to the SIS – it does not require the address of Situation in its application.
  Exploration is limited to and must include all the elements used in this process – all the Elements of Exploration.
  
  
• Creative Agenda is a concept that attempts to categorize and explain why we do the things we do during the process of Exploration (adding facts to the SIS.)
  
  
• Creative Agenda is defined by from what perspective players address Situation.
  
  
• When looking at the SIS, Creative Agenda can only be diagnosed by observing how the players attend to conflicts contained within Situation.
  
  
• Creative Agenda as a broad concept does not say why a player is having fun, but rather attempts to say that a player is having fun doing X in the SIS, because I see him doing that allot; X being how the player addresses conflict/Situation.
  
  
• As Creative Agenda as a concept is concerned with the address of Situation and Exploration is not, no CA, including Simulationism is the same as Exploration.[/list:u]
  

  Quote from: M. J. YoungWhat I hear you say is, "Character and its relationship to situation is always the most important thing in simulationist play."

  
  OK.  Fair enough.  Let me see if I can clear this up a little because that is not what I am attempting to say.
  
  I am saying that Character and its interaction with Situation is the element that both defines and illuminates which Creative Agenda in action.
  
  The game you described wasn't Simulationist because you investigated much of the planet's geography, but because the few times you addressed Situation it was from a Sim perspective.  Definitionally and Diagnostically Sim is as bound to the address Situation as is Gamism and Narrativism.
  
  I am NOT saying that one must be focused on that dynamic as the only way to play Sim, rather one must approach Situation from that perspective (whatever that might be) if the game is to be diagnosed as Sim.  Approach to Situation and game focus (real time spent) are not the same thing.  I have argued and am attempting to argue and define just what that approach to Situation is, how it works, and what defines it.  I have never once mentioned that a game must be focused on that interaction, but I do say that Approach is definitional.
  
  Mea culpa for lasering in on what I am trying to figure out what Sim is, by which I should have been clearer that I am speaking about a section of the model, and not preambling my efforts consistently, clearly and continuously.  Yes I am approaching Sim from a "hardcore" point of view, but only to try and figure out what that metagame goal is and how it works, just like one might approach Gamism from the Hardcore point of view to try and figure out just what its metagame goal is with a minimum of interfering or noise causing distractions.  For this purpose I am concentrating as much Sim CA as possible so as to be able to distill its essence.  You have taken my efforts to mean that I am prescribing game focus.  I am not.  I am discussing what makes a CA, Sim specifically.
  
  What I am hearing from you is that just adding details to the SIS (investigating geography which then places much Setting information into the SIS) is partly definitional of the Sim CA.  If that was not your intent, then I'll just have to shut my gibbering pie-hole on that particular topic.  If that was your intent, then I disagree.  In fact such a game as you described would be almost impossible to diagnose because there were so few places from which to gather data points.  The game could very nearly be diagnosed as Zilchplay as it would have been almost impossible to diagnose its CA.
  
  

  Quote from: M. J. Young"No, sometimes character is very unimportant and sometimes situation is very unimportant, as for example setting may be the most important thing in a specific example of simulationist play."

  
  What I am hearing from you is that just adding details to the SIS (investigating geography which then places much Setting information into the SIS) is partly definitional of the Sim CA.  If that was not your intent, then I'll just have to shut my gibbering pie-hole on that particular topic.  If that was your intent, then I disagree.  In fact such a game as you described would be almost impossible to diagnose because there were so few places from which to gather data points.  The described game could very nearly be diagnosed as Zilchplay as it would have been almost impossible to diagnose its CA.  Investigating Setting is not CA specific activity until it can be mapped back to the address of Situation.
  
  To parse your quote as I interpreted it, not necessarily as you intended it, is that Simulationism is not defined in the interaction of Situation and Character because they are not important to the Simulationism CA.  I say they are critical to defining and diagnosing the Sim CA, but I also say they do not have to be the focus or the most important thing the players attend to.  I was attempting to argue from a point of view where they were the most important thing to try and make manifest just what those defining things were.
  
  Thus for the purposes of trying to determine what the metagoal of the Sim CA is, as well as how it works I am going to continue to approach this problem as if this interaction is the focus of play.  Not because that form of play (heavy focus on Char/Sit interaction) is the only way the Sim CA can be expressed, but for the purposes of creating as many data points as possible.
  
