The Forge Archives

I was hoping people could help me understand the role of risk in sim play.

I really like recent definitions I've seen of how risk is used in gamist play: the depth of risk the player takes on lets them demonstrate guts. The preparations the player makes for dealing with risk lets them demonstrate smarts.

Can anyone help me understand the role that risk performs in sim play?

Cheers,

Tony

Hi Tony,

The way I've been seeing it for a long time (and clearly this is a controversial topic), Simulationist play is based primarily on celebration of a shared imagined set of events. What makes it difficult to understand is that these events can range so widely, which (to me) doesn't matter, as the essential priority seems the same to me as I gaze over the diversity.

That's why I'm glad you asked this question, because it helps me articulate one of the "sameness" things. I don't think actual-person risk plays much role in Simulationist play in comparison with Gamist or Narrativist. It is ... well, "comfortable" in a way that the other two potentially are not, even when it's procedurally and intellectually demanding.

Some social or aesthetic risks are possible in Simulationist play, certainly. Here are the ones I can think of immediately.

1. Not getting the genre at hand. People who are enjoying a setting with a great deal of commitment to its (for instance) historical integrity are not going to like playing with someone who doesn't grasp that commitment.

Although this effect can be annoying in any sort of play which places some emphasis on its setting-integrity, I think it's more of a deal-breaker in Simulationist play.

2. Not depicting one's character well to a minimal degree that's set by the group.

3. In some forms of Simulationist play, inadvertently not cooperating with the story-goals of whoever is making a story happen (usually the GM).

In all the above, I'm not talking about a player who doesn't want to cooperate or participate in the celebration, but rather who demonstrates his or her incompetence at it. That's the risk: being seen as a poor contributor.

Bear in mind that the Simulationist concept is a bit of a controversy at the moment. I think a number of people would consider my #1-2 to be applicable to any play with a heavy emphasis on setting/character, period, and my #3 to be a dysfunctional situation from the get-go and not Sim.

Best,
Ron

Quote from: Ron EdwardsSimulationist play is based primarily on celebration of a shared imagined set of events.

Controversal indeed.  My problem with this approach to Simulationism is it is functionally identical to Exploration.  I fail to see how all roleplaying does not involve a celebration of a shared imagined set of events.  

Quote3. In some forms of Simulationist play, inadvertently not cooperating with the story-goals of whoever is making a story happen (usually the GM).


Bear in mind that the Simulationist concept is a bit of a controversy at the moment. I think a number of people would consider <snip>  my #3 to be a dysfunctional situation from the get-go and not Sim.

Actually I think this highlights the other key area of controversy.  #3 would not be dysfunctional play, it would be a key goal of Sim play (and not inadvertantly either).  The idea that there is some person with story-goals that the other players are supposed to cooperate with to make happen has been clogging up the works for a long time.  "Story" in sim play is whatever sequence of events actually wound up happening through play.  This is diametrically opposed to the idea of the GM having story-goals that the players are supposed to cooperate to achieve.  


So with that said in the interest of disclosing the different perspective, my take on risk in Sim winds up not being that far off from Ron's.

Risk in a sim game is pushed down to the level of the characters.  It is the characters who are at risk.  It is they who may experience either success or failure.  Ideally, in sim play, the players don't care which.  They are there to "find out what happens" and if "what happens" happens to be that the characters fail, that is acceptable.  Players may root for their characters to succeed.  Indeed much of the adversity in Sim play is predicated on the players doing a good job at portraying their character's desire to succeed and the GMs doing a good job at portraying an enemy's desire to see them fail.  But ultimately the player's don't want their characters to succeed badly enough to be willing to violate the integrity of the simulation to make that happen.  In other words, no fudging, no illusionary technique, no Deus ex Machina to save the day.  That would be worse than character failure to sim play.

In this case the choice is between the lesser of two evils.  One evil is having a campaign that ends poorly with the heroes meeting unheroic ends where not even the tragic elements are satisfying.  The other evil is when, to avoid the first evil, the players/GM violate the sanctity of the sim to prevent such an unsatisfying end.

The risk, then, that is faced by the players in all sim play is the risk of an unsatisfying climax.  Related to this is the risk as a player of not being able to handle that (perhaps due to caring about the character more than the integrity of the sim) and resorting to unnacceptable techniques to stave off unsatisfying ends.

Quote from: Valamir
Risk in a sim game is pushed down to the level of the characters.  It is the characters who are at risk.  It is they who may experience either success or failure.  Ideally, in sim play, the players don't care which.  They are there to "find out what happens" and if "what happens" happens to be that the characters fail, that is acceptable.  Players may root for their characters to succeed.  Indeed much of the adversity in Sim play is predicated on the players doing a good job at portraying their character's desire to succeed and the GMs doing a good job at portraying an enemy's desire to see them fail.  But ultimately the player's don't want their characters to succeed badly enough to be willing to violate the integrity of the simulation to make that happen.  In other words, no fudging, no illusionary technique, no Deus ex Machina to save the day.  That would be worse than character failure to sim play.

I (as stated recently) agree with this take on Sim.

I believe much of the "desire to succeed" comes from the level of immersion or suspension of disbelief and  how strongly the player relates to his or her character.

If the level is low then it's a scientific experiment.

If the level is high then it's a fundamental strong urge to succeed while staying in character.

If the level is high and the character is relevant in some way to the player then one finds an in and out of game emotional response to the situation (I think this may approach the boundary to Narrativism since I think relationship to the character comes from relating to human-experience stuff that etither a real person or even an imaginary one is going through).

But all of this is subordinate to keeping in Actor Stance (which may or may not be the perfect term--but is as close as I can come here)--without Actor stance the situation's relevance loses power (IMO).

-Marco

Quote from: ValamirThe risk, then, that is faced by the players in all sim play is the risk of an unsatisfying climax.

Ralph, do you view the definition of satisfying/unsatisfying as being group driven? So that sim play is driven by real people appreciating and celebrating each other's contributions in the same way that narrativist and gamist are? The risk isn't "bad dream/good dream", but "I make our dream bad/I make our dream good"?

Thanks Ron, and Ralph, I really appreciate your answers.

Tony

Quote from: MarcoI believe much of the "desire to succeed" comes from the level of immersion or suspension of disbelief and  how strongly the player relates to his or her character.

If the level is low then it's a scientific experiment.

If the level is high then it's a fundamental strong urge to succeed while staying in character.

If the level is high and the character is relevant in some way to the player then one finds an in and out of game emotional response to the situation (I think this may approach the boundary to Narrativism since I think relationship to the character comes from relating to human-experience stuff that etither a real person or even an imaginary one is going through).

Thanks Marco. Would you say then that all sim play enjoys experiencing or "apprehending" risk? Players may differ in the extent to which they desire certain outcomes (and that desire is rooted in character identification, not on winning kudos from other players, or on making a thematic statement) but at some level they all want to experience risk?

What Ron said...

However, I'd sum up all the statements with:

The risk for the player is generated by how well he explores the "main subject of exploration" as defined by the group.

Of course, this statement is tru for Narrativist and Gamist CA's as well, so I'll narrow it down for Simulationist goals. In my view (which is controversial and carries less weight than the other posters here), a CA is defined by what it explores.  Since Sim focuses on exploring a particular part of the game (setting, character, situation, even system), players risk not being in line with exploring that particular part of the game.  Thus, I have played in a group where the healer Jedi character wanted to go explore the healing properties of plants on Hou'din, while the rest of us were trying to solve the mysteries of the cloaking device.  She annoyed the most of us, but we attributed it to her being a "so-so" roleplayer.  This comes back to what Ron said...

Quote from: Ron EdwardsIn all the above, I'm not talking about a player who doesn't want to cooperate or participate in the celebration, but rather who demonstrates his or her incompetence at it. That's the risk: being seen as a poor contributor.

In Nar and Gam, the same holds true.  In Gam I'm exploring Challenge.  If I do it poorly or take on a different challenge than I should, I risk being a poor contributor.  In Nar, the Premise is the subject of exploration.  Again, doing it poorly will bring down wrath upon my head....

My $0.02...

Cheers
Jonathan

Edited to note the cross-post with Tony...

I think both of those risks are present Tony.  There is the standard Peer Pressure risk that is present in all social activity as to whether you as a participant are going to let the group down because you're not good enough at the activity to do it as well as your peers.  The risk of "I made the dream bad".

But I think there is also the "bad dream" risk where at the end of a campaign, the players look around the table at each other and say  "man...that was really lame", "yeah, 6 months of weekly sessions and it ends like that?...that sucks."

In other words the players successfully remained committed to the ideal of "what happens", but in the end "what happened" stunk.

Dedicated sim players pick themselves up, brush themselves off and say, "oh well, what should be play next".

Others become disillusioned with the outcome and go in quest of techniques to help ensure that the next time they dedicate 6 months to a campaign the ending doesn't suck.  

I don't think its any great speculation given the roots of roleplaying in wargaming to suggest that that was precisely the route that was taken historically as players less dedicated to the Sim aspects of roleplaying got involved in the hobby.

A common sim response to the risk of the sucky ending is to reduce that risk by front loading situation.  The more compelling the initial situation, the less likely the ending is to suck.  

