The Forge Archives

A look at what constitutes a Creative Agenda as defined.

Looking at the models of Gamism and Narrativism we see they are described as processes.  Gamism is described as the game play where address of Challenge is prioritized.  The end result of that address of Challenge is that there is a victor and a loser.  Several things should be noted though.  The model says that Gamism isn't necessarily motivated by a desire for Victory or Loss but the process of attempting.  The model is defined by that dynamic (the act of addressing the Challenge), not the metric (Victory or Loss).  Does this imply that players don't care about Victory or Loss? Not at all.  Does this mean that Victory and Loss are irrelevant to the dynamic or the model?  No.  Victory and Loss can either be metrics, the stakes, or just an artifice that justifies the process of addressing Challenge in the first place (like the penny in penny ante poker – it legitimizes the betting process).  However all that boils down to is players addressing Challenge for their own reasons, to their own degrees, in their own ways, with different levels of focus/emphasis on the other elements of Exploration, but doing so nonetheless.

By way of analogy I now turn to Simulationism.  This would imply that knowledge or sensoria accumulation is to Sim what Victory is to Gamism and Theme is to Narrativism.  But I do not believe that Discovery can be addressed.  Why?  Because Discovery is neither rooted in Situational conflict like Challenge and Premise are nor does it direct our efforts at dealing with Situational conflicts.

Here is where every conversation about Sim falls apart.  Every time someone goes about trying to figure out how to define the Sim Creative Agenda, which as the model currently stands means how a player approaches Situational conflict i.e., Premise or Challenge or X (which I posit is Character specific, not necessarily driven, Situational conflict – but that is an extraordinarily controversial theory), not why they play Gamist or Narrativist or Simulationist nor what they get out of the process, all the Sim defenders go bananas saying, "I don't play for that reason!"  I am as guilty as anyone of conflating how, why, and what so I would like to help clear the air.

This thread is about the how to define the Sim CA.  There are 3 things to consider when discussing CA, one of which is being hashed out in the Social model thread.

There is the self-limiting approach to Situational conflict – Challenge, Premise, X (Sim).
There is the inherent created product, which can be used as a metric, which helps to legitimize the process, but does not have to act in the role of player motivator – Victory, Theme, X (Sim).
Finally there is the Player Goal, that which motivates the player to Explore from the point of view of a particular CA - what the player wants to get out of the game process and why that CA is best suited to satisfying that desire.

Apparently why a player Explores using a certain CA does not map one to one to why said player Explores at all in the first place.  This is the trap I keep falling into.

But the thing I want to focus on is that I believe that the Sim CA is defined by how players address Situation just as much as Gamism is defined by how players address Situation/Challenge and as Narrativism is defined by how players address Situation/Premise.

Why is Simulationism different from Gamism and Narrativism in its definitional elements?  If the definition of the Gamist CA is rooted in Situation as the Narrativist CA is rooted in Situation why isn't Simulationism's CA rooted in Situation as well?

There is much less confusion about Gamism and Narrativism because they have been clearly defined and one could say they are both about conflict - certain types/forms of conflict.  And we also understand as part of this process that additional player interests shape how that conflict is addressed.  Is this particular game with these particular players focusing on victory itself or the process of addressing Challenge?  Is it focusing on the Gamble or the Crunch?  Is it about trying to win as the French at Waterloo or just experimenting with new tactics at Waterloo? Etc.  The same can be applied to Narrativism as well.  Is this particular game with these particular players focusing on the theme as a goal or the address of Premise itself?  Are the players focusing more on the creation and manipulation of the Premise or on the resolution of story events?  Are the players more focused on Character, Setting, or Situation based Premise?

I am sure I am going to get lots of reasons why not, but lets stretch a bit and find reason why it could.  I believe that many definitional problems that still surround Sim, such as "Sim is Exploration Squared" would go away if we can solidly demonstrate that the Sim CA is as rooted in Situation as Gamism and Narrativism are.  This would also explain away issues that keep coming up like Sim is about details or Sim is Exploration.

How can this be done?  By trying to define what that self-limiting and self-directing "address" of Situation might be.  I have my own thoughts, but I think that framing the question is better than thrashing around blindly for solutions.

I look forward to any responses.

Aure Entaluva,

Silmenume.

I yapped about this a couple of days ago in some thread, if memory serves. Let's see what I come up this time. Never know, you know.

As far as I'm concerned there's no use in trying to define CAs as different emphasis on Situation. Situation is situation, and that's it. What the CAs are, is motivation as psychological mechanic.

What this means is that it's in the end only blurring the issue to refer to gamism as "addressing Challenge". That's a complex way to think about it. What gamism is, though, is significance humans place on conflict. In the same way there's no problem in defining simulationism - it's simply curiousity, a psychological mechanism that's satisfied by simmy actions, the same as gamism is predicated on challenge as personality-defining tool, and is thus satisfied by challenge.

Simulationism is not "exploration squared" (Whatever that even means? Is it some more intense exploration or what?) or lack of motivation or whatever. It's just a central part of being human. It's an imperative of survival and intelligence to be curious about matters, and that curiousity finds a great outlet in roleplaying games. This is different from how gamism and narrativism use exploration - the former needs exploration elements for and arena for challenge, while the latter needs them to hook thematic elements. The simulationist needs exploration for it's own sake, to satisfy his own curiousity about the matter explored.

Your question: how to define simulationism the same way gamism and narrativism are defined, through it's relation to Situation? My answer is that you need a new word to go along with Challenge and Premise. This word would define as noun the thing done in simulationism, which by the above is satisfying curiousity by exploration. Let's call this thing the Query, for now. I claim that simulationist motivation is predicated on the players devising a Query and answering it through play. The Query itself is the subject matter of interest, and can usually be spelled out as a question. "What happens when this character goes out against a dragon?" is a classical example.

Now, usually the Queries are not spelled out so clearly, and they tend to get dished out and answered relatively quickly in some situations (plot twists and other such), and really slow in some others (themes and such). The fascination with process sometimes evidenced by the simulationist is a natural feature of the Query: in many cases the player does not really want to know what happens, but why.

I still think that it's clearer to consider CAs as psychological mechanisms, but if it helps you to clothe them in Exploration terms, the above should do the trick. Simulationism is defined by the player addressing Situation as Query.

Quote from: Eero TuovinenYour question: how to define simulationism the same way gamism and narrativism are defined, through it's relation to Situation? My answer is that you need a new word to go along with Challenge and Premise. This word would define as noun the thing done in simulationism, which by the above is satisfying curiousity by exploration.

if you were going to go this route -- and I'm not saying you should -- then the "what" that is addressed by Situation is "The Dream", exactly as Ron's essay describes it.

however, I do not think you need to define Sim in the same way as the other two. Gamism and Narrativism are said to be more similar to each other than either is to Sim -- that's a given, and that explains why they are both defined in terms of Situation, while Sim isn't. for Sim, System plays the same role that  Situation plays in Gam/Nar.

• Gamism addresses Challenge through Situation;
  
• Narrativism addresses Premise through Situation;
  
• Simulationism addresses The Dream through System.
  [/list:u]
  
  this is why people here sometimes say that Sim emphasizes in-game causality: in Sim games where causality is important, causality is built into the System.

I want to thank Jay for raising the question, and Eero for that excellent answer. I really like the notion of the query.

When I was reading the question, my thought was this: in simulationism, curiosity (thanks to Ian for that) drives investigation toward discover. In this construct, investigation is the way conflict is faced and overcome. Conflict is that which blocks discovery, and investigation is that which overcomes conflict.

Now, can I work query into this? Query is that which identifies what is investigated. So curiosity focuses in a query, and investigation springs from the query driven by curiosity toward discovery.

I think that takes care of your interests in conflict and situation, yes?

I'm almost afraid to ask, but what were your thoughts?

--M. J. Young

Hello,

I think a couple of things should be made very clear, if possible.

1. John (talysman) nailed it: "the Dream" is the term you're looking for, Jay. Similarly, your fairly odd focus on Challenge regarding Gamism, as opposed to Step On Up, may represent a parallel mental stumbling block.

2. Simulationist play does differ from Gamist and Narrativist play in that the necessary focus on Situation for the latter two does not have to hold, and even when it is the Explorative focus, the payoff is still in terms of "let's imagine," first and foremost.

So, can you have, for instance, Simulationist play in which the Exploration of Character never includes a dynamic decision for that character? Yup. Or in which the Exploration of Setting never yields a serious conflict of interest which piques the application of player guts and strategy? Yup. Or conversely, can you have Simulationist play in which the Exploration of Situation is the key, in which case Situation does "get there" consistently? Yup.

Whereas no matter what else gets Explored in an instance of Gamist or Narrativist play, Situation gets hit now or later, at whatever pace or with whatever pauses, but yes it gets hit.

Why is this a difficult concept? Perhaps M.J.'s comments on query and discovery help, although to me, they merely add extra terms for stuff that's already accounted for. My take on the topic at the moment is that it needs paring down, not naming all the little sticky-outy parts, but others may differ.

Best,
Ron

Question: If you want a process-like description of The Dream, wouldn't that be something like: the players ask questions about the SIS and use the answers to create new questions?

In N or G, the answers serve the purpose of Story Now or Step On Up, in S, the answers are the way questions make new and better questions.

SR
--

Hello,

Rob, that works pretty well, except that it's more suited to Exploration in general rather than to the Right to Dream specifically.

Few, if anyone, who post about this topic regularly seem to process that "right to" part of the catch-phrase. The Right to Dream - it means, "listen, this is what I want, the fascination and attention to the imagination qua imagination."