  I hope that I have in some ways addressed your complaint about me creating what appeared to be a logical conundrum for you.
  
  

  Quote from: M. J. YoungSo then, simulationism is character relationship to situation to what end?

  
  That is the million-dollar question that I started this whole thread for!
  
  The operation of CA in Gamism its to create winning strategies to the Challenge contained in Situation.  The operation of CA in Narrativism its to create answers to the Premise question contained in Situation.  Thus it follows that the operation of CA in Simulationism its to create _______ to ________ contained in Situation.
  
  But I think Sim is different, so I would phrase the question as such –
  
  The operation of CA in Simulationism its to create responses to character specific conflicts contained in Situation.
  
  This does not mean one is focusing on character, as one could be more interested in the creation of the conflicts/story directly.  IOW these created responses could be for the purpose of revealing (creating more) character or moving (creating more) story.
  
  This does not mean that players desire only to focus on this process, as they can be interested in attending to many other things such as Setting or employment of mechanics.
  
  This does mean that when the players do address Situation they do prioritize their response along the lines laid out above over that of Challenge or Premise.
  
  Note in Gamism the stakes are designed outside the SIS, among the players, much as Premise is in Narrativism.  What are we designing outside the SIS that we bring into play that directs our course in Sim?  OR are we designing anything outside the SIS other than bringing into play a desire to be involved in the interaction of Character and Situation as an enjoyable experience in and of itself?
  
  How is this dynamic different from Gamism and Narrativism?  Because in G/N the SIS is used in service of some goal, while in Sim there is no metric (victory or theme) to determine if the use of the SIS has been successful or not.  The players either enjoyed the process or not.  In Gamism and Narrativism there is an inherent metric involved that player actions are measured against, whether or not the players give it much heed.
  
  

  Quote from: M. J. YoungSimulationism makes the lowest demand on the character/situation connection of the three agenda, because it has the greatest range of what can be explored.

  
  I think that is more of a historical accident with all the incoherent Sim game design and theory which is backed up to a large in the general belief that Gamism and Narrativism seem so intuitive while Sim does not appear to be so.  The reason Sim seems less intuitive is because most Sim oriented DM's don't understand that Character/Situation relationship.  Design and theory has in the past focused on Setting, Mechanics, Color, Character Design, pre-fab Situations, but they have never focused on the dynamic between Character and Situation as what drives events forward story wise.  Now you can have games that don't focus on that drive, but most players do enjoy that dynamic but it has never been effectively delivered historically.  Coherent Gamist and Narrativist games do focus on Situation and the Character's interaction with it very solidly.
  
  I do also believe that Sim does have the greatest range of what can be Explored, but I believe that vastness lies in the Character/Situation dynamic, not in the various elements of Exploration itself.  In fact I think that is the mistake Sim theory and design has made in the past, that somehow Sim isn't beholden to the Char/Sit dynamic.  Since so much effort was focused on these other elements of Exploration as an end unto themselves without designing them with the goal to facilitate the Character/Situation dynamic, all sorts of incoherence was designed and drift frequently entered when the players tried to find their way to that dynamic.
  
  Yes Sim has the greatest range of what can be Explored, but that lies in that interaction between Character and Situation can be about anything, and not just a Challenge or a Premise.  Again I am NOT saying that this dynamic is the only thing Sim players are focusing on.  I am only saying that this dynamic is what drives their address of Situation when it does come up.
  
  Contracycle I will address your post as soon as I can!
  
  Aure Entaluva,
  
  Silmenume

In trying to keep myself from any more hot water and to prevent any more confusion allow me to clear up a colossal mistake in my previous post.  Since I can't edit it, here is the second bullet point as I had intended to write it.

• Exploration is the process/event whereby any and all information is added to the SIS – it does not require the address of Situation in every instance of Exploration's application/employment/invocation.
  Exploration is limited to and must include all the elements used in this process – all the Elements of Exploration.[/list:u]
  
  This is not meant to contradict or present new light on the meaning of the vocabulary of the word "Exploration", just an attempt to phrase it in a way that helps with the dissection of the issues I am trying to work on.
  
  My apologies.
  
  Aure Entaluva,
  
  Silmenume.