I'll further note,  that rewinding an unsatisfactory ending to a prior decision point and running it through again would also be completely conceivable as a valid sim solution...one that is very true to the roots of sim where gamers would take a given scenario and rerun it multiple times with different parameters (i.e. "what if this time, the German tanks weren't running low on fuel, would the 101st still hold out?").  While I don't have any significant anecdotal evidence to support groups doing this commonly, it would be a conceivable response to unsatisfying game endings that wouldn't necessarily violate sim sensibilities.


I'll also tangentally caveat the rather definitive statement I made above of

Quoteno fudging, no illusionary technique, no Deus ex Machina to save the day. That would be worse than character failure to sim play

An exception to this is when the players agree that the game mechanics have let them down.  At such times it is quite common in sim play to see the players work what might be painted as fudging or illusionary techniques in order to fix the game.  In other words, saving the simulation by fudging through bad mechanics.  I would imagine that the very first RPG house rules were invented for just such purposes.

Its actually a beautiful example of system in action where the players are taking back the credibility they'd previously given to the game rules and negotiating out a new outcome independent of those rules.

Quote from: Tony Irwin
Thanks Marco. Would you say then that all sim play enjoys experiencing or "apprehending" risk? Players may differ in the extent to which they desire certain outcomes (and that desire is rooted in character identification, not on winning kudos from other players, or on making a thematic statement) but at some level they all want to experience risk?

Maybe. Ralph said in another thread that he "didn't understand Sim"--and I agree with that. Where Ron sees sameness, I see (presently) two very different incompatible agendas.

What I mainly see is this: the term Simulationist came about because people were doing what-if in contrast to story-first. I'm not sure that either of these deal directly with player-risk.

On the other hand, in the Actor-Stance/Author-Stance Narrativism thread between Vincent and Nathan I don't see how, if you're in Author-stance, you are consciously assuming risk for the premise-addressing-quality of your play even though both agreed that Actor-Stance-Narrativism was valid and Ron didn't object.

But I do know this: identification with the PC in what-if play certainly means that I usually *feel* that risk in the game to my character is interperted as risk to me (this is combat, life-and-death style risk).

-Marco

Quote from: Valamir
I'll further note,  that rewinding an unsatisfactory ending to a prior decision point and running it through again would also be completely conceivable as a valid sim solution...one that is very true to the roots of sim where gamers would take a given scenario and rerun it multiple times with different parameters (i.e. "what if this time, the German tanks weren't running low on fuel, would the 101st still hold out?").  While I don't have any significant anecdotal evidence to support groups doing this commonly, it would be a conceivable response to unsatisfying game endings that wouldn't necessarily violate sim sensibilities.

While I have yet to see this down on a large scale, it happens on a smaller one quite frequently.

Example:
My character and the bad guy are battling in a room full of flammable chemicals.  I'm wearing full body armor and he is not.  In the course of the fight he flips up my visor to punch me in the face.  A few minutes later I shoot a vial of chemicals, inducing a large explosion.  The GM says "dude your face is going to be goo!"  I reply with, "wait a minute, why is my mask open?"  He reminds me that the villian opened it.  I remind him that the rules state that my visor is locked during combat.  He says, "oh, in that case, excellent shot!"  We just changed the setting using system after the original decisions had been made.  No Actor Stance...

Thus, I averted my character's risk of becoming disfigured or killed.  I think that though this type of risk is common in Sim games, it is not absolutely neccessary.  The kind of risk I was not interested in is whether or not the story had a dramatic ending.  That's another motive that probably lies within another CA...

Cheers
Jonathan

Quote from: MarcoRalph said in another thread that he "didn't understand Sim"--and I agree with that.

Come again?

Did you mean Ron here?

Quote from: Valamir

Quote from: MarcoRalph said in another thread that he "didn't understand Sim"--and I agree with that.

Come again?

Did you mean Ron here?

I meant when Mike said you "didn't understand sim" and were making your own version of the theory to explain it. That is, you didn't understand the conventional take on Sim being exploration-squared.

I may be miss-remembering. If I am, I apologize (I certainly did not mean that you "didn't understand simulationist play"--but rather than you felt the current theory-version didn't hold up).

-Marco

Quote from: JonathonSince Sim focuses on exploring a particular part of the game (setting, character, situation, even system), players risk not being in line with exploring that particular part of the game.  Thus, I have played in a group where the healer Jedi character wanted to go explore the healing properties of plants on Hou'din, while the rest of us were trying to solve the mysteries of the cloaking device.  She annoyed the most of us, but we attributed it to her being a "so-so" roleplayer.  

Jonathon, thanks for replying. In Gamism, someone presents you with risk - purposefully gives you the chance to show you've got the goods to handle challenges. In Narrativism I suppose someone presents you with risk to give you the chance to prove that what you value really does matter.

In your opinion why would someone present a simulationist with risk? From your Star Wars example I guess maybe it was to say "Prove you're one of us! Prove you love Star Wars in the very particular way that we do". The player's choices proved they didn't. Do you see that as an accurate surmisal of what happened there?

In a word... yes.

The group makes the statement (through action, not consciously) that we want our characters to develop in a certain way with certain goals in mind.  My character simply wants to defeat the Empire and any dark Jedi in the process.  (He's a Jedi.)  Another character wants revenge against the Imperials for killing his family...  Another just wants his life back.  (he's wanted by the Empire.)  But, the healer Jedi says, "I could give a hoot about fighting the Empire, and by in-game extension, finding the cloaking device, I want my character to become a very powerful healer."  
We say, "I can't believe she doesn't want to go after the cloaking device!"
She is not following the group consensus of "we want to go after the Empire!"


OTOH, my character can face risk in-game, but to a Sim player, that's part of the game.  In fact, in Gam and Nar games, characters face in-game risk and their players are quite happy as well.  All that matters is that the game provides Challenge, or addressing a Premise, etc.  Often this in-game risk looks the same no matter which CA the game is played with.

Cheers
Jonathan

Ralph if I get you right then a lot of good techniques for sim play are about diffusing or reducing the "bad dream" risk. Do you think there are conditions where sim players actively embrace that risk or at least somebody actively presents bad-dream risk to the players forcing them to deal with it?

Is it possible that good sim GMs present risk like this - genuinely threatening to sabotage the dream, forcing the players to "save the dream" and in doing so make it better. I know you played a lot of L5R (I'm guessing that like us you mainly drifted it into Nar though) did you ever have experiences where the GM purposefully presented situations where a likely outcome just "wasn't right" for the L5R dream? The players get all excited and united and put tremendous emotional investment in a particular outcome. Not because of its thematic significance, but because its right for L5R. Certain risks to the dream were tolerated and enjoyed.

On the other hand I can think of times I despised risk like that and used all the techniques you described to either diffuse the risk, or reverse the undesired outcomes. Do you have any thoughts on where the cut off point is? What decides the sim tolerance level for risk?

Quote from: ErrathofKoshIn a word... yes.

The group makes the statement (through action, not consciously) that we want our characters to develop in a certain way with certain goals in mind.  My character simply wants to defeat the Empire and any dark Jedi in the process.  (He's a Jedi.)  Another character wants revenge against the Imperials for killing his family...  Another just wants his life back.  (he's wanted by the Empire.)  But, the healer Jedi says, "I could give a hoot about fighting the Empire, and by in-game extension, finding the cloaking device, I want my character to become a very powerful healer."  
We say, "I can't believe she doesn't want to go after the cloaking device!"
She is not following the group consensus of "we want to go after the Empire!"

Cheers
Jonathan

So Sim play is defined by there being a group consensus about what the group does? That doesn't work for me. What about out-of-genre play and Sim play with groups where everyone does their own thing?

Sure, a group might decide to place emphasis on doing something together--but they might also assign social cred based on who brings the best munchies.

I don't see that as being CA-related at all.

-Marco

Quote from: Tony IrwinRalph if I get you right then a lot of good techniques for sim play are about diffusing or reducing the "bad dream" risk. Do you think there are conditions where sim players actively embrace that risk or at least somebody actively presents bad-dream risk to the players forcing them to deal with it?

I think there are probably occassions where sim players wear their willingness to risk a "bad dream" as a badge of merit...as evidence that they are the ones "playing correctly" if you will.  

You see some of this come out from time to time on threads like the one on RPG.net awhile back that said Narrativists were the new munchkins.  The idea being (confusing Narrativism with Director Stance of course) that player empowerment was just the new way munchkins found to juice up their characters and gain immunity.

I also think that what would be considered a "bad dream" will almost certainly be different for sim groups vs. more...Dramatist (for lack of a better word) groups.  

QuoteDo you have any thoughts on where the cut off point is? What decides the sim tolerance level for risk?

I imagine a whole ton of the GDS discussions focused on the line between these.  In otherwords a Dramatist is almost certainly more likely to call a session a "bad dream" than a Sim player because they have different standards of what the end result is supposed to look like.

QuoteIs it possible that good sim GMs present risk like this - genuinely threatening to sabotage the dream, forcing the players to "save the dream" and in doing so make it better.

Interesting question.  I think I'll have to punt on this one for now.  When I was playing in what I'd today consider a Sim fashiony, I certainly didn't have the tools to frame what we were doing in this manner.  I'm not sure looking back through the years with the lens of nostalgia would provide any good answers.

Marco or John Kim might have a better notion being more currently involved in this play style.

QuoteI know you played a lot of L5R (I'm guessing that like us you mainly drifted it into Nar though) did you ever have experiences where the GM purposefully presented situations where a likely outcome just "wasn't right" for the L5R dream?