Best,
Ron

I believe that Sim builds towards something, much like Gamism and Narrativism.  Whether a particular game focuses on the process of building or that which is built is not the issue.  That which is built is the Dream.  I have no problems with that.

When we diagnose play and we say it is Gamist it is because Situation is addressed in fashion that precludes both Premise addressing and X addressing (Sim).  The same is true for Narrativism.  When play is diagnosed as Narrativist it is because Situation is address in fashion that precludes both Gamist addressing and X addressing (Sim).  How can I say this?  Because if an instance of addressing Situation appears to cover more than one CA, i.e., addressing Challenge and Premise and X (or just two of the three) then that particular act is said to be congruent.  IOW it is impossible to say which CA was in operation at that moment.  Only when the address of Situation clearly excludes both the other CA's is it possible to make a clear statement of diagnosis.  

Since there isn't an agreed upon approach-to-Situation that is said to be indicative of Sim it follows that Sim can be diagnosed in reference to Situation only in the absence of any data indicating Challenge or Premise addressing.  Given the above Simulationism can only be diagnosed precisely because we can't figure out how to interpret the significance of acts of the players during the addressing of Situation.  Diagnosis functions by exclusion.  IOW as the model stands we can only diagnose Sim when we can't figure what the hell is going on.  This brings us back to Sim by default.

Assuming this to be true, let me propose game play whereby it would be, for the sake of argument, impossible to diagnose.  A player comes to the table, is well mannered, agrees to the Social contract, and engages in Exploration effectively.  However, entirely within the Exploration process he wrecks everyone's night by purposely ruining everything they try and do.  His true motives are hate and anger and he uses the game, because he knows it emotionally significant to the players, to rain as much pain down upon the players as he can, via the SIS.  

Clearly this manner of addressing Situation is not any CA as described.  One could argue that he is playing a serial killer and thus the game is Sim.  Again for the sake of argument we propose that the Character he rolled up and is playing is a Paladin.  This manner of addressing Situation is so out of Character that it to becomes impossible to diagnose it as Sim.  However, under the current structure of the model the diagnosis would default to Sim because it is not-G-not-N.  The problem with that is that the player is clearly NOT pursuing The Dream, but attempting to destroy any all addressing efforts of the players.

What is the significance of this example?  That Sim too has some positive (non null/non default) defining approach to addressing Situation that separates it from yet another (Social?) agenda.

Quote from: Ron Edwards1. John (talysman) nailed it: "the Dream" is the term you're looking for, Jay. Similarly, your fairly odd focus on Challenge regarding Gamism, as opposed to Step On Up, may represent a parallel mental stumbling block.

I am fully aware of "the Dream" and "Step On Up" and "Story Now" and their implications.  I am not interested in those, WHY-players-play-in-a-manner-that-expresses-a-certain-CA answers.  I am not asking why players do what they do.  Why is not germane to this particular thread and I have NO interest in discussing it here.

This thread deals specifically with the criteria of HOW we diagnose such play with reference to the SIS.  So far the model says two CA's G/N can be positively differentiated from each other by observing how players approach Situation.  If approach to Situation (addressing Challenge/Premise) is the means by which G and N are identified then it follows that Sim play must also be identified by "testing/observing" the same referent, i.e. how players approach Situation.  There is a method to my madness here folks.

Quote from: Ron EdwardsSo, can you have, for instance, Simulationist play in which the Exploration of Character never includes a dynamic decision for that Character? Yup. Or in which the Exploration of Setting never yields a serious conflict of interest which piques the application of player guts and strategy? Yup. Or conversely, can you have Simulationist play in which the Exploration of Situation is the key, in which case Situation does "get there" consistently? Yup.

Again we have the problem, which is emblematic to the whole issue of figuring out Sim, is that people are answering a question that I haven't asked.  I am not asking which parts of play that players groove on, which implies the why question, but rather on WHAT criteria we use to diagnose play.

The Gamist and Narrativist CA's both build out of conflict.  Victory can only be built out of conflict.  Theme can only built out of conflict.  Why can't The Dream be built out of conflict?  We have already discussed and dismissed "adding detail" as being definitional of Sim so what does that leave?  Addressing conflict.

There are two issues -

One is that there appears to be a subset of play (or players) which is not interested in addressing Situation the idea of which can be heard echoing in the Zilchplay and Social Agenda threads.  

The other is that currently Sim is everything that cannot be diagnosed as Gamist or Narrativist.  So now we have the big problem of Sim is the Frankensteinian abomination that is the agglomeration of everything that isn't G or N, but which can also include play that is non-representative of any Agenda (Zilchplay and/or Social Agenda).

We have a tripartite of Agendas two of which are positively defined by their approach to Situation and another that is not defined or only defined in the negative.  We have a tripartite of Agendas two of which are diagnosed by their approach to Situation and another that is not diagnosed but only defaulted into.  Doesn't anyone else find that asymmetry troublesome?  We either have to come to grips with either that Simulationism doesn't really exist as a CA, i.e. its agendaless Exploration, or that we misidentified it.

Perhaps there should be a 4th Agenda that is defined in operation by other things besides Situation.  These could be the modelers, mechanics builders, investigators, world builders, etc. all those who enjoy Exploring but have no interest in Situation and its inherent product story.

Quote from: Ron EdwardsFew, if anyone, who post about this topic regularly seem to process that "right to" part of the catch-phrase. The Right to Dream - it means, "listen, this is what I want, the fascination and attention to the imagination qua imagination."

Going by the definition provided in the glossary of Exploration, "The imagination of fictional events, established through communicating among one another..." then the above is just saying that someone is fascinated and wants to spend a lot of attention Exploring.  Once again we are back to Simulationism is Exploration, which I don't buy.

There is nothing definitional about the "Right to" that precludes it from being applied to all three CA's.  All the CA's are about the "Right to" Step on Up, the "Right to" Story Now, or "Right to" The Dream.

The reason why Query does not work as being definitional or restricted to Sim is that, "I wonder if this strategy will get me to 10th level first" is a query that is also Gamist.  Every action taken in respect to Situation is essentially a question.  Will this action succeed in X?  How does this action address Premise?

Aure Entaluva,

Silmenume

Quote from: SilmenumeSo far the model says two CA's G/N can be positively differentiated from each other by observing how players approach Situation.  If approach to Situation (addressing Challenge/Premise) is the means by which G and N are identified then it follows that Sim play must also be identified by "testing/observing" the same referent, i.e. how players approach Situation.  There is a method to my madness here folks.

[ ... ]

Quote
The Gamist and Narrativist CA's both build out of conflict.  Victory can only be built out of conflict.  Theme can only built out of conflict.  Why can't The Dream be built out of conflict?  We have already discussed and dismissed "adding detail" as being definitional of Sim so what does that leave?  Addressing conflict.

see, you're assuming that because G and N are distinguished from each other by how they address conflict/Situation (Challenge or Premise), they must therefore both be differentiated from S by how they address conflict as well.

but this is jumping to conclusions. there are two facts that contradict this approach:
[list=1]

• in play, G and N look a lot like each other and can use almost the same rules, changing only the reward system, whereas S feels distinctly different;
  
• while the possibility of hypothetical G/N hybrids is hotly debated, G/S and N/S hybrids are well-known; for example, The Riddle of Steel is considered an N/S hybrid. this is impossible to accomplish if the method of addressing conflict is the method of distinguishing N from S, and those who deny the possibility of G/N hybrids would say that there are no G/N hybrids because G is distinguished from N by how conflict is addressed and because it is difficult (or impossible) to address the same conflict in two mutually-exclusive ways simultaneously.
  [/list:o]
  
  what distinguishes S from G/N is not how conflict (Situation) is addressed, but how conflict is linked to conflict, how they flow into each other, and how the series of conflicts are embedded within the world. in other words, S is distinguished from G/N by System, both in the sense that there's often more elaboration of System in Simulationism and in the sense that System is tied more heavily to movement through time, most frequently by turning System into an expression of causality.
  
  in pure G or N games, most of the mechanics relate to metagame concepts like strategy or dramatic need; progression from conflict to conflict is usually established as part of Gamist advancement (the next conflict needs to be more difficult than the last, to increase the challenge,) or through dramatic necessity (it's time to confront the father who abandoned you, &c).
  
  in G/S or N/S hybrids, you see additional rules covering movement or passage of time, and in pure S, metagame needs are avoided as much as possible: the conflicts you face depend on where you are and what you have already done, and how NPCs would logically react to this.
  
  now, you can attempt to create a different interpretation of the Creative Agendas based entirely on methods of addressing conflict, if you wish, although to do so you will probably need to redefine G and N as well as S. this is OK; on another forum, someone mentioned that the Big Theory is pretty solid even ignoring the GNS Creative Agendas; you could subsititute a different interpretation of CAs at that level and create your own variant of the Big Theory that may work just as effectively.
  
  however, if you are seeking to understand Sim as it was presented in the theory as it now stands, I would suggest that you abandon the attempt to force Sim to be equal to Gamism and Narrativism. they aren't, not as they are currently described.

Hey John,

Thanks for taking the time to thoughtfully reply to my post!

Quote from: talysman...see, you're assuming that because G and N are distinguished from each other by how they address conflict/Situation (Challenge or Premise), they must therefore both be differentiated from S by how they address conflict as well.

Actually I'm not so much assuming as trying to prove.  IOW it's a thesis of mine that I am trying to work out or be shown conclusively is not valid.

Regarding your two disputations –

I don't know if "feel" is enough to discount my thesis.  I agree there can be a very different "feel" between G/N and S, but "feel" is far too nebulous a term, its not rigorous.