When I was playing L5R ('94-'96ish IIRC) we would have been pretty firmly in the Illusionist camp.  Our primary areas of interest was in exploring the differences between the clans as they fed into the broader story line of the GM (which I have no idea if it was canonical or not, as I soon lost interest in collecting the canonical splats so couldn't say)

In fact, I would say that in my experience L5R is really a World of Darkness variant.  Replace gothic sub culture with Nipponophilia sub culture.  Replace vampire houses with Samurai houses.  Replace wacky vampire blood powers with wacky samurai bad-ass powers.  But still the same overall early-90s sense of play style.  So not a good reference for me for this thread.

Quote

QuoteIs it possible that good sim GMs present risk like this - genuinely threatening to sabotage the dream, forcing the players to "save the dream" and in doing so make it better.

Interesting question.  I think I'll have to punt on this one for now.  When I was playing in what I'd today consider a Sim fashiony, I certainly didn't have the tools to frame what we were doing in this manner.  I'm not sure looking back through the years with the lens of nostalgia would provide any good answers.

Marco or John Kim might have a better notion being more currently involved in this play style.

My experience with virtuality has gravitated towards actor-stance (and when I GM I see that as well, IMO). This means that "threats to the dream" (whatever that is) would be like the GM threatening to do something that would break cause-and-effect ("If you don't get me a pizza right now I'll tripple the number of bad guys!").

I mean, it could happen but it wouldn't be part of the game virtualist players would want to play.

I think in a participationist (dramatist?) game the threat would be to have a game where the players wanted a happy ending derail to tragedy.

It'd be same as the GM in a gamist game doing something to threaten the challenge or a Narrativist GM threatening to take away power to address premise, IMO.

I think.
-Marco

Quote from: MarcoMy experience with virtuality has gravitated towards actor-stance (and when I GM I see that as well, IMO). This means that "threats to the dream" (whatever that is) would be like the GM threatening to do something that would break cause-and-effect ("If you don't get me a pizza right now I'll tripple the number of bad guys!").

Thanks for replying Marco. Say if in the middle of your latest game in Actual Play you had said to Stephanie's player "Oh and there's a message on your answering machine. It's from Xeron Energetics, problems with funding, they need to speak to you about clawing back half the grant they sent you by mistake". You're presenting this player with the risk that its going to turn out to be a very different game from the one they're currently enjoying. Do they jolt up in their seat and say "Hell no! I'm gonna sort them out", and give another one of their great in-character speeches to the XE suit, or do they hiss in annoyance at this interruption to the fun they're having with their investigations?

I see that as risk to the dream. The player is loving it all so far because the game is exactly the kind of fun the player wants. Then you're saying "I'm making this happen and it may change everything you enjoy if you don't do something". Sometimes that's appreciated because it thrills and inspires great play, sometimes that ticks people off.

In sim play I have experienced that "Yikes! I'm gonna lose it all" sensation and loved it. Other times its annoyed me that the GM is messing about with my character, with my dream of how things should be. Any thoughts on what the cut off point might be?

Edit: Double posted

Quote from: Tony Irwin
In sim play I have experienced that "Yikes! I'm gonna lose it all" sensation and loved it. Other times its annoyed me that the GM is messing about with my character, with my dream of how things should be. Any thoughts on what the cut off point might be?

The cut off point is (in Sim) defined by what the dream is about.  This means that players will accept obstacles if they expect obstacles and they won't if they don't!  If know that taking down the Empire is difficult, I expect to run into speed bumps while attaining this goal.  OTOH, if I'm flying to the next planet, have done it a hundred times before, there'd better be a damn good reason I end up in a meteor shower! (It's been blown away...)

If the bump is there to help me explore then I accept it.  If it's there for any other reason, I resent it.

Cheers
Jonathan

Edited: to fix quote error...

QuoteThe cut off point is (in Sim) defined by what the dream is about.  This means that players will accept obstacles if they expect obstacles and they won't if they don't!  If know that taking down the Empire is difficult, I expect to run into speed bumps while attaining this goal.  OTOH, if I'm flying to the next planet, have done it a hundred times before, there'd better be a damn good reason I end up in a meteor shower! (It's been blown away...)

If the bump is there to help me explore then I accept it.  If it's there for any other reason, I resent it.

Hey Jonathon, where do you see the risk in that - what is it that the player puts up as stakes that may be irretrievably lost? What is it specifically that the player stands to gain?

My character...

If my character happens to die, I have lost.  I feel sorrow, I mourn him.  However, as long as he died 'in character' I don't look to the GM for an explanantion.  

A good example (in which the character doesn't really die):

Back in the old days of WEG Star Wars, a character could go over to the dark side fairly easily if he wasn't careful.  I created a character that tried to do the right thing, but he was eventually seduced by the dark side.  As a player, I did not want that.  However, I didn't feel cheated or dissatisfied.  After all, I had rolled...  However, I felt sad that my character was no longer good.  
Fortunately, I didn't lose him forever.  Eventually I had the chance to allow him to redeem himself and he returned to the light side.  However, even that experience wasn't without great cost and sacrifice.  He lost the woman he loved...

Cheers
Jonathan

Quote from: Tony Irwin

Quote from: MarcoMy experience with virtuality has gravitated towards actor-stance (and when I GM I see that as well, IMO). This means that "threats to the dream" (whatever that is) would be like the GM threatening to do something that would break cause-and-effect ("If you don't get me a pizza right now I'll tripple the number of bad guys!").

Thanks for replying Marco. Say if in the middle of your latest game in Actual Play you had said to Stephanie's player "Oh and there's a message on your answering machine. It's from Xeron Energetics, problems with funding, they need to speak to you about clawing back half the grant they sent you by mistake". You're presenting this player with the risk that its going to turn out to be a very different game from the one they're currently enjoying. Do they jolt up in their seat and say "Hell no! I'm gonna sort them out", and give another one of their great in-character speeches to the XE suit, or do they hiss in annoyance at this interruption to the fun they're having with their investigations?

Well, I think it's always possible for one person's input to take the game in a direction someone else doesn't want it to go. After all: if Player X says to Player Y "let's go on a sea-voyage" player X might 'hiss in annoyance'--and really be annoyed if they'd been hanging out together as a team and hated to see it split up.

I see that as an in-game complication. In this case it might interfere with some player's Intellectual Properity (IP). The player created Xeron Inc. and specified that the character had a grant--if I had the whole thing be a mistake, I think it woulda caused problems ... threatening "the dream" wherein Stephanie had a grant that wasn't a mistake.

But I'd expect the reaction to be out-of-game at the "hey, that's not cool level."

If it's a legitimate non-IP threatening event in the game I'd say that falls under the "Revolting development" cagetory which, holes opening in the world and sucking it down definitely fell into. The players were neither bored nor turned off by the development so it was fully functional.

But I think a real "threat to the dream" in the sense you mean it is more an example of dysfunctional play cropping up.

-Marco

Quote from: Tony IrwinIs it possible that good sim GMs present risk like this - genuinely threatening to sabotage the dream, forcing the players to "save the dream" and in doing so make it better.

Hmmm... I have to disagree with this idea. I agree with Marco that I can only see risking the Dream as being dysfunctional. I mean, risking the Dream would be equalivent to a Nar GM trying to block a player's ability to adress premise.  The ability to express CA in the desired fashion is vital to functional play.

The GM's job is always about providing opportunities for the players to express their CA in the desired fashion. In Gam, it's about setting up situations that provide challenge, so that the players can Step on Up. In Nar, it's about setting up situations that provide the players opportunities to address premise.

In Sim - if we are using Ralph's "experimental" definition - the GM's job would be to provide situations that allow tha players to run their "what if" experiments.

I'm tentatively agreeing with Ralph that I think risk in Sim is pushed down to the character level. But I need to mull over this thread some more.

Quote from: timfireI agree with Marco that I can only see risking the Dream as being dysfunctional. I mean, risking the Dream would be equalivent to a Nar GM trying to block a player's ability to adress premise.  The ability to express CA in the desired fashion is vital to functional play.

The GM's job is always about providing opportunities for the players to express their CA in the desired fashion. In Gam, it's about setting up situations that provide challenge, so that the players can Step on Up. In Nar, it's about setting up situations that provide the players opportunities to address premise.

Thanks for replying timfire, I really appreciate your input. One of the reasons that I started this thread was that I see the GM presenting risk to players both in Gamism and Narrativism. The GM offers challenge, but with it there's the tremendous risk that the situation will prove "You suck!". The GM offers opportunities to address premise but with it there's the risk that "Your answers to the big questions aren't relevant here". Players can commit to an agenda, but I think risk pushes them to commit more and more.

If you see things that way, then my question is do you see the same thing present in sim play? Can the GM provide situations that say "Tell us your dream, make it happen", but in order to make the player commit more and more to that agenda, the GM ensures that the situation is loaded with risk, the risk being "Your dream will be left behind".

I've gotten bogged down into identifying risk only in Situation. The Universalis challenge mechanic is a great way that one player can say to another narrativist "Show us how much your answers matter, how far will you commit to your agenda before backing off?" or say to the simulationist* "Show us how much you believe in your dream, how far will you commit to this agenda before backing off?", but the challenge mechanic has got nothing to do with Situation.

* A lot of my Universalis play has, I think, been Setting Creating sim followed by blasts of High Concept sim (once the setting is all fleshed out and ready to play in).

Quote from: MarcoWell, I think it's always possible for one person's input to take the game in a direction someone else doesn't want it to go. After all: if Player X says to Player Y "let's go on a sea-voyage" player X might 'hiss in annoyance'--and really be annoyed if they'd been hanging out together as a team and hated to see it split up.

... But I think a real "threat to the dream" in the sense you mean it is more an example of dysfunctional play cropping up.

Thanks for responding Marco. Say then that Player X's "dream" for the SIS is simply that "It's a place with lots of pirate colour where I can enjoy fun adventures with my buddies". That was my dream during a lot of Seventh Sea play, and it gelled with everyone else at the table. I'm going to resent actions by anyone that could detract from the pirate colour, adventures I consider fun, or the teamwork and camaraderie I'm enjoying with my friends. I want to protect these things, I agree that someone joining the group with different priorities could lead to some miserably disfunctional play.

Is there ever a time when I'm willing to accept a threat to the fun I'm having? I think there is if taking on board that risk could yield more of what I want. I'll accept the threat of our adventures coming to an end if by doing so I can work towards having more and better adventures. I'll accept the risk of my dream being left behind provided the possible pay out is that the game resembles my dream even more closely.

With the example about the funding I guess a "please don't touch that!" response could be seen as risk with insufficient pay off. "I need that to make my dream work - to have a place where grad students can spend all day inventing and investigating weirdness." A successful outcome (preserving the grant) won't actually produce more inventing and investigating, so its too much risk for too little pay out.

Getting sucked down holes has big risk - "All that fun you're having, it could be about to end permamently" but there's a brilliant pay off - much more weirdness to investigate! The players take the risk on board, appreciate and are energised by the risk, because there's a chance for them to see more of their dream in play. The SIS is still a place where grad students investigate weirdness, only now much more so.

Do you think threats to the dream (or perhaps "the dream at risk") in this way can be part of functional play? Providing the same edge to play that bangs do for narrativist and challenge does for gamist?

Tony

Tony,

I think that by equating in-game risk to player risk you may have a point. I've noted that *terminal conditions* have a strong effect on my play. If I think something will either explicitly (death) or effectively (jail) end the game then I'm far more concerned by it than something with less severe consequences.

In other words, I interpert some of in-game risk as player-risk (I expect that's true for everyone to some degree--gamist, I expect, would certianly react more strongly to a deadly threat that could end the fun than to a less severe form of risk).

But also: when I'm immersed I play my character as I see my character--and that's usually 'to win'--I have a hard time setting up a dramatically pleasing loss when role-playing because even though I as a player might enjoy seeing that play out, if I maneuver my character to lose in a way that I feel breaks plausibility it hurts my enjoyment.

Thus, as we saw, the players took the holes in the world very seriously (even though, had they fallen down them it would not have ended the game)--and most of the drama was with dealing with the situation (examining the holes for the scientist and interacting with authority figures for the artist).

So, yeah, tentatively, while I don't see "revolting developments" as "threats-to-the-dream" per-se (after all, no one was "enjoying" just 'being'--as Ralph pointed out there needed to be some conflict in their lives as the engine to drive play)--I think that I'll agree that in-game risk is assumed as player risk for much of my play.

What it isn't, especially, is social risk, I don't think. Certainly there are some social ramifications for not playing well with others. And there is even, I'd say, social pressure for players and the GM to present a consistent "realistic" (what-if) portrayal of character and situation.

Maybe the social cred is gained by adding versimilitude to the simulation? I'm not sure.

-Marco

Tony,

I think you're getting hung up on trying to make direct connections between the 3 CA's. Something that may seem counter-intuitive at first is the fact that the 3 CA's all function a little differently. Sim especially is different from the other two.

There's "risk" in all 3 CA's, but because the 3 CA's prioritize different things, what risk is and what risk looks like is different for each CA.

Gam is the only CA where players are overtly competing with each other. Players are overtly vying for social esteem by proving they have more guts than everyone else. Because of that, it's the only CA where players risk tangible loss. I mean, you can't Step on Up without risking something, 'cause its all about guts.

In Nar its all about creating theme through addressing Premise. In a sense, Nar play forces players to take a stand on moral issues. That takes some guts, but I don't believe that Nar players are really "risking" something in the same way that they do in Gam play. (If Nar players are unwilling to take a stand on issues, they would probably be looked down on by the other players, but its not a situation where they have to prove themselves like in Gam play.)

Risk in Sim play... well, that's obviously what we're trying to discuss in this thread.

Quote from: Tony IrwinI've gotten bogged down into identifying risk only in Situation. The Universalis challenge mechanic is a great way that one player can say to another narrativist "Show us how much your answers matter, how far will you commit to your agenda before backing off?" or say to the simulationist* "Show us how much you believe in your dream, how far will you commit to this agenda before backing off?", but the challenge mechanic has got nothing to do with Situation.

Maybe you didn't intend it to be that way, but Dude, that's such a Gamist attitude! "Show us... how far will you commit to your agenda before backing off?" That's pretty much a straight-up challenge to show your guts!

I've found this discussion to be very interesting, but I have to wonder, Tony, if you're asking this because you're a Gamist at heart, and its coloring your ideas. (There's nothing wrong with that, just something to be aware of.)

Quote from: timfire
Gam is the only CA where players are overtly competing with each other. Players are overtly vying for social esteem by proving they have more guts than everyone else. Because of that, it's the only CA where players risk tangible loss. I mean, you can't Step on Up without risking something, 'cause its all about guts.

In Nar its all about creating theme through addressing Premise. In a sense, Nar play forces players to take a stand on moral issues. That takes some guts, but I don't believe that Nar players are really "risking" something in the same way that they do in Gam play. (If Nar players are unwilling to take a stand on issues, they would probably be looked down on by the other players, but its not a situation where they have to prove themselves like in Gam play.)

Hey Timothy, I think for Nar the comparative risk is that the player will be unable to make the thematic statements they desire. Your TROS character dies a meaningless death, you get the wrong epilogue for your MLWM minion, everyone challenges away your idea in Universalis. These are tangible losses to nar players, just as tangible as peer esteem to the gamist. You've been asked "What matters?" and you've been unable to use the SIS to say "This matters". For the narrativist I think that's The Loss, and great GMs threaten the players with it at every step. It's exhausting, demanding, yet exhilerating. That's my understanding of Bangs, the GM is effectively yelling "What matters? Quick! Right now! What matters?!" The players face the risk that "Despite all the investment* I have made in trying to make this thematic statement, I may never get to see it in the SIS".

Do you see it that way? That risk is a driving force in Narrativism just as it is in Gamism? "Despite all your efforts* - you suck!" is cousin to "Despite all your efforts - it still doesn't matter!". I confess I took it for granted that Nar worked that way before jumping ahead into looking for a third cousin in Sim.

*By investment and efforts I guess I really mean G/N agenda driven exploration. Apprehending, manipulating, and enjoying setting, character, colour, situation, and system for the sake of creating theme, or proving guts and smarts.

Quote from: Timothy

Quote from: Tony IrwinI've gotten bogged down into identifying risk only in Situation. The Universalis challenge mechanic is a great way that one player can say to another narrativist "Show us how much your answers matter, how far will you commit to your agenda before backing off?" or say to the simulationist* "Show us how much you believe in your dream, how far will you commit to this agenda before backing off?", but the challenge mechanic has got nothing to do with Situation.

Maybe you didn't intend it to be that way, but Dude, that's such a Gamist attitude! "Show us... how far will you commit to your agenda before backing off?" That's pretty much a straight-up challenge to show your guts!

Hey Timothy, I really don't think that's gamist. Yeah, its intense and demanding but I think that's what makes great games. I think it's a demand to "Show us what matters" which is different from "Show us how good you are". If you've been invited to play Sorceror, then someone is inviting you to the table show them what matters. Just as a D&D3E group is extending an invite to you to come show what you're capable of.

By taking on levels of risk you're saying "This matters more" with the Nar group. When the gamist group ups the risk they're saying "We're more good than we've previously proved"

Do you see it that way?

-------------------------------
edit: Wanted to add that those kinds of demands are also intensely personal They're asking you to make your own unique print on the SIS while everyone else watches. Either a print of "This matters" or "I rock". The risk is that your print won't come through clear (or at all). By accepting that risk you're showing just how much it really matters, or just how much I really rock.

Quote from: Tony IrwinHey Timothy, I think for Nar the comparative risk is that the player will be unable to make the thematic statements they desire. Your TROS character dies a meaningless death, you get the wrong epilogue for your MLWM minion, everyone challenges away your idea in Universalis.

I may be the one that's off, but right now I just don't see this. Or at least, I don't see how this could be considered functional.

You're insinuating that a Nar player would risk his ability to address premise? Why would a Nar player risk the very thing he finds fun? Or let me put it another way, why would another player/GM attempt try to limit the player's fun?

Your examples above, why would a TROS player put his character in a situation that might result in a meaningless death? The whole point of TROS is you *only* do things that are important to your character.  (I'm sure that type of thing does happen, but who would consider it a good thing?) While I've never played MLwM, it sounds like it would be fairly easy to engineer a certain epilogue if the player really wanted to.

Quote from: Tony IrwinThat's my understanding of Bangs, the GM is effectively yelling "What matters? Quick! Right now! What matters?!" The players face the risk that "Despite all the investment* I have made in trying to make this thematic statement, I may never get to see it in the SIS".