The existence of Hybrids is still controversial so again I'll have to dismiss.  Having read the TROS review the Sim was regarded to be made manifest in the grittiness (realism?) of the combat system.  Not too long ago realism/grittiness/verisimilitude was disproved to be a specific Sim attribute.  It was decided that all the CA's required a level of verisimilitude that was sufficient to the needs of the players and the specific game being played.  That being said, the combat mechanics grittiness is not specifically representative of Sim, but just gritty; a description of the affect of the combat mechanics.

Don't make the mistake that just because I am proposing that Sim also be defined by its relationship to Situation means that I am saying that all Sim games must focus on Situation.  That is not what I am saying.  Just as one can have a low intensity address of Challenge or Premise one can have a low intensity of address of Situation in Sim.

This brings me to your "feel" statement.  I believe most Sim games (as Sim is currently defined in the Big Model – not the definition I am working on) feel different because they don't focus on Situation.  The intensity of play that comes from addressing Situation in Gamism and Narrativism is missing in most Sim games precisely because they don't focus on Situation.  I am not saying this is good or bad, just that it is an observation.

Game mechanics, while they can support a CA, do not indicate nor can they enforce which CA is being expressed by the players, thus mechanics does not make for an effective argument.

I do believe that conflict has a fundamentally different role in S than in G/N.  In G/N making and resolving conflict/Situation is the point of play, while in Sim the point of conflict (not play) is in the defusing of conflict.  IOW the character has a goal and the conflict is what lies in the way of the attainment of that goal, so the Situation needs to be defused before the goal may be achieved.  However without a conflict there would be no point in playing out trying to achieve the goal as said goal would be immediately achievable without a conflict to make that achievement questionable.

I think I have finally answered my question.  A Sim CA can be seen to be in operation with reference to Situation when the Character works to defuse Situations so as to be able to attain an in-game goal as opposed to G/N which is driven to the creation and resolution of conflicts by the players.  

Or at least that's a glimmer of a testable idea.  It's late, so good night.

Aure Entaluva,

Silmenume

Hello,

Jay, I'm gonna have to call you on something.

QuoteGoing by the definition provided in the glossary of Exploration, "The imagination of fictional events, established through communicating among one another..." then the above is just saying that someone is fascinated and wants to spend a lot of attention Exploring. Once again we are back to Simulationism is Exploration, which I don't buy.

There is nothing definitional about the "Right to" that precludes it from being applied to all three CA's. All the CA's are about the "Right to" Step on Up, the "Right to" Story Now, or "Right to" The Dream.

All of the above is incorrect. Everything in the text you're referring to is about the social support of the Exploration, which mysteriously seems to disappear in all of your paraphrases. Exploration, in successful Simulationist play, is explicitly not internal - it's shared, supported, enthused about, and prioritized. (I wonder if anyone understands what that word is doing in the argument?)

In Gamist or Narrativist play, here are two points:

1. (when Sim is the minority) There is no "right" to Dream by itself in these modes of play, at least not for long or demonstrably not in support of an eventual G or N application. It's literally breaking contract to do so - lying down on the job. If you haven't seen a mainly-Gamist group rip into a Sim-ish participant like starving wolverines, for this very sin, then count yourself lucky.

2. (when Sim is the majority) If the other people in the group cannot seem to get into socially supporting one's Gamist or Narrativist agenda, then the person has to make a choice: stealth, subversion, or dismissal. There's no "right" at all - either everyone else is on board, or one is forced to internalize one's satisfaction, to start influencing others to change, or to leave.

But in Simulationist play, the Right is a big thing. We're playing Sim? Then by God and country, we are playing Sim, thank you very much. This is an active social effort to ensure (a) consistent and solid focus of the Exploration (by "focus" see the diversity of ways to parse the five components as listed in the essay) and (b) the absence of G or N gettin' in there.

In my view, quite a bit of historical play and text deals with (b), and I think that much more fun Sim play would be available given a stronger emphasis on (a).

So: is Sim play an "absence"? Socially and creatively, not at all, it's very much a presence; Step On Up and Story Now wise, yes, it's an absence. Understanding this is key to that entire Simulationist essay, and it is astounding to me that a whole slew of people are still spinning this hamster wheel.

Now, to bring a more positive contribution to this thread, I do agree with your points about Situation, in full, and if I'm not mistaken, I believe these points are explicit in my essays. I think this may be another situation of "say it for yourself."

Best,
Ron

Quote from: Ron EdwardsEverything in the text you're referring to is about the social support of the Exploration, which mysteriously seems to disappear in all of your paraphrases. Exploration, in successful Simulationist play, is explicitly not internal - it's shared, supported, enthused about, and prioritized. (I wonder if anyone understands what that word is doing in the argument?)

Doh!  I hate being calling on things!  Just kidding!  I know humor doesn't always work, but I felt adventurous.

Actually the omissions are not an oversight, convenient or otherwise.  It is an overt and conscious act of my trying to root out what those events are which can be diagnosed Simulationist, especially when such actions are not socially supported.  The model is supposed to function in diagnosing not only group play, but an individual's play as well.  Implied in that is that the expression of CA can be seen in each player's actions whether or not they are socially supported.  Such social support only demonstrates the supporter's CA, not that of the individual who is actually Exploring at the moment.

I agree that Sim requires coherency or cooperation among the players to a higher degree than any of the other two CA's, but doesn't player satisfaction take a hit in either G/N when there is incoherency in the game?  If that is indeed the case, and that satisfaction of game play suffers from such incoherency, would that not imply that both those other two CA's G/N also seek the right to coherent/supported expression?

It did not occur to me that a Gamist player could be content playing in a Simulationist oriented and socially enforced game.  It was my assertion that such a player could only be happy in a game that was aligned with his CA, as long as it was Explored in a fashion that was suitable to his level of Step on Up and Challenge.  I had assumed that such a player would be unhappy or frustrated, but would still be seeking the right to Step on Up despite social pressures to the contrary.  Thus my assertion that all the players of all the CA's who were in games that were of mixed CA's would be actively seeking for the right to freely express his CA.  I also extend this to Narrativism as well.  You're point number 2 supports my assumptions.  Such a non-Sim player will still actively seek the right to express his CA either under the radar, by convincing others present to join him, or by leaving to find others who share his view about the right to express that particular CA.  Is not Exploration in successful Gamist/Narrativist play, explicitly not internal?  Is it not shared, supported, enthused about and prioritized?

Quote from: Ron EdwardsNow, to bring a more positive contribution to this thread, I do agree with your points about Situation, in full, and if I'm not mistaken, I believe these points are explicit in my essays. I think this may be another situation of "say it for yourself."

You're missing my point.  I am not just restating that Gamism and Narrativism have a profound and focused relationship with Situation just to hear myself say it my way but to draw attention to the fact that the Simulationist essay says nothing about the role of Situation other that to say that some forms of play do focus on it.  My continual stating of the role of Situation in G/N is a rhetorical tool I am employing to contrast and compare that pivotal role with the fact that Sim, as it is currently defined in the model, says nothing about the role of Situation.  

If all roleplay floats on a sea of Exploration, and the expression of a CA is a focused and driven expression of Exploration, then it follows that address of Challenge/Premise is a form of Exploration.  Then we come to the statement that Sim is simply focused on Exploration.  So here we come to the conundrum.  Expressing a CA can only happen via Exploration, but one of the Ca's (Sim) is said to be focused on Exploration as if the expression the other CA's (Gam/Nar) is somehow not Exploring.  All games focus on Exploration or there isn't roleplay going on as the focus shifts away from Exploration to social matters.

To me, the intensity of focus on Exploration does not indicate Sim as much as it does an intensity of focus on the action of Roleplaying in general.  Hardcore Gamist play is still Exploration; a very intensely focused version of it.  Just as Hardcore Narrativist play would focus extremely intensely on address of Premise/Situation, so much so that Character too (like Gamism) would become merely a tool of CA expression, it too is still Exploration.  Is not the process of Challenge or Premise addressing focusing the players on Exploration?  Because G/N focus on Challenge or Premise do we then say that because Simulationism focuses on the other elements of Exploration that is an unfocused focus on Exploration?  

Doesn't this bother anyone?  Isn't that a little strange?  Two whole CA's are firmly rooted and driven by conflict/Situation.  These two CA's are clearly defined, "intuitive" and "easy to pick up" by players, which is to say that the players are intuitively seeking conflict and addressing it.  Then there is a third agenda which for some strange reason is very much unsettled, ill defined, negatively diagnosed, non intuitive - and has no defined relationship with conflict.  

Yet I would argue that Situation is as important to Sim as it is in Gam/Nar.  The only difference is that typically Sim requires the DM to create the Situation, not the players (Universalis being the one exception that I can cite).  This would then leave a forth agenda that is Situation indifferent.  This agenda would focus on modeling (mechanics), describing/investigating (setting), personal expression (color), or socializing (no particular interest in Exploring per say, only doing so because everyone else is).

I believe that there needs to be a fundamental rethink about how to define the Sim CA, which I do fervently believe is a CA that is distinct and socially supported, but not as it is currently defined in the model.  Right now I believe that the cart is before the horse.  The Sim CA is not about simulating a world; it is about simulating the lives of Characters in a simulated world.  The world is there to support the Exploration of the Characters which are revealed during address of Situation.  Gamism creates stories about the real people in conflict.  Narrativism creates stories about human issues that are hashed out in conflict.  Simulation creates stories via Characters pursuing goals, encountering conflicts, and their efforts to surmount/defuse them.  Three of the CA's now have a common reference point, Situational conflict that at some point must be hashed through via a fictional Character.  To define Sim as being as strongly tied to conflict as Gam/Nar now puts all three Agendas into a framework where they can be clearly defined, diagnosed, and make more "intuitive" sense to the players.