A Bang is the GM asking the players "What Matters?" But they shouldn't block the statement the player wants to make. If anything, a Bang should strengthen the statement the player is trying to make. The only time I could see a bang blocking a thematic statement is when the player is trying to uphold dual, opposing statements, in which case the bang forces the player to decide which is more important.

Quote from: Tony IrwinI think it's a demand to "Show us what matters..."

Ahhh, but that's not what you said earlier. You said "Show us ... how far will you commit to your agenda before backing off?"

"efore backing off" is a challenge. It implies that someone is purposely trying to break the player. That's competition.
-------------

What's everyone else's thoughts on these ideas?

I think the discussion is blurred by the types of risks that one takes in roleplaying.  The big two are: social and in-game.

Certainly G players gain satisfaction in a challenge well met because it advances their status socially.  But, they also revel in avoiding the price of failure for their character.  Thus, they have risk at both levels.  If I, the G player, don't overcome a challenge through my own bad planning, I lose socially and in game.

In S and N, this is less than clear.  In N, if I fail to address the Premise, where is the in-game risk? My character doesn't neccessarily suffer consequences for failing to address the Premise (though he could).  In S, where is the social risk in character failure.  If my character dies, I accept it as what is supposed to happen.  But, the other players don't look at me and say, "dude, you suck!"

I would propose that in S, the social risks are all about envisioning at least similar Dreams.  If one player isn't onto the premise of the group Dream, they lose socially.  

I have difficulty with N, but I think the in-game risk is the character's relevance.  If a character dies, but adds to the theme, no risk for N player.  However, if the character no longer makes valid points in the story, the player really loses them.

Such are my thoughts.

Cheers
Jonathan

Oh and Marco, you're right, what I'm talking about is not limited to a single CA, just the example is.

A lot of the threads trying to divine Sim have clouded my head a bit.

This discussion keeps bringing to mind a bit of unsatisfying play in my group's first TROS campaign. I created a character that was trying to force his view of justice onto reality by robbing a man of priveleges he didn't deserve. I had an elaborate plan layed out to bring him to his ruin.

By the second session, I became frustrated by stuttering at the stage of Intent, inability to escape troupe play, inability to frame outside the clock face, etc, and I took the lead, explicitly wrote my declarations as Initiation, fired off every SA and stormed his estate. And poof, nothing happened. I had my character retire to his apartment and stare at shadows.

(I realize now that I was crying out for a Bang; and that my Seneschal was going the "discover the back-story plot twists" route, to which my agenda was only peripherally related.)

My behavior made everyone uncomfortable. I moped through the second session; my Seneschal made a plan to kill off my character, unbeknownst to me. Mercy for the group? Vindictiveness? Maybe. I give him the benefit of the doubt.

At the start of the third session, someone knocked on my character's apartment door. I stepped outside to find a basket . . . with a head in it! It belonged to the man I sought to destroy! I had two reactions: on the one hand, I was glad to finally be part of my story; on the other, it was based entirely around tearing this man to pieces, . . . and now he was dead! So what the hell was I supposed to do?

I don't know if you'd call our play Sim or Nar, but if game play was a VCR, I'd be pressing rewind and then start making objections. I guess you could say my Seneschal put my Dream at risk.

Quote from: TimothyYou're insinuating that a Nar player would risk his ability to address premise? Why would a Nar player risk the very thing he finds fun?...

Hey Timothy I think that's visible in Universalis (and other resource based Nar games) - the player risks more and more coins (more and more of his ability to make any thematic statements at all) on one particular outcome. Why's he doing it? If he fails then he won't have the coins he needs to address premise any more. I think its because he belives in this particular thematic statement more than any other he could make. It's worth the risk, and he wants to show how important it is by taking on risk.

Quote from: Timothy...Or let me put it another way, why would another player/GM attempt try to limit the player's fun?

I think because it forces that player to really focus on the fun and value it more. Nar games that employ a reroll mechanic might illustrate what I think I see here...

Dying Earth, Paladin, and Trollbabe use a series of rerolls to decide outcomes (with Trollbabe I'm referring to the list of 6 items and events you can cross off to ask for a reroll). When a player is unsatisfied with an outcome (because it doesn't reflect the thematic statement he wants to see) he spends resource to initiate a reroll. Each time the player scores off the point and picks up the dice they are facing tremendous risk: "Despite all the investment I've put in seeing one outcome, it may still never happen. What I wanted to say about the premise may never get said".

At each step the player has to ask themselves "How much does this really matter? How badly do I really want it? Would I prefer to save my resource so that I can make different thematic statements later on in the game?" I really do see that as the player being asked "How far will you go before you back off? You've that said "X matters", if you really believe that then you'll prove it by accepting these risks."

I don't see that as limiting someone's fun - just forcing them to clarify and focus on what it is they really find fun. "You can only make one thematic statement - will you risk all your other ideas just to make that one happen? Prove to us how commited you are."  Its tough, demanding, and very personal just like Gamism is tough, demanding and very personal. The thing is its about you making a moral statement to your own satisfaction, not you demonstrating guts and smarts to others' satisfaction.

Quote from: TimothyYour examples above, why would a TROS player put his character in a situation that might result in a meaningless death? The whole point of TROS is you *only* do things that are important to your character.  (I'm sure that type of thing does happen, but who would consider it a good thing?)

Have you ever had the experience when your character seems to die almost by accident, everyone looks at the dice glumly and says "That was wrong". It's not a case of "He died for what he believed in", he just plain died. Theme creation got aborted before it could even begin. Every time you go into a fight in TROS you're being told "Is this worth it? Is this what matters? It better be because this may be your last chance to fight for something". I'll risk my character dying before his time, dying before I really get to say what I wanted to say through him, if there's a chance that by winning the fight it will help me to say more. This helps me to really clarify what's important and go after the theme that counts instead of bouncing around a dozen ideas. Like you said it gets to the point in TROS where you only do things that are important to your character - I think its risk that helps you to focus on what those things are.

Quote from: TimothyWhile I've never played MLwM, it sounds like it would be fairly easy to engineer a certain epilogue if the player really wanted to.

Again, I think its risk that motivates the player to do that. "If you don't work for a certain one, then there's a risk you'll get one that says the opposite of what you had in mind". Risk is waking the player up and forcing them to really get to the roots of what specifically they want to say. Then, by aiming for a certain epilogue, the player is sacrificing their ability to obtain the others. The more like it seems you'll attain X, the less likely you'll attain Y.

Quote from: Timothy

Quote from: Tony IrwinI think it's a demand to "Show us what matters...(talking about bangs)"

Ahhh, but that's not what you said earlier. You said "Show us ... how far will you commit to your agenda before backing off?"

"Before backing off" is a challenge. It implies that someone is purposely trying to break the player. That's competition.

I think they're aggressively insisting that the player demonstrate "What matters". Just as the the gamist GM insists that the player demonstrates "I rock". I agree that those are both challenging and demanding statements to make to people at the gaming table. I don't see either them as really being competitive. I'm challenging your ideas and you're challenging mine in this thread, but its not because I want to break you, its actually because I want to learn from you. This discussion is challenging and demanding, yes, but its about sharing something with each other not about competing with each other. I think even gamism is a sharing discussion about "This is how good I am" in that sense. The GM poses challenge to help the player talk about themselves and how much they rock. The GM and players have invited you over because they want to see you rock (in functional play). They make that happen by challenging you and seeing how you deal with risk.

Timothy thanks for all your responses!

Tony

Quote from: BillI don't know if you'd call our play Sim or Nar, but if game play was a VCR, I'd be pressing rewind and then start making objections. I guess you could say my Seneschal put my Dream at risk.

Thanks for posting Bill. What I'm especially looking for is how players in sim play respond to risk. Because it looks like you were going all out narrativist, and it looks like everyone playing had an unhappy time, it can't help me in this case. Do you have any examples of when everyone was playing sim, and everyone was loving it? I'm trying to see if there's times when the GM can say "I'll wreck the dream if you don't do something right now", and it energises all the players into play that was even more fun than it was before.

Cheers!

Tony

Tony,

All wrecking the dream is in-game challenge the way you're putting it (and I think it's a reasonable way to put it)--it's just high stakes adversity. Sauron is going to march on the world: well, roleplaying one of Sauron's flunkies would suck (and you'd probably be dead anyway)--so you have to do something.

Interperting in-game adversity as meta-game adversity (I think I'm misusing 'Forge' adversity in one case there) is, IMO, reasonable since, you know, that's how I see it ... mostly.

There is something about the case where the player wants to see the character fail but has the character try his hardest to succeed that I think isn't fully encapsulated there.

But for the most part, I would say that any in-game adversity is, in my case at least, precieved as meta-game adveristy (i.e. if this isn't checked the game will become not-fun for me).

-Marco

Quote from: ErrathofKoshI think the discussion is blurred by the types of risks that one takes in roleplaying.  The big two are: social and in-game.

Certainly G players gain satisfaction in a challenge well met because it advances their status socially.  But, they also revel in avoiding the price of failure for their character.  Thus, they have risk at both levels.  If I, the G player, don't overcome a challenge through my own bad planning, I lose socially and in game.

In S and N, this is less than clear.  In N, if I fail to address the Premise, where is the in-game risk? My character doesn't neccessarily suffer consequences for failing to address the Premise (though he could).