There is no particular reason why Sim should be conflated with conflict indifferent agendas other that historical accident, especially considering all the problems that continue to crop up surrounding Sim as it is currently defined.

Aure Entaluva,

Silmenume

Greetings, all.

I want to say I side with Silmenume in this discussion.  I also believe that the Simulationist definition is the greatest flaw in G/N/S theory and that following this line of questioning is the biggest step we can take towards refining that theory, even if Ron thinks it's a non-issue.  Allow me to assert the following in defense of my point:

1. A theory is only as useful inasmuch we can draw useful conclusions from it.  If a theory tells us nothing useful about the system which it models, it is discarded.

2. We can draw several useful conclusions from G/N/S theory when we apply it to Game design, Player profiling, Story creation, and many other activities.  However, when we approach Simulationist mode, the theory breaks down somewhat.  We can no longer draw as many useful conclusions when we are, say, designing system features to encourage Simulationist mode; most people say that pinpointing particular overtly Simulationist methods is "difficult", and say generalities about "encouraging Exploration".

3. Simulationist mode is not fundamentally different from Gamist or Narrativist modes to such an extent that they cannot be compared meaningfully.

What this boils down to is that, as it stands, G/N/S theory is broken.  Now, it doesn't mean it isn't useful for anything (in fact, it's extraordinarily useful for Gamist and Narrativist modes, and still somewhat useful for Simulationist mode).  However, the model to explain the differences between the modes such that we may unequivocally characterize them is, how can I say it, hodge-podge.  Simulationism does seem like the odd man out, which is why others have put its existence in question in the past.

In light of that, it's important that we define a methodology that we can apply to characterize all three modes pointing to the same object, be it Situation, Exploration as a whole, or whatnot.   Regardless, here is my own hypothesis on the matter:

First off, it seems we have a discrepancy in the definition of what exactly is the Situation in each of the Modes.  In both N and G, the Situation is a concern which is put to the players directly: a Premise or a Challenge is given to the players, not their characters.  On the other hand, in Simulationism, the Situation is something that is defined within the Exploration, such as defeating the Galactic Empire or cracking the murder.

That isn't to say that in N and G the Premise or Challenge isn't presented to the characters, but it is in a different way than it is presented to the players themselves.  Therefore, we have two Premises, two Challenges: the one presented to the players and the one presented to the characters.  The two Premises and the two Challenges are closely intertwined, but differ in respect to context: within and without the game (Exploration and Social Contract, respectively?).

S, on the other hand, only seems to have one Situation, within the Exploration context.  What Situation are the players themselves faced with?  I hypothesize that the task of Immersion into the Exploration is the Situation that the players must address.  The characters, on their part, are also faced with a task of Immersion into their own world: to react according to their own Character characteristics to their Setting, using Rules as a medium and generating Color.  Like in N and G, these are two subtly-different and very much intertwined Situations presented to the Players and the Characters.

But what about destroying the Galactic Empire?  Well, maybe some might feel as a cop-out, but I believe that what we today refer to as Situation in a Sim game is actually a subset of Setting: we have a world where there is a wrong to be righted, and that is why it's not necessary that it become a focal point to the story.  The players may ignore the overarching conflict in a Sim game and have very enjoyable time, just as they may ignore the existence of combat and have a good time, as well.  It's all Setting.  The Situation is Immersion, instead.

As I said in the beginning, a theory must be able to let us draw plausible conclusions about the system it models.  One might say that the last conclusion I reached is useful, though I cannot vouch for that.  Regardless, I eagerly await your peer review to help corroborate or discard my hypothesis.

         -T

Hi Tiago,

That was a great post.

Except ... well, I can't see how anything in it disagrees with anything in my essays. Your conclusions seem to me to re-state, in full, all of my points about why "one of these three is not like the others."

Sometimes, people seem to require some sort of necessary parallelism among the three Creative Agendas. If G and N have certain features and levels, they ask, then where the hell are those levels in S? It just doesn't seem to satisfy them to say, "S is not like the others."

So far I don't see a problem with that answer. There's no reason to expect any of the three modes to be internally consistent with the others, and the fact that G and N do show those consistencies is what's interesting to me, not that S doesn't.

Best,
Ron

I think a number of things should be noted.

One is that although G and N have some common features, each of them also has features in which they are at odds with each other but in common with S.  For example, Gamism and Simulationism tend to require reliability in mechanics, which Narrativism does not need. Narrativism and Simulationism tend to require strong characterization of character, which is much less necessary in Gamism.

Ron says, "One of these things is not like the other," but the fact is that each of these things is discrete, different from each of the others in various ways. Yet they are similar in various ways as well, all together and in pairs.

I think we can draw conclusions when designing features for simulationist play; my Applied Theory article made it clear that I believed such design features were identifiable and useful. As a recent posting on another thread observed, though, there is no single feature which of itself fits a single mode. It is the combination of features and the specific application in play that supports an agendum. It is no more difficult to answer the question of how to design a simulationist game than it is to answer the same question for narrativist and gamist games. Of course, if you ask people who design primarily for one agendum, they're not going to be as able to answer how to design for another. Sports cars and pickup trucks have a lot of common features, but someone who always designs one isn't going to have a lot of familiarity with the best ways to design the other.

The distinction between the situation as posed to the player and that as posed to the character already exists recognizably in simulationism. For the player, the objective is to discover. That indeed may be immersive discovery, trying to experience what it would be like to be a certain kind of person in a certain kind of situation. It may however as easily be objective discovery, trying to observe how things happen and what the consequences are. Ralph Mazza has spoken of the excitement that springs from having characters jump off incredible cliffs because the system says they will survive that kind of fall, and it's neat to watch it happen--simulationist exploration of system, no immersion in the character at all, but the discovery of what the world would really be like if those were the rules. The situation posed to the player is how do I use the tools given to me in this game (whether just the character or including more empowering techniques) to learn more? The character need not have any interest in learning more. The desire to learn is the metagame; it is what the player wants.

In all three modes, the player objectives and the character objectives may be closer together or further apart. You can have a gamist situation in which the character wants to beat the dragon and the player wants to beat the dragon. You can have one in which the character just wants to put all this behind him and go home to his wife, but the player just wants to win the war. So, too, you can have simulationist play in which player and character are both out to discover the same thing, but you can also have such play in which the character isn't particularly interested in what the player wants to know, but reveals it incidentally as he moves through the world.

I think of the video game Maniac Mansion. Anytime I've seen it played, the players use the characters to wander around the house trying things, and get really excited if they melt down the nuclear reactor and kill everyone. Those can hardly be said to be the objectives of the characters. They're essentially pawns in the game--yet the exploration for the sake of discovering how the place works is clearly a simulationist pursuit.

--M. J. Young

Perhaps my vision is skewed.

I am not really trying to make Simulationism "like the others".  However, it is my impression that, all things being equal, the analysis of Simulationism through G/N/S doesn't yield as much information as the analysis of Narrativism or Gamism.  Since I initially reject the notion that Simulationism is somehow more "unknowable" than either Narrativism or Gamism, I have to infer it is a limitation of the theory.

The second part, which you have probably taken as the main part of my post, was merely an attempt of mine to come up with an alternative so as not to expend the post in empty rhetoric.  Naturally, given my Math/Engineering/CS background, I wound up trying to generate an analogy between the three modes in order to study them, because that's the standard fashion in Engineering theories.  I do recognize, however, that it certainly need not be so; Social theories, of which G/N/S is one by virtue of modelling a social endeavor, certainly don't need to abide by the strictures of Engineering or mathematical theorems.  I just don't have enough knowledge of those to propose one that doesn't look like an Engineering theorem.  Well, minus the mathematical model, anyway.

However, MJ, your post has me thinking that maybe I'm figuratively barking up the wrong tree.  I'd read your essay before, but did it again anyway, and I really have to consider if what I perceive as an inability of the theory to draw (as many) useful conclusions about S isn't my inability to draw useful conclusions about S using the theory.  The jury's still out on that one, so make of it what you will.

         -T

The relationship of conflict to simulationism is a different kind of relationship from the one it has to the other agendas.

In simulationist play, conflict exists, not as a tool to drive exploration or agenda, but as part of The Dream itself, required for the consistent imaginary experience because conflict is part of our very expectations of reality. Without it, The Dream loses verisimilitude.

Hey Tiago!

Welcome to the never ending round about of "What is Simulationism"!

From my perspective - your position is not skewed.  You're doing the exact thing that I asked those who posted to this thread to do - find a way to set up the Agendas in such as way as they can be studied.

The problem and the confusion you are having about Discovery and what not is the very problem with the description and understanding of Simulationism as it stands now and exactly what I am trying to cut through.  Your attempt to make the model work is the very same thing that I am trying to do.

The problem with the prevailing idea of Discovery as the driving force behind Sim is that it fails on two accounts.  As Discover does not harness conflict towards an end like Challenge or Premise, and two it doesn't limit player activities like Challenge addressing or Premise addressing IOW it is neither prescriptive nor descriptive.  Gamism and Narrativism are basically defined by how they address conflict - Gamism is addressing Challenge and Narrativism is addressing Premise.  Both Challenge and Premise are conflict driven, and in both cases define which conflicts are of interest to the play to the players and thus guides play as which conflicts to create.  Discovery does neither.  The basic defense of Discovery is player intention, but the model does not support player intention, but player action.  If a player wishes to see which tactics to employ in order to gain a victory the success of that act is an act of Discovery - a new piece of information has been Discovered.  But the proponents say that the discovery of information does not include Step on Up.  But that this an artificial distinction based upon intention rather than observing player actions.  So Discovery is too broad, it defines nothing because it covers all of Exploration.  This is where much confusion still reigns.  The other problem with Discovery is that by not being defined as a goal oriented action it does not limit or focus what the players are doing so once again the definition of Sim is left vague and non predictive - Discovery as an Agenda is passive.