Hey Jonathon, I see the N risk as a personal risk. The real life player is unhappy because they were unable to address Premise the way they wanted. I think gamism is personal in that sense too - the real life player is unhappy because they were unable to wow their mates. I suppose that one's personal risk based on social esteem.

QuoteIn S, where is the social risk in character failure.  If my character dies, I accept it as what is supposed to happen.  But, the other players don't look at me and say, "dude, you suck!"

For S, I see it as a deeply personal risk. The real life human player is miserable because Exploration has come to an end and they were unable to make the SIS look like their dream. In this way I think that all three agendas pose very real, deeply personal, human risk to the real life players, but gamism has the biggest social element.

What do you make of that? Seem valid? It acknowledges that there are of course social elements to N and S, but G is the social one. N and S still involve risks taken by real life people, just got more to do with how you feel about things than with what your peer group feels about things.

Cheers,

Tony

Whoo Hoo!!! My 100th post...

Yeah, I could agree with that.  However, I tend to think that the social risk for N players is higher than that for S players.  Maybe that's a perception based on historical "storytelling games," where players are assumed to be mature enough to play "for the good of the story."  

In the Window, for instance, violating any of the Three Precepts is a violation of the explicit social contract.  IME, these types of games, in general, specify certain points of the social contract that generally not present in S play.  But that's based on my experience, so take it with a grain of salt...

Cheers
Jonathan

Quote from: ErrathofKosh
Yeah, I could agree with that.  However, I tend to think that the social risk for N players is higher than that for S players.  Maybe that's a perception based on historical "storytelling games," where players are assumed to be mature enough to play "for the good of the story."  

Cheers
Jonathan

Ok, well what do you view as the risk for the S player? And is it comparable to the risks faced by N and G. Does it motivate and drive the players in the same way?

I think that risk is, the risk that your dream will be left behind. That the SIS won't resemble your dream for it.

Marco gave a great example above for Lord of the Rings. Sauron's forces are mustering and about to sweep across the land. Every player now faces the risk "Soon Middle Earth won't look anything like I want it to". Do you think that for the S player that's comparative personal risk to that which G and N players face? Or is S more relaxed and safer than N & G (Still possesing personal risk but not in the same electrifying way)?

Tony

Quote from: MarcoTony,

All wrecking the dream is in-game challenge the way you're putting it (and I think it's a reasonable way to put it)--it's just high stakes adversity. Sauron is going to march on the world: well, roleplaying one of Sauron's flunkies would suck (and you'd probably be dead anyway)--so you have to do something.

Yeah I guess that's adversity to the player, if that's their dream. If your dream is simply "The SIS is a place where my character behaves realistically in every situation" then that isn't actually the GM threatening your dream, its just character adversity, and the player will just keep ticking on enjoying the game. Maybe its because of heavy actor stance sim play that people don't perceive personal risk hitting sim players? But yeah, if your dream is tied up in setting and its "A place where I can see hobbits having jolly birthday parties, and visit elven kingdoms that are hidden everywhere" then yeah the GM is touching a sore spot. I sit bolt upright because my dream is about to get wrecked. Do you see that personal response as being comparable in its intensity to that which N and G players experience over theme and esteem?

For risk there needs to be stakes, and there needs to be a pay off. I'd see the stakes as being the SIS's semblance to the dream. Pay off is that SIS more resembles the dream than ever before. I'll risk my stakes for the pay off. The stakes for me there are setting - I don't want ME to look that way, that game's not fun for me.  But what's the pay off? The SIS already looks like my dream - I've having perfect fun in my perfect game already, leave me alone! I guess there's only a pay off if you've still got some dream yet to enter the SIS. Perhaps if my vision for ME also includes "but there's danger and adventures too". What the GM is doing could wreck my dream, but I'll accept that risk because it's the only way I can bring more of it into play. The GM is asking "How much do you love your dream, will you risk it all just to make it happen?"

Does that gel with how you view things? I fear I'm developing my own definition of Sim to suit myself here. But I think there's some interesting stuff in the idea that in-game challenge doesn't shake up heavy actor stance - they already have their dream in play and so don't have any thing to gain or lose from big changes to the setting or new situations.

Tony

Quote from: MarcoTony,

All wrecking the dream is in-game challenge the way you're putting it (and I think it's a reasonable way to put it)--it's just high stakes adversity. Sauron is going to march on the world: well, roleplaying one of Sauron's flunkies would suck (and you'd probably be dead anyway)--so you have to do something.

Sorry I forgot to reply to a bit I in your post that I wanted to talk about. Yeah, I've been trying to think of dream-threats that aren't in-game challenge. If you play Universalis sim then the challenge mechanic is very interactions between the players without going through the SIS. I think that's a threat to the dream that isn't in-game challenge. I pay a coin to say "and they use their disciplines to fight crime", and you pay a coin to challenge that. You're threatening my dream and forcing me to decide which parts of my dream I love most and most want to see in the SIS.

The only other things I can think of are research mechanics for spells and gizmos. I don't have those books with me down here in London but Conspiracy X had a big research element (in fact I think you could "research" martial art combos and have your character learn new moves that way), also in Palladium's Ninjas & Superspies I'm sure the techie character could research and build gizmos. The player has a chance to change setting or character without a lot of situation involved (it all happens between game sessions so kind of out of game), and for the Sim player its the big chance to make the SIS more like your dream. But there's the risk that the result won't be like your dream (or at least you've squandered this opportunity and will have to wait for the next one. I understand one edition of Traveller also had planet creation rules that were part of play rather than preparation for play, but I don't know how they work.

Any more examples? I'm stumped

As I stated over in this thread (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?p=131813#131813), I think the risk that S players run is the acceptance of their contributions to the Dream.

Example:

I have a character who badly wants to forge a magical sword.  He has taken months in prep and is now in the forging process.  I roll the dice and dammit! I fail...  

Whether I used strategy or not (I probably did, because he prepared for some months), if all I care about is that my character failed and doesn't get his magic sword, then I have S motives.  If I worry now that my character won't be able to use the sword as an advantage in my upcoming fight, then I've G motives.

To highlight this difference even more...

Suppose the system allows my character to make the magic sword, but all it's good for is Color.  The sword burns brightly and makes devastating attacks, but I could get the same result (damage-wise) from buying a well made sword without the months of prep!  Now, unless the sword gives me some advantage that a well made store bought sword cannot, my reasons for making it are pure S.

The goal and satisfaction of Sim play is creation.  And revelling in that creation.  

There, I've said it! - God is a Simulationist. :) (That last was intended as humor, please don't consider it to be inflammatory...)

Cheers
Jonathan

Quote from: JonathonI have a character who badly wants to forge a magical sword.  He has taken months in prep and is now in the forging process.  I roll the dice and dammit! I fail...  

I think it all depends on do you, want to have a character who owns a magical sword? If so, then in my view you failed to bring your dream into the SIS. You looked at the SIS after the change and the SIS doesn't resemble your dream "A place where heroes wield magical swords" any more now than it did before.

1st question: Is this as deeply personal an issue to you as play can be for Gamists and Narrativists? Is there real personal loss here to you as a human being?

2nd question: What were your stakes? What was it that you as player already possessed and enjoyed and don't want to part with, but then said "This is what I stand to lose if the sword deal doesn't work out"

Cheers!

Tony

------------------------------------------
edit
3rd question: Did you as a real human person get a kick out of this? Win or lose, did something happen when you picked up those dice that wouldn't have happened if you had just said. "My character makes a magic sword today" and the GM says "Ok, its +2". Did you enjoy the risk?

The risk in Simulationist play is that the outcome won't be as you expect or hope it will be.

A vacuous statement, perhaps. After all, the risk in all modes of role-playing is that the outcome won't be as you expect or hope it will be. In fact, all risk in all endeavors is that the outcome won't be as you expect or hope it will be. That's just the definition, more or less, of "risk" itself.

But still, stating the obvious is better than overlooking it.

The thing is, I've never met one of these Sim players described in the course of the recent raft of Sim threads -- these mysterious folks who are indifferent to the outcome, more specifically to what happens to their characters, as long as the agreed-upon constraints and procedures are observed in determining it. Some players are more patient than others about accepting temporarily unhappy circumstances or turns of events for shorter or longer periods in the hope or expectation of eventual turns for the better. Some players are more mature or stoic than others about accepting ultimately unhappy outcomes. But I've never met one who didn't, generally speaking, prefer character success over character failure, prefer that the player-characters succeed in rescuing the hostages rather than seeing the hostages killed, prefer that a player-character become wealthy rather than broke, influential rather than marginalized, respected rather than mocked, and healthy rather than sick. There can be, and often are, narrow exceptions, such as a character with a "chronically broke" concept -- but even then that character's player still prefers the character to be successful in achieving objectives, healthy, respected, etc.

There has been, I believe, a tendency to see this widespread preference for character success as not particularly significant in Simulationism. It's been explained away in three ways in particular:

1. Preference for character success is caused by the action of reward mechanisms. Such reward mechanisms, in Sim, empower the player to do "more" Exploration. Character success is thus not itself an inherent part of a Sim Creative Agenda, but a mere means to that end, by virtue of reward mechanisms such as character advancement.

2. Preference for character success is caused by the infiltration of Gamist attitudes into play. Step On Up is in action; the player is seeing his or her own social esteem at stake in the character's happiness.

3. Since people ususally attempt to act to increase their own happiness, playing them as characters requires players to act that way too. But it's all just role-playing. The players don't actually care about character happiness, they just act like they do, for the sake of verisimilitude.

I can't prove that players have a prevailing preference for character happiness for reasons outside of these three factors. But there's every reason to expect them to. Watching a movie involves no stake in social esteem, reward mechanisms, or acting, but movie audiences still generally prefer happy endings to unhappy ones (even, notoriously often, at the cost of weakening the work's internal fidelity and/or literary merit). The same is true for audiences of all types of non-interactive fiction in all media. The reason appears to be emotional identification with the character, without requiring any other stakes or agendas.

Some will no doubt wish to dismiss this reasoning, as some have before, with the deeply insightful observation that "role playing games aren't movies." While that does help explain why my repeated attempts to thread a Player's Handbook into my 16mm film projector have been strangely unsuccessful, it's beside the point here. Whatever else role players might be or do, they are also, inevitably, the audience for the outcome of play. If people want to claim that Simulationist role players differ from all other audiences by not preferring, generally speaking, that the protagonists achieve success and happiness, the burden of explaining why that should be so should be on them. Especially because we might expect the emotional attachment to the character, in a role-playing game, in which the character was personally created by the player and is commonly spoken of (in first and second person phrasing) as if the player were the character, to be rather stronger than a moveigoer's emotional attachment to an arbitrary character just introduced a few minutes before.

Where there's a preference for some particular aspect of the outcome, there is a risk that the preference will not be met. Hence, for instance, Jonathan's "risk" that the character will not get a magical sword, and Marco's point, an elephant that's been stomping around in the room unnoticed for quite some time, that in-game adversity is perceived as meta-game adversity -- due to, I submit, emotional sympathy with the character, pure and simple. It doesn't have to be "deeply personal" in any way beyond that, in order to be real stakes for a real risk.

The preference for character happiness and the concomittant risk of character unhappiness is not specific to Simulationism. It can exist within, and potentially compete with, any Creative Agenda. I belive it might be valid to define the "hard core" of any agenda as play in which the "emotional concern for character happines" dial is way down. In hard-core Gamism, for instance, sacrificing a character in order to gain the resouces to create a better character can be seen as a valid and bold strategy. (In general, though, there are congruences in hard-core Gamism that make character happiness a priority even in the absence of any emotional sympathy with the character, with issues #1 and #2 above predominating.)  In hard-core Narrativism, as in hard-core literature in general, addressing the Premise is paramount and any concern for character happiness is likely to be seen as hackneyed or juvenlie. There are apparently styles of Simulationsim in which concern for character happiness is dialed way down too, such as "virtuality" and "purist-for-system Sim" in which the important thing is finding out "what if" in a clinically detached way, and high-concept Sim in which the genre/concept makes character happiness an impossibility or a moot point. But these cases are "hardcore" in a particular way. Regarding them as representative of all Sim leads to a rather distorted picture.

- Walt

Ahhh...

Walt,

That's what I've been trying to say and not doing very well.  I make this statement:

The risk in Sim is predicated upon the extent to which your contributions to the SIS influence the Dream.

This includes your character's successes and failures as well as your own credibility to contribute to the SIS.  I think Sim satisfies some vicarious need to be whomever we have created as our character, and like Walt says, we enjoy victory more than defeat, even vicariously.

Quote from: Walt Freitag
The preference for character happiness and the concomittant risk of character unhappiness is not specific to Simulationism. It can exist within, and potentially compete with, any Creative Agenda. I belive it might be valid to define the "hard core" of any agenda as play in which the "emotional concern for character happines" dial is way down. In hard-core Gamism, for instance, sacrificing a character in order to gain the resouces to create a better character can be seen as a valid and bold strategy. (In general, though, there are congruences in hard-core Gamism that make character happiness a priority even in the absence of any emotional sympathy with the character, with issues #1 and #2 above predominating.)  In hard-core Narrativism, as in hard-core literature in general, addressing the Premise is paramount and any concern for character happiness is likely to be seen as hackneyed or juvenlie. There are apparently styles of Simulationsim in which concern for character happiness is dialed way down too, such as "virtuality" and "purist-for-system Sim" in which the important thing is finding out "what if" in a clinically detached way, and high-concept Sim in which the genre/concept makes character happiness an impossibility or a moot point. But these cases are "hardcore" in a particular way. Regarding them as representative of all Sim leads to a rather distorted picture.

- Walt

I agree with a lot of what you wrote--almost everything (which I think is clear in that you quoted me). The idea of Virtuality as a science-experiment is, I think, an analogy that only goes so far--or at least only goes so far in certain respects.

I don't think Virtuality concerns mean that the player isn't identifying with his or her character. It's true that I've played characters I saw as self-destructive and they were resonant with certain issues within me--and I expected them to be unhappy--and would experience some identification of that during the game and through the portrayal of the character ...

But I was still very much guided by what-if style thinking (which, I think, for a player comes down to something like Actor Stance and expectations of how the SiS will react to my choices).

Likewise, I see what Vincent described as Narrativist play from Actor Stance as achieving the same result wherein a close identification with the character need not be scrapped for the play to be "hard core."

-Marco

Thanks for responding Walt,

Quote from: Walt FreitagThe risk in Simulationist play is that the outcome won't be as you expect or hope it will be.

A vacuous statement, perhaps. After all, the risk in all modes of role-playing is that the outcome won't be as you expect or hope it will be. In fact, all risk in all endeavors is that the outcome won't be as you expect or hope it will be. That's just the definition, more or less, of "risk" itself.

I'm looking for risks that are specific to Sim play. I need to "Sim up" your language or else it applies to all agendas, and in fact all human activity. Would you accept:

The risk in Simulationsist play is that the SIS (instead of "outcome") won't resemble your dream (your "dream" being your hopes and expectations for play in terms of character/setting/situation/system/colour).

Quote from: WaltThe preference for character happiness and the concomittant risk of character unhappiness is not specific to Simulationism. It can exist within, and potentially compete with, any Creative Agenda. I belive it might be valid to define the "hard core" of any agenda as play in which the "emotional concern for character happines" dial is way down.

Do you have any examples of player risk that don't exist in all three agendas? I can see how the risk that comes with exploring character will be present in every agenda while exploring character. Can you identify any risk that is particular to Sim, and not present in all exploration?

Thanks,

Tony

Quote from: ErrathofKoshAhhh...

That's what I've been trying to say and not doing very well.  I make this statement:

The risk in Sim is predicated upon the extent to which your contributions to the SIS influence the Dream.

Sorry Jonathon, I'm not following. I understood "Dream" to mean what it is that a player desires to see* in play (in terms of the 5 elements). Just as a Nar player desires to see Story Now! in play, and a Gam player wants to see Step On Up in play.

They'll all use what credibility they have to make the SIS look like what they desire to see.

You seem to be addressing things differently - instead of the player contributing to the SIS to change it, making it more look like their dream, are you suggesting that the process of play is about the SIS influencing and changing the player's dream?

Cheers,

Tony

*see/explore/appreciate/celebrate/enjoy

As I see it, all activity comes down to a statement by one player about what should be inserted into the SIS and it's approval or rejection by the other players.  Thus, the only "real" risk in any CA is that your statement is rejected.  Now, what you've anted up in emotions, esteem, resources, and character depends upon the circumstances and your CA, but these are the "chips" in your bet, not the "cards."  By putting a lot of emotion or resources on the table, you're signalling to your group that this is an important gamble for you.  They may raise, fold or come in along side you to add their own "chips."  Because the bet is always the same, the only means of classifying differences in risk is to determine what's at stake.  I think that's question you originally asked.  Looking at it from the perspective CA, one must assume that the stakes are about what's important to each.




So, is about the player influencing the SIS or is about the SIS affecting the player?  Both.  The player gambles that he can influence the SIS in a certain way and he antes up certain resources to make that bet. But, win or lose, the SIS is now going to affect the player.
For Sim I said the stakes were, "the extent to which your contributions to the SIS influence the Dream." To clarify, on the level of S CA, what you've wagered is your contributions to the SIS. (As well as your attachments to said contributions.)  These contributions are not about your social credibility.  The contributions are about in-game credibility, your character and his ability to explore or influence situation/setting.  This can have both immediate and future effects...  To contrast, the stakes are different in N and G.  In N, players don't really worry about risking their characters and their ability to affect the situation/setting "physically."  They risk their ability to (now and in the future) address the Premise in the manner they find appropriate.  In G, Challenge is similar to Premise.  (Usually in G, the "manner appropriate" is victory...)




Here are some examples: (these assume the players care about the stated game effects...)

The player announces his character's intention to forge the formerly mentioned magic sword.  In the game he is playing, the sword will raise his character's reputation and allow the player to use interesting "special effects" in battle.  However, the sword does the same damage as any other well made sword.  If the player's statement is accepted into the SIS, he receives all the mentioned benefits, if it is not, he loses the ability to use that contribution from that point onward. (If he tries again, he is making another contribution, not the same one...)  In addition, he may have lost in-game time, resources, and reputation.  And the player may feel a little upset...  That's Sim risk.

The player announces his character's intent about the sword.  Now, the game allows the character to use the sword to raise his combat bonuses and even his intimidation bonus.  It will be of great use in the upcoming showdown with a horde of orcs.  If successful, the player now has additional tool to face the upcoming challenge.  If the forging is a failure, not only has the player lost that tool, he's probably lost time, resources, etc. that could have been used to his advantage.  The player may feel frustrated...  That's Gam risk.