The reason I focus on conflict is that over the years every other distinction between the CA, as viewed via the elements of Exploration has been debunked.  Lots of mechanics or few mechanics is not indicative of CA.  Published mechanics cannot enforce a CA, its what the players do that determines CA in action.  Verisimilitude is not a definer of CA.  Color is not.  Setting is not.  Character stance is not.  Whether you get into Character or not is not indicative of CA.  There is nothing left but conflict/situation.  The only thing that can definitively distinguish between CA's in operation is how conflict is employed.

If conflict is employed just to employ mechanics or not employed at all, then that is Zilchplay.  If conflict is employed towards a goal then that is a Creative Agenda in operation.  The question I have posed is what is that conflict employment that is uniquely Sim.  How do Simulationists constructively employ the use of conflict to further their CA goals?  Discover this and you will have successfully defined Sim.

Hey Alan,

I say that conflict is a tool that drives Exploration in Sim, its just that unlike G/N, conflict creation is typically not in the control of the players.  Also I would say that while conflict is a direct tool employed by Gamists and Narrativists, conflict is used in conjunction with Character to create/Explore Events (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?p=124313#124313/) as an end unto themselves more than G/N which use Events to address Challenge or Premise.

Aure Entaluva,

Silmenume

Quote from: SilmenumeGamism and Narrativism are basically defined by how they address conflict - Gamism is addressing Challenge and Narrativism is addressing Premise.  Both Challenge and Premise are conflict driven, and in both cases define which conflicts are of interest to the play to the players and thus guides play as which conflicts to create.

This sounds to me like saying that gasoline engines and stir fry both rely on oil to make them work, and then pretending that it's the same kind of oil in both cases. I assure you that if I used the same oil I put in my crankcase to make my stir fry, you would not like it, and it would not like you.

That which we call "conflict" in narrativist play and that which we call "conflict" in gamist play are completely different things, and they are approached in completely different ways.

There is a lion in the road ahead, and the only way to continue the journey is to defeat the lion or find a way around him. That is conflict in gamist play; it is not conflict in narrativist play--it is merely an event.

The villain is shielding himself behind an innocent bystander. It would be easy to kill the villain by shooting the bystander first, but your character is pledged to protect civilians, and this would be a clear violation of that pledge. That is conflict in narrativist play; it is not conflict in gamist play--it might or might not be a limitation, a factor in the conflict, but it is not the conflict itself.

In gamist play, players respond to conflict by demonstrating their skills at the game, proving their abilities as players. In narrativist play, players respond to conflict by making moral, ethical, or personal decisions and expressing them as answers to the questions raised by play. In simulationist play, players respond to conflict by using the tools available to them to uncover new areas of information or experience within the game world.

Note that the gamist approach to conflict, because of the type of thing that is conflict to the gamist and the way players respond, must involve game mechanics or techniques; the players must "win" or overcome the conflict by using the game rules to defeat the conflict, determining whether the character can do what the player decided. In narrativist play, that's entirely different. Players approach conflict by making decisions. If mechanics apply at all, they generally apply by determining the consequences of those decisions, and not by determining whether the character can do what the player decided.

We should then expect that conflict for the simulationist would be something different again, and that the response to conflict would be something different again. In this case, it is perfectly reasonable to say that conflict to the simulationist is that which impedes discovery, and that the response is to actively seek to uncover new information.

Discovery is not passive. Ask any research scientist.

Creative agendum is defined by what it is the player finds enjoyable in play, and thus what it is that the player wants from play, and thus what motivates the player during play. It is recognized by observing conduct (not by asking players what they want), because this is the most accurate means of identifying such. We perceive that Bob enjoys showing his skill during play, and conclude that he plays because he enjoys step on up, and thus is gamist. Bob might say that he enjoys creating stories or exploring other worlds, but his actual play belies this. He really enjoys showing off his skill and getting praise from his peers for a well-played strategy.

This is why it's not defined by any of the elements of exploration, not even situation. We distinguish Creative Agenda by what the players enjoy. That can be found in any or all of the elements; it is not necessarily in any one of them in a particular game.

--M. J. Young

Quote from: M. J. Young

In gamist play, players respond to conflict by demonstrating their skills at the game, proving their abilities as players. In narrativist play, players respond to conflict by making moral, ethical, or personal decisions and expressing them as answers to the questions raised by play. In simulationist play, players respond to conflict by using the tools available to them to uncover new areas of information or experience within the game world.
--M. J. Young

I dont think that is at all what most simulationist players are attempting to do when they respond to conflict.  They are not seeking to gain new information about the conflict or to get past it so they can get on to the next experience, they are attempting to resolve the conflict based on the parameters of the situation in a realistic fashion.  They want the experience to feel real so it doesn't break their suspension of disbelief, so that they can experience something they themselves never would.  This is why I think Ron has simulationism pegged when he calls it "the Dream".  

Dreams (or at least memorable ones) are never about boring situations they always involve interesting events, so it's no surprise that the rpg equivalent of dreams will involve conflict.  The player will use his character to face the conflicts in order to get a vicarious thrill of living in danger.

Quote from: AlanThe relationship of conflict to simulationism is a different kind of relationship from the one it has to the other agendas.

In simulationist play, conflict exists, not as a tool to drive exploration or agenda, but as part of The Dream itself, required for the consistent imaginary experience because conflict is part of our very expectations of reality. Without it, The Dream loses verisimilitude.

Exactly.

I think Ron's essay on sim is very good actually, and I say that as someone who prior to the essay was never convinced that he really understood what sim was about.

Conflict is part of the dream, conflict is part of reality or the underlying genre being emulated and as such must be present if verisimilitude is to be maintained.  It is not necessarily a tool for further exploration, it is a necessary element of the dream itself.

The only caveat I'd make is that sim does not equal realism, which I think those present realise but a couple of posts seem to me to be tending toward that line of thinking.

Edit:  So as to avoid an "I agree" post, Caldis is also I think precisely on the money.  The Dream, to be interesting, generally involves conflict as interesting situations/settings are what make the Dream worth exploring in part.  Few simulationists, even hard core historical gamers like me, choose to play Accountant:  The Tabulating.

Hello,

Max (Balbinus) and Caldis, I'm pretty sure that M.J. isn't saying anything too different from what you're saying. M.J., can you give a yea or nay? That "discovery" is by and large an experiential thing? Not controversial, I don't think.

Max, thanks for the kind words about the essay (did you just read it for the first time recently?) and also, have you seen the first draft of the Glossary?

Best,
Ron

Quote from: Ron EdwardsHello,

Max (Balbinus) and Caldis, I'm pretty sure that M.J. isn't saying anything too different from what you're saying. M.J., can you give a yea or nay? That "discovery" is by and large an experiential thing? Not controversial, I don't think.

Max, thanks for the kind words about the essay (did you just read it for the first time recently?) and also, have you seen the first draft of the Glossary?

Best,
Ron

Possibly MJ is saying the same thing, if so then I guess it's for the original poster to say if they think we're missing his point in considering the essay adequate or if more is needed.

Anyway, I read it ages back.  Presumably I didn't think to say at the time that I was impressed by it, sorry about that.  From my perspective as someone with a strong preference for sim play I thought you nailed it pretty well and were largely on the right track.

No, I had not seen the glossary.  I hadn't realised it was so well developed as my post on the Site Discussion forum indicates, I think it will greatly assist the Forge as a community in communicating externally and if you are happy that it is already in fair shape (I realise it will be a moving target by definition) I shall print it off to get myself up to speed with current thinking.

Quote from: CaldisI dont think that is at all what most simulationist players are attempting to do when they respond to conflict.  They are not seeking to gain new information about the conflict or to get past it so they can get on to the next experience, they are attempting to resolve the conflict based on the parameters of the situation in a realistic fashion.  They want the experience to feel real so it doesn't break their suspension of disbelief, so that they can experience something they themselves never would.

That experience of something vicariously through their characters is the knowledge they seek. It is subjectively attained, but it is still discovery.

Quote from: MaxConflict is part of the dream, conflict is part of reality or the underlying genre being emulated and as such must be present if verisimilitude is to be maintained. It is not necessarily a tool for further exploration, it is a necessary element of the dream itself.

I think we've got two different kinds of conflict happening here.

There are conflicts within the game that are very much like gamist conflicts or narrativist conflicts, and they are approached with a view to experiencing them as the character. Jay started this thread in an effort to define simulationism by what the player does with conflict. My assertion was that from the perspective of the player, the conflicts in the game world are not conflicts he addresses--they are conflicts his character addresses. There is a separate conception of "conflict" in all three agenda that defines what the player addresses. It may be reflected by the character's actions, but it need not necessarily be.

As a theoretical example, a player with a narrativist agendum could have his character make choices exactly opposite to what he (the player) believes, hoping to show the consequences of the wrong path. It seems that both Frankenstein and Dr. Jekyl and Mr. Hyde take this approach, becoming cautionary tales by suggesting that a certain path leads to very unhappy consequences. The player is using his character to make a statement; the conflict for the player is how best to make the statement, while that for the character is how to respond to the situations in his life. The player makes the statement through the character's choices (and through other means as well).

Similarly, in gamist play a player might choose to sacrifice the life of his character to enable the team to win. He could easily do this in a manner which does not say that the character chose to make that sacrifice. To the character, the conflict might very well be a question of how to get out of this alive; to the player, it is how to assure that the team will win.

So, too, in simulationist play there will be in-game conflicts, and the players will be seeking to experience these as a means of discovery. To the player, the conflict is that which impedes discovery; to the character, the conflict is that which happens in the game. The player might well choose to play the character as desperately trying to avoid the impending doom which the character hopes to experience, for example if the player wishes to vicariously experience the descent into madness coming from learning the mythos of the Cthulu world. The player is pushing the character into the very things the character wishes to avoid. The conflict to the character in that case is how to deal with these dark secrets; the conflict to the player is how to keep the character digging deeper into them despite the character's realization that this is going to destroy him.

Merely asking how the player approaches conflict in the three agenda misses the point. The player approaches metagame conflict in an agendum-based manner; the character approaches in-game conflict as addressed by the player, in a manner which supports the player's metagame agendum.

Quote from: RonI'm pretty sure that M.J. isn't saying anything too different from what you're saying. M.J., can you give a yea or nay? That "discovery" is by and large an experiential thing?

I've touched this before, but I think it's worth mentioning again. There is in all three modes objective and subjective play. Simulationism traditionally has been dominated by the subjective side, the desire to experience. In part, that's because the objective form of simulationism has been largely relegated to wargames. I think that there have always been some roleplayers for whom the "experience" is very objectified, as they watch "their guy" go through things. The relationship between the player and the character more resembles that of researcher and subject than something more intimate--even as intimate as author and character.

Yes, immersive play has been very much part of the simulationist tradition; but I think when Ralph talks about those games in which they leapt off cliffs because the game mechanics said their characters could survive and they wanted to see it happen, he was not talking about an immersive experience but a detached observer experience.

I think that the detached observer approach to simulationist play gets short shrift in much of the thinking to date, and it severely hurts understanding of the model and of simulationism in particular. The character who says he wants to experience what it would be like to be a hobbit in Middle Earth is certainly a simulationist; but he is not more a simulationist than the one who says he wants to see what would have happened had Galadriel decided to accept the One Ring and attempt to overthrow Sauron's power with it.

In short, the emphasis on immersive subjective experiential play as characteristic of simulationism is true from a perspective of historical dominance (at least in terms of that which was recognized as such), but it's misrepresentative of simulationism as a creative agendum.

Either that, or the act of role playing to learn objectively about the elements of exploration is an unrecognized independent agendum.

--M. J. Young

Hey M. J.,

Quote from: M. J. Young

Quote from: SilmenumeGamism and Narrativism are basically defined by how they address conflict - Gamism is addressing Challenge and Narrativism is addressing Premise.  Both Challenge and Premise are conflict driven, and in both cases define which conflicts are of interest to the play to the players and thus guides play as which conflicts to create.

This sounds to me like saying that gasoline engines and stir fry both rely on oil to make them work, and then pretending that it's the same kind of oil in both cases. I assure you that if I used the same oil I put in my crankcase to make my stir fry, you would not like it, and it would not like you.

I think I am beginning to see where the confusion lies.  You analogy, while allowing me a well needed chuckle, is incorrect for it does not reflect what I am saying or intending to say.  But for the hope of simplicity I will use a similar one to illustrate my point.

I am saying that a gasoline engine and a coal fired steam locomotive both rely on fuel to make them work.  Try and put gasoline into the steam locomotive and you will have problems.  Putting coal into a gasoline engine will also generate problems.  However both gasoline and coal are fuels however different their forms, used in different ways, that have different properties, requiring different types of engines to make us of, both serving the same purpose – providing the energy to make the engines work.

Metaphorically I am saying that conflict is fuel.  The fact that it comes in radically different forms doesn't change the fact that it is fuel.  In fact, that it comes in radically different forms necessitating different "engines" to harness its energy is reflected in the radically different game designs.

Quote from: M. J. YoungThat which we call "conflict" in narrativist play and that which we call "conflict" in gamist play are completely different things, and they are approached in completely different ways.

There is a lion in the road ahead, and the only way to continue the journey is to defeat the lion or find a way around him. That is conflict in gamist play; it is not conflict in narrativist play--it is merely an event.

You're not saying anything different than what I have already accounted for.  Conflict only exists if Player driven/created Character goal comes into contact with an antithetical force.  Thus if a Narrativist player has not imbued his Character with a goal that has anything to do with a lion in the road then indeed it is not a conflict.  I agree with you completely.

Here's the deal though.  Any person would typically have lots of problems with a lion in the road, and this is where the Narrativist departs from Simulationist.  A Narrativist puts more stake (prioritizes) in addressing Premise than reacting to Situation in a fashion that highlights Character mediated response.  IOW the Narrativist in this case is willing to ignore what is normally an issue for a person, acting in a fashion that appears to be illogical (ignoring a potential threat to one's life) in order to prioritize addressing premise rather than address the conflict in a manner that a player who is prioritizing exploring Character would be.

While I say Character, I fully understand and do not represent any other position than it is the player who is making the decisions.  In my posts here (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?p=124313#124313) and here (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?p=124604#124604) I emphatically point out that it is the player who is making the decisions and acting upon conflict.

Why do I say Character conflict?  Because these conflicts are fictional; and by the definition of conflict that I have repeatedly offered they are the conflicts of fictional characters.  We as players are not facing a lion in the road.  Our player agency, the Character (a fictional construct) is facing a (fictional) lion in the (fictional) road leading possibly to a (fictional) conflict.  Thus we as players don't have a conflict unless we as players assume the circumstances of the Character.  Does this imply that the players are at the mercy and direction of their Characters?  No.  But in Sim limiting our actions and responses to the circumstances of our created characters is a priority.  Not so in Gamism where Character is a tool whereby Challenge is addressed and the players are rewarded for successfully addressing the fictional conflict.  Not so in Narrativism where character integrity can be sacrificed in order to address Premise.  Premise addressing has priority or Character integrity.  This is not to imply that character is not important to either agenda, but rather character integrity is not the prioritized element.  By prioritized I am speaking of that element of play which is the choke point of player action.  A Gamist is bound by player integrity – no cheating is allowed via breaking or bypassing the agreed upon parameters of the Challenge.  A Narrativist is bound by player integrity – a player must address the agreed upon Premise and do so without impinging upon the protagonism (I think that is right word) of the other players.  A Simulationist is bound by Character integrity.  If a Simulationist player breaks character integrity then he is sometimes accused of cheating but is actually starting to pursue other Creative Agendas.

What happens is that we decide as players whether or not we will make the effort to address this event that our character faces or not.  A conflict only arises if a player makes it so – ala the Lumpley Principle.  But lets face it, the player, via his Character, is constantly scanning the Setting to see if anything squares with his idea of a conflict that would be interesting to investigate/address.

What helps the player to determine which Setting elements to elevate to the status of conflict – rewards.  Its not enough for the Gamist to face any conflict, it must be one that he will be rewarded for doing so.  The Narrativist is not so much rewarded as empowered to address Premise, which is the reward – they get to do more of which they wish to do.  A Simulationist is rewarded, in and out of game, for their ability to defuse difficult conflicts while maintaining Character integrity.  In all three Agendas the players are rewarded at the Social level for their ability to deal with Conflicts in a way that lines up with the parameters of the Creative Agenda.

Quote from: M. J. YoungCreative agendum is defined by what it is the player finds enjoyable in play, and thus what it is that the player wants from play, and thus what motivates the player during play. It is recognized by observing conduct (not by asking players what they want), because this is the most accurate means of identifying such.

...

Creative Agendum is defined by what it is the player finds enjoyable in play...

Actually that is not the case, you have the cart before the horse.  Ron has gone on again and again that we cannot accurately determine player motives, so we can only observe player actions and from those data points can we diagnose play and thus infer which Creative Agenda is in operation.  Creative Agenda is defined by what the players are doing in play.  In terms of the model a Creative Agenda can only be defined based on observable behaviors of the player not their intentions/motives.  Thus a player playing to test some ideas regarding tactics is still Gamist because he is still addressing Challenge even if he isn't motivated by glorious victory.  There might be a correlation between player motivation to play and Creative Agenda but that there is a causal relationship has not been established.  The model not only does not allow for player motivation to be taken into account when diagnosing play, Ron has vigorously defended that position.  The CA's are defined by and are descriptive of player behaviors with some educated assumptions about what motivates those behaviors thrown in.  The only thing that we can positively assert when diagnosing a CA in operation is exactly that, that the players are doing certain things in play – anything about what is going on with the players internally/motivationally is educated guess work.

Quote from: M. J. YoungDiscovery is not passive.  Ask any research scientist.

If research is to roleplay then Discovery is to Exploration as the Scientific method is to Science.  To say that a scientist is interested in Discovery is to say nothing about what field of research he is interested in and what tools are best suited to that task.  Creative Agendas are the equivalent to that interest in a specific field of research.  All roleplayers Discover things; and by extension of analogy in use that is the equivalent to saying scientists Discover things.  Yes they do, they all do.  What distinguishes CA's is what the players are focusing on, or in the case of the scientist analogy what field of research he is focusing his efforts on.

Hey Ron,

You're on both sides of the Discovery coin.

M. J. states that Discovery driven by the Query (and thus to my understanding that means Discovery is identified by the Query process) – to wit:

Quote from: M. J. YoungQuery is that which identifies what is investigated. So curiosity focuses in a query, and investigation springs from the query driven by curiosity toward discovery.