Once, again the sword...  In this game, the sword will give the character the ability to fight and destroy a powerful despotic sorceror who is threatening innocent lives.  However, the sorceror is the character's ex-best friend, to whom the character has sworn a blood oath.  If there is no other way to destory the sorceror, the success or failure of forging the sword affects the player's ability to address the particular premise of, "should I kill my blood brother because he's evil?"  However, should he succeed at making the sword (a likely thing in a N game), making it may have tainted him because it required binding a demon.  Now the player's ability to address the Premise has been altered, perhaps in unexpected way.  That's Nar risk.

(I hope this last example is not too much of a stretch for N, using the same situation may not have been the best idea, but I wanted the contrasts to be clear.)

Hope that clears up the issue a little more...

Cheers
Jonathan

Quote from: JonathonSo, is about the player influencing the SIS or is about the SIS affecting the player?  Both.  The player gambles that he can influence the SIS in a certain way and he antes up certain resources to make that bet. But, win or lose, the SIS is now going to affect the player.

"the SIS is now going to affect the player" Perhaps as in excite the player? Dissapoint the player? Are those the kinds of things you mean by "affect"?

QuoteFor Sim I said the stakes were, "the extent to which your contributions to the SIS influence the Dream."

Help me understand - what do you mean when you say "Dream"?

Tony

Quote from: Tony Irwin

Quote from: JonathonSo, is about the player influencing the SIS or is about the SIS affecting the player?  Both.  The player gambles that he can influence the SIS in a certain way and he antes up certain resources to make that bet. But, win or lose, the SIS is now going to affect the player.

"the SIS is now going to affect the player" Perhaps as in excite the player? Dissapoint the player? Are those the kinds of things you mean by "affect"?

QuoteFor Sim I said the stakes were, "the extent to which your contributions to the SIS influence the Dream."

Help me understand - what do you mean when you say "Dream"?

Tony

Yes, those are ways the player is affected.  But, he is also affected if his character is limited in some fashion, for instance.  These are all a part of the stakes.  I risk my emotional state, my character's health, etc.  If I win I can gain happiness, experience for my character, etc.  If I lose I can suffer depression, my character may die, and so on.

As far as the Dream is concerned...
Sim is often called "the Right to Dream."  The glossary defines this as:

QuoteRight to Dream, the
Commitment to the imagined events of play, specifically their in-game causes and pre-established thematic elements. <snip>

Disregarding the current discussions of Sim that disagree with this defintion, I see two elements that must be part of the "Dream."  These fall under the category of "imagined events of play."  One is in-game "caused events," while the other is "pre-established thematic elements" that affect events.

What do these two things mean?  

Well, obviously every game has to have a beginning.  Any events prior to the initial scene are pre-established, hopefully they focus on the theme, and as they aren't roleplayed they are not actual events, but elements.  Thus, pre-established thematic elements.  Note that in the Dream, a theme or themes is established prior to play.  These cannot be changed very easily in Sim play, though adding additional, related themes is very possible.  Also note, that unlike in Nar play, these themes don't have to be a "judgmental statement about how to act, behave, or believe," though they can be.

The elements of the theme are usually part of the setting or color, but they don't have to be.  (They may be part of situation, character, or even system....)

The second of these two elements is "caused events."  The causes could be thematic elements, prior events, or character elements, but in Sim play they cannot be ignored.  In fact, when deciding what gets put into the SIS, Sim play looks at all the causes, tries to determine all possible effects, rates the proabability of each effect, and (usually) randomly determines which effect occurs.  As long as a particular effect was probable, the Sim player is satisfied that it could occur.  

So, your probably still wondering what I mean by "the Dream..."

The Dream is what the players have determined they are trying to simulate.  (I like emulate better, it's less rigid, but it has it's own set of problems...)  They agree upon all pre-determined elements that generate the theme of their emulation and they determine what the possible effects of any given cause are.  Moreso than in any other CA, this is a collective effort.  Disagreements about what the theme of emulation is cause conflict.  In N and G, players can explore their own premises and challenges.  In Sim, this is much more difficult to do...

So, the Dream is the subject of simulation/emulation.  If I say to my group, "Let's play private eyes, who all have supernatural powers, and investigate paranormal mysteries," I have come up with a theme.  It has no human issues as a focus, and it has been predetermined.  If we all agree to play this, and then one of the players decides his character will be an 16th century peasant, we're all going to look at him and say "dude, what's up?"  If he responds,  "My character has been brought from the past by aliens," then we might allow it.  But, he has clearly added to the theme, not changed it.

One final analogy....
I'm playing bass in a rock group and we decide to play a song I've just written.  The song is in a particular key, it has a particular time signature, and it has particular words.  If my guitar player, in the middle of the song, comes up with a groovy hook, we all grin and nod.  He has just submitted something into our shared musical space that JIVED WITH THE THEME.  However, if he suddenly changes keys, without the rest of us knowing what he is attempting, then we have discordance.  In fact, if it's a new song (and all games are "new songs" because you don't play the same one over and over), even if we know the key change is coming we may not hit it.  It depends on our skill and knowledge of each other.
So, that's what I mean by Dream....

Cheers
Jonathan

Ok, I got it,  thanks for taking the time to explain it all for me. Now for the big question that I'm stuck on Jonathon:

Quote from: JonathonThose are ways the player is affected. But, he is also affected if his character is limited in some fashion, for instance. These are all a part of the stakes. I risk my emotional state, my character's health, etc. If I win I can gain happiness, experience for my character, etc. If I lose I can suffer depression, my character may die, and so on.

Does the Sim player have any stakes available that are not also available to N and G players?

The N has big stakes tied up in theme, the G has big stakes tied up in affirming esteem, but both N and G are also tied up in the same stakes that we've listed for Sim.

Does Sim actually have its own stakes, or is it just the same stakes that are common to all exploration?

Cheers,

Tony

My recent computer problems have left me a bit overwhelmed by the sheer volume of backlogged posts; thus I may have missed quite a bit in this thread. However, I'll venture to address the most recent question.

I think there's a risk to the simulationist that he will push his curiosity beyond the ability of the elements to provide answers--walking off the edge of the map, as it were, although it can be in any of several directions, such as delving too deeply into game world physics, or trying to meet everyone in New York City, or studying the peripheral religions of an alien culture. There's a similar risk that in pushing discovery too far you might "break" the scenario--after all, the world is ultimately cardboard fronts with no buildings behind them, even if they're pretty thick fronts; eventually you'll discover that it isn't real, and it doesn't hold together, and then the dream starts to fray, perhaps to crumble.

I suppose sometimes he might discover something he didn't want to know. Perhaps he'll discover something he didn't want his character to know--discovering the Deep Ones in Call of Cthulu, or in something modeled on The Last Action Hero learning that you're really just a fictional character in a movie.

I think there probably are other things that a sim player can have at stake that are particular to sim; it's difficult to identify these, though, as arguably there is a great deal of overlap.

--M. J. Young

Thanks for responding M.J.! Great post.

To summarise what you've said in my own words (and throw in some terms from Ron's "Right to Dream" essay) - is Sim risk that the player's exploration will be too intense and sincere for X to cope with?

Does that capture what you're saying M.J.?

So what is X? You've offered "the map", game world-physics, real life time constraints, the scenario itself, the sensation of reality, I suppose even the GM's capabilities... do you have an umbrella X that is put at risk by the demands of exploration squared?

Tony

"X" is anything that that can be explored.  In my own view, I hold that the modes of exploration are themselves explored in S play.  Thus, what MJ is saying (if I reading him right...) is that the setting may not contain enough information for where you want to go, or that the system doesn't allow you to invent new technologies, etc.

On the other hand, I would like to point out that, in general, S players are more emotionally attached to the "life" of their character than N or G players.  A true N or G player will sacrifice their character's life if it makes sense to further their CA.  The end of a character in S player is the end of the "experiment," and usually it's not a very satisfying end.  Conceivably their could be a game where character death is the point, but I would see that as a small niche in S game style.  So, even though N and G CA's often risk the "life" of the character, I don't see that as a primary risk for their players.

Cheers
Jonathan

Quote from: M. J. YoungI think there's a risk to the simulationist that he will push his curiosity beyond the ability of the elements to provide answers--walking off the edge of the map, as it were, ..

I find this especially accurate.

In a style of Sim I'll describe as Exploration without Intent, if you walk off the map, what you've done is exhaust the GM's prep or his imagination; you get a moment of "Oh, that's right. I'm not really a knight on a quest. This is just a game we're playing."

In a style of Discover the Plot, you get the "choose between 10 doors" thing; the risk is that you hate life, choosing the 9 doors that go nowhere.

I think that Jonathan has put it well.

I'm going to caveat the point about death of the character being very dissatisfying in sim play. Multiverser can be played very simulationist, but the sting of death has been severely attenuated--death has become the means by which the story moves to the next chapter. Thus the "end of the experiment" may be annoying, but the beginning of the next one comes on its heels, so that's not as much of a problem as it is in most games.

But then, that just means we've changed the definitions--death is no longer the end. The end of the character could be very dissatisfying, but the way Multiverser is set up, it's very nearly impossible for the character to reach that point unless player and referee collaborate on bringing it about.

--M. J. Young