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?p=120923#120923

Later in the same thread you agree to but feel the point is already covered in your essays.

Later in another thread Rob proposes -

Quote from: Rob Carriere...the players ask questions about the SIS and use the answers to create new questions?

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?p=120952#120952

To which Ron responded

Quote from: Ron EdwardsRob, that works pretty well, except that it's more suited to Exploration in general rather than to the Right to Dream specifically.

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?p=120975#120975

Substitute Query for questions and Investigation for "use the answers to create new questions" and you have the same process.

On top you agree that Discovery can be/is representative of Sim but then above you state that a certain process, which is the Discovery process, describes Exploration in general.  Which is EXACTLY my point regarding Discovery.  So you are agreeing the Discovery is and isn't descriptive of Sim (because it is descriptive of Exploration in general).

Discovery as defined describes Exploration in general, not Simulationism.  It does not define what the players are doing nor does it suggest what it is that the players are focusing on.  Another problem with Discovery is that it is being used both as a definer of the process of play, i.e., addressing Challenge or Premise, while it is also being used as a definer of the Social or Personal Rewards level – Step on Up/Story Now.  At the Social level in both Agendas what is important is what is revealed and held in esteem about the players.  Discovery says nothing about that whole social phenomenon which is a very strong driving force behind the players playing in the first place.  On the Social level of the Agendas, player-to-player, they are all about HOW the players deal with conflict.  Simulationism is also about how players deal with conflict.  Discovery is not about conflict – in fact Discovery, as defined, is conflict avoidant. (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?p=120923&highlight=conflict+blocks+discovery#120923/)

Ok - things have moved along alot since I started my post so I will stop here for the mercy of others and start another to address further developments.

Aure Entaluva,

Silmenume

Quote from: SilmenumeA Narrativist puts more stake (prioritizes) in addressing Premise than reacting to Situation in a fashion that highlights Character mediated response.  IOW the Narrativist in this case is willing to ignore what is normally an issue for a person, acting in a fashion that appears to be illogical (ignoring a potential threat to one?s life) in order to prioritize addressing premise rather than address the conflict in a manner that a player who is prioritizing exploring Character would be.

...But in Sim limiting our actions and responses to the circumstances of our created characters is a priority.  Not so in Gamism where Character is a tool whereby Challenge is addressed and the players are rewarded for successfully addressing the fictional conflict.  Not so in Narrativism where character integrity can be sacrificed in order to address Premise.  Premise addressing has priority or Character integrity.  This is not to imply that character is not important to either agenda, but rather character integrity is not the prioritized element.  By prioritized I am speaking of that element of play which is the choke point of player action.  A Gamist is bound by player integrity ? no cheating is allowed via breaking or bypassing the agreed upon parameters of the Challenge.  A Narrativist is bound by player integrity ? a player must address the agreed upon Premise and do so without impinging upon the protagonism (I think that is right word) of the other players.  A Simulationist is bound by Character integrity.  If a Simulationist player breaks character integrity then he is sometimes accused of cheating but is actually starting to pursue other Creative Agendas.

I disagree; however, I see that there is an extensive rant entitled Sacrificing "Character Integrity" - A Rant which appears to be new despite its length, so I'm going to defer my answer until I've had a chance to read that, and will address the matter there if it is appropriate.

QuoteRon has gone on again and again that we cannot accurately determine player motives, so we can only observe player actions and from those data points can we diagnose play and thus infer which Creative Agenda is in operation.  Creative Agenda is defined by what the players are doing in play.  In terms of the model a Creative Agenda can only be defined based on observable behaviors of the player not their intentions/motives.  Thus a player playing to test some ideas regarding tactics is still Gamist because he is still addressing Challenge even if he isn?t motivated by glorious victory.  There might be a correlation between player motivation to play and Creative Agenda but that there is a causal relationship has not been established.  The model not only does not allow for player motivation to be taken into account when diagnosing play, Ron has vigorously defended that position.  The CA?s are defined by and are descriptive of player behaviors with some educated assumptions about what motivates those behaviors thrown in.  The only thing that we can positively assert when diagnosing a CA in operation is exactly that, that the players are doing certain things in play ? anything about what is going on with the players internally/motivationally is educated guess work.

(Bold emphasis mine.)

A Creative Agendum is a definition of what a player wants to get from play. It is inherently about intent, motive, drive, whatever you wish to call it. It is not about stated motive, intent, or drive, but about actual motive, intent, or drive. It is what the player actually wants, as reflected in what he does.

As you say, we define agenda by behavior "with some educated assumptions about what motivates those behaviors". That is, looking at what the players do, when they do it, how they do it, how they react to it, all of that tells us their agendum only because we think we know why they're doing it. The very concept of an agendum is "this is why they act that way". This is why narrativists, gamists, and simulationists clash, because they are trying to get something different out of the game. What they do is a reflection of what they want. We use what they do to determine what they want, but the agendum is a definition of what they want.

The alternative would appear to be that the three "agenda" are nothing more than collections of learned behaviors that mean nothing other than that they tend to occur together, any or all of which could be changed by conditioning with no impact on the enjoyment of play.

Perhaps more precisely, an agendum is what it is that the player wants to enjoy doing. That makes it an intent.

--M. J. Young

Quote from: M. J. YoungThat experience of something vicariously through their characters is the knowledge they seek. It is subjectively attained, but it is still discovery.

Quote

I think we're arguing semantics here so I'll keep my comments brief.  
I think labelling the exploration that happens in simulationism as discovery is obfuscatory, it's muddying the waters without any real gain.
It's adding jargon to an already jargon rich environment.  

Quote from: M. J. YoungIn short, the emphasis on immersive subjective experiential play as characteristic of simulationism is true from a perspective of historical dominance (at least in terms of that which was recognized as such), but it's misrepresentative of simulationism as a creative agendum.

Either that, or the act of role playing to learn objectively about the elements of exploration is an unrecognized independent agendum.

I'll agree with you that role playing to learn is not a seperate creative agenda however I think you've taken the opposite approach and blown it up to be the whole of Simulationism.  The majority of simulationists, the subjective side as you've labelled them are not playing to learn.  They are not trying to discover something, they dont have that detached "let's see what happens" angle, they are playing out 'the Dream' with no goal other than to live out the experience with all the risks and dangers that make it feel real.

Quote from: CaldisI'll agree with you that role playing to learn is not a seperate creative agenda however I think you've taken the opposite approach and blown it up to be the whole of Simulationism.  The majority of simulationists, the subjective side as you've labelled them are not playing to learn.  They are not trying to discover something, they dont have that detached "let's see what happens" angle, they are playing out 'the Dream' with no goal other than to live out the experience with all the risks and dangers that make it feel real.

Quite so, I would also say the same is true for sim wargamers actually, it's about experiencing the dream rather than seeing what happens.  What happens is important, but the verisimilitude is the key.

Is this more than a semantic distinction though?  Not wholly sure it is.

Quote from: BalbinusIs this more than a semantic distinction though?  Not wholly sure it is.

I think very much so. Some would say that the only reason they experience something is what they learn from it.

I'd say that it is, at it's base, purely experiential. What the player does with the experiences, or why he wants them is additional, and probably covers all manner of things. Again, we're trying to get into motives here. GNS doesn't deny motive, it just doesn't pretend to know what they are. All we can say is that a player prioritizing simulationism is out for the experience more than addressing premise or confronting personal challenge for some reason. And that's sufficient.

Mike

Thanks everyone!

So to get back onto topic about defining a Creative Agenda I have a few ideas that came to me that I would like to open up for discussion.

In regards to conflict and using it as a diagnostic to determine player CA in operation –

The Narrativist CA gives the player the most control over conflict.  Players are empowered to directly create, govern and alter the outcome of conflicts.  No other CA allows the players such power.  The rewards for doing so effectively are typically more power to continue doing the same, but much of the player reward is in the addressing of conflict directly.  This level of authorship is indicative of Story Now!  Narrativist don't need that many in game rewards to engage conflict, it's what it is all about.  They just want to make sure it the right conflicts.  This is why a Narrativist would think a Gamist is annoy because the Gamist is all over the map hunting for that Easter egg reward without regard to the Premise (story).

The Gamist CA does not really give the players any control over conflict, that role is typically left in the hands of a DM.  The players are willing to engage in conflict only if there are rewards to be had.  The rewards allow the Gamist to address Challenge more effectively as well as push him on towards victory.  If there were no rewards to be earned then I would venture that the Gamist would not engage – IOW what's the point?  This is why a Gamist would look at a Narrativist and wonder what the hell they are doing with all that wonderful conflict but wasting all those opportunities to dish out or earn rewards!  To a Gamist conflict is a means by which rewards are earned that push that tote board ever closer towards victory.

The Simulationist CA does not give the players any control over conflict creation/management either.  The DM must provide it as well.  Here's the deal though, the player enjoys the conflict for its own sake as well – its just plain exciting or invigorating, etc.  The difference between Narrativism enjoyment of conflict and Sim enjoyment of conflict is how conflict is defined.  For the Narrativist its defined by Premise, for the Simulationist its defined by the Character.  Typically though most Sim designed games offer character rewards for successful interaction with conflict.  This is why most Sim games can be easily hijacked by Gamists.  To a Narrativist this passivity towards conflict drives them crazy and they start bumping heads with the DM over conflict management.

In all three CA's the players all give social rewards for how well the other players managed conflict.  Did the Narrativist create a great Premise (conflict) or did he address the Premise question (conflict) in a way that was exciting to the other players?  Did the Gamist win a great victory (conflict defeat) and reap much in game reward or did he come up with a great and masterful strategy (mastery over conflict) that the players recognized as superlative?  In Simulationism the rewards for dealing with conflict are handed out for how the player dealt with the conflict within the confines of the Character.  The object is not to "break" the character, but rather to see if/how the player can create a response given the local parameters.  Thus to a Simulationist conflict is a test that builds the story of the character while demonstrating the creativity and problem solving and stress handling skills of the player.  The key is how well the player does it from "within" the character.  The big difference between Sim and G/N is that conflict is not supposed to be an overt part of the player's actions; it's the experience of working through the conflict as if it is ours that counts.

The Narrativist employs, creates, manipulates conflict to meld it to their interests and needs.  The Gamist rushes towards conflict in that quest for in game rewards that push that tote board up higher and higher.  The Simulationist needs the DM to create relevant circumstances so that the player could justify their character addressing the conflict.  The big mistake that Simulationist theory, design and history has made is that because the player must wait on the DM that conflict isn't important.  Bah!  You can't explore character or press the players without it!

Let's face it, conflict is exciting and revealing.  The difference between the CA's is who's in control of it, what kinds are interesting, and what are the rewards.

As Ron keeps asking for real play examples I offer up example for rewards offered in the Sim game I play in.  Players are rewarded with "experience checks" for good character roleplay.  This could be anything from good performance, color, brilliant defusing of conflict, excellent acting, good use of character limitation or gift, etc.  How important are these "checks"?  A player needs 10x the level he is going to in checks as well as straight EP's to gain a level.  A Gamist who kills much will not go up levels if he doesn't play his character.  At the end of the night players are given player ratings for their overall performance that night.  Also at the end of the night a "star" is given for the best roleplayer that night – again based upon character-delimited actions, not how much stuff was killed.

The other night a I was playing a Ranger of Ithilian.  Rangers in the game have tremendous powers of law, they can act in the name of the Steward of Gondor, and as warriors they are the best humans can be.  Rare character's very hard to come by.  So here I am in a situation where I was assisting another Ranger bring a man by the name of Pebble.  Pebble was a Banderon Scout who went bad.  Due to a story 10 real years in the making, they were accused of false crimes and were being hunted while they were trying to continue to do the right thing, the Scouts finally folded.  Some of them turned to banditry, though Pebble and his uncle, Stone, turned to drinking.  Well things went bad and they started rolling drunks and not too long later Stone was killed by a bounty hunter and Pebble was on the gallows set to be hanged.  Only by the player's roleplay was he able to convince the Ranger to arrest him when Pebble indicated he was from Banderon and that he had fought side by side with another Ranger by the name of Cobb.  Remember the Banderon Scouts were good guys who swore oaths to protect and to serve, so this character, Pebble, has fallen a long way.  The Ranger had to throw his weight around and threaten the local magistrate to take custody of Pebble.  Apparently the Ranger knew of the Scouts and had a soft spot for them, though the Ranger made if very clear if that Pebble was lying or tried anything to escape he would kill Pebble on the Spot.

This is where I came in.  I was on patrol.  By the way the philosophy of the Rangers is one riot one Ranger, so we are always facing impossible situations.  I came across Pebble and the Ranger so I go with them for a few days as they were in my area of patrol.  I recognized Pebble from long ago but I didn't say anything biding my time to see what was up.  We were accosted about 2 days later by about 30 bandits on horseback led by one of the captains of the now defunct Banderon Scouts.  Wade, the captain, calls Pebble back to his gang who eventually goes and now it is just 2 Rangers vs 30 men horseback.

The other Ranger is incensed by this betrayal by Pebble but suggests we try and flee in two different directions as we are near some woods.  I agree, but we are both ridden down and the Ranger managed to kill about 2 bandits before going down earning him no love from them.  We are captured, but he Captain being no fool is no hurry to kill Rangers because the Rangers would sooner forgive the killer of a lord than the killer of Ranger.  They would hunt this man down for the rest of his life and he knows it.  They know if we return we will call for more men and we will hunt them down.  Wade's men however will mutiny if he doesn't do something with us 2 Rangers.  He's got agitators and the Ranger on my side has got a real hard on for Pebble.

So I think how can I get out of this alive.  What does Wade want?  I know I can't fight my way out and I know that he is reluctant to kill Rangers, but that doesn't mean he won't.  I figure out that I will offer him a letter of Marque as an irregular mercenary company to operation in the disputed lands south of Gondor.  He gets to continue raiding to his hearts content, he doesn't have to fear the Rangers hunting him forever, I get the problem taken care of by removing the bandits as opposed to having to die trying to "arrest" them out numbered as I am.  They no longer can be threatened by us as they now how a legitimate Marque with amnesty and safe passage through Gondor.  Plus they may do the country some good by sewing seeds of confusing down south.  Great plan except an agitator in the bandits says I don't want to leave here, another says let's get the letter and then kill the Rangers, the Ranger I am with is hardnosed and says he refuses to treat with bandits.  I expend much effort trying to convince the Ranger the usefulness of the plan, as death is the only other possibility.  Eventually it goes to shit, there is infighting with the bandits, the other Ranger got himself killed because he tried to arrest all the bandits to which they responded by killing him instantly (we had no weapons as they had been taken from us).

Wade keeps me from being killed.  At knife point he commands me to write the letter.  I hope that he is just playing the role of brutal man to the hilt and doesn't really want to kill a "cop" as he used to be one to though of a different ilk.  Sure enough later that night he comes to me and says best not to be too quick writing that letter.  He asks he quietly what would happen if I would "happen to escape".  I told him that I would keep my word, that letter of Marque would be left behind and that I would not trouble him despite what I felt as the other Ranger suiciding himself.  I told him that it would be easier for me if I had a body to take back to explain the death of the other Ranger.  Later Wade had a card game set where one of the gamblers was someone he didn't like.  When Wade finally joined he started playing for real money and losing bad.  When the man he didn't like finally won a hand Wade accused him of cheating and in a few moments there was my dead man that I needed for my cover story.  Come 2 or 3 in the morning one of Wade's men, a former Scout as well came by with a knife, gave it to me, I cut my bonds and I was let go.  I kept my word and did not bother them.  I waited for a day, went back, got the body of the killed bandit, buried the dead Ranger and set out for a Ranger window.

For the plan and the roleplay of the parlay and the interaction with the Ranger I received much reward at the end of the night.  I played my character in a really dangerous and shitty position, as I was the "law" but felt that dying uselessly was not a good use of "government property".  I can't hunt orc and things that roam in the night near the borders of Mordor when I am dead, especially if it would have been a death that would not have bought anything for Gondor.  By the way death is real and permanent, so once a character is gone, that is it.  My whole night was spent juggling responsibility to letter of the lay with staying alive to trying to find a workable solution.

My goals were to stay alive and do so in a fashion that would be representative of Ranger of Ithilian.  My character's story grew, some heretofore unknown things about his character were revealed, I received accolades for fast thinking.  I experienced the simulation of what it was like to be a Ranger in a situation they can encounter.  It was stressful and in the end extremely cool!  During this whole time I was trying to defuse conflict so that I attain my character and ultimately my goals.

Aure Entuluva,

Silmenume

Not buying it. In Sorcerer the player doesn't have any more control over what the conflict is, or what the outcome is than when playing D&D. Oh, he can indicate to the GM what's interesting to him, but that's no different than a player who likes gamism telling the GM what challenges he likes to overcome.

The differences in conflics presented for each of these is in terms of what the player chooses to address. Does he look at a problem and see a premise to answer? Does he see a situation to create through? Or does he see a challenge to overcome personally? I think "control" is a non-issue.

Mike

Good stuff - I apologize that I will probably not be able to respond until the 9th as I am going out of town to roleplay for a week.

Have a great 4th everyone!

Aure Entuluva,

Silmenume

Hey Mike,

I think you are right.  Control might be more frequently seen in Narrativism, but it certainly is not definitional, and therefore is a non-issue.

I'm not sure if this is good netiquette to post twice in a row no a thread, but here goes.

Conflict has a two fold role that I can see so far in Exploring.
[list=1]

• Conflict provides the motor for addressing.
  
• Conflict provides risk which enhances the intensity/vividness of the Exploration process.[/list:o]In Gamism and Narrativism role 1 is the most important and role 2 can vary in importance from low to high.
  
  In Simulationism the order of importance is reversed and this is why Sim tends to feel and play so differently than Gam/Nar.  Thus role 2 of conflict becomes of primary importance in Sim which is to provide risk so as to enhance the intensity/vividness of the Exploration process.  What was listed as 1 now takes on a secondary role and can vary in importance from low to high.
  
  The problem here in Sim, that isn't really as much an issues in G/N is that historically the first role was never understood and the second role was not really understood to be under the tight control of Internal Causality.  I am not speaking of resolution mechanics, but rather conflict/Situation creation, Character revealing play via conflict work.  So what happened?  It was thought the conflict was either not important or well integrated into play so as to consistently foster the Dream.  The more conflict, the greater the likelihood of Dream support.  But the problem of subjecting conflict creation to the strictures of Internal Causality was never supported either.  So conflict was never really used or it was never understood that it moved "story" forward and in a certain direction.  Thus if you are looking for a hardcore Sim game philosophy you needs lots of high risk conflict and it must all be generated according to internal causality norms especially those related to social structures.
  
  That is what conflict's relationship to Simulationism is.
  
  Think not so much in terms of the beeg horseshoe but rather a 2 pronged pitchfork with G/N on the forks and S being the handle with conflict avoidant (yet to be named) play sitting at the base of the U where all three CAs meet.