The Forge Archives

There are a number of confusions circulating about Virtualism.  In this post, I will try to expose some of them.  These confusions are a consequence of the following belief:  

Quote
In a Virtualist game, internal cause must rule absolutely every decision related to the game.

This is not true.  It cannot be true.  To use a definition of Virtualism that allows it, is to simply define Virtualism out of existence -- because it is impossible to make all game decisions based on internal cause.  

Some Decisions Are Inherently Metagame

Every game has a certain number of decisions that must be made on a metagame basis.  What Setting to use is a metagame decision; it cannot possibly be informed by in-game-world criteria (there is, after all, no game world just yet).  Yet you can hardly begin the game without choosing a Setting.  Choosing a Setting is an example of a decision that is inherently metagame.  The same is true about choice of Character.  There is no possible in-game-world causation for choosing one character over another.  In fact, you do not have sufficient context to create in-game-world causation until you have chosen Setting, Character, Situation (and possibly System and Color).  

Inherently metagame decisions are not limited to startup time.  Spotlight time -- the issue of what in-game events to play out, and in how much detail -- is one that the GM must address on a metagame basis, and he must address it during every second of play.  In-game rationale provides the GM with no guidance at all on the question 'should I roleplay through Torak's negotiation with the town armorer, or not?'  No matter how the GM answers this question, he cannot break in-game causation by doing so -- the act of playing out this encounter is not an in-game-world event.  The act of playing out the encounter creates in-game-world events, but is not itself one.  The crucial point is: in-game causation only applies to in-game events.  At most, the (expected) in-game events can help the GM answer the question 'will my players find this interesting?'  It is this question which bears on spotlight time, and it is an inherently metagame question.  

These are a sample of gaming choices which are inherently metagame.  There are others.  Most (all?) of these are about the game rather than within the game.  

Virtualism and Inherently Metagame Decisions

The simple fact of the matter is that internal cause cannot apply to inherently meta-game decisions.  It's impossible, and the Virtualist gamer recognizes this.  He does not attempt to use internal causation where it cannot possibly apply.  Yet he must make these decisions.  On what basis?   A Virtualist's criterion for making those decisions is this:  which of these alternatives will lead to an interesting game, if we allow internal cause to have its way.  What constitutes 'an interesting game' is subjective, and will certainly be different from Virtualist to Virtualist.  Note that inherently metagame decisions like the choice of Setting/Character/Situation are metagame for the other CAs, too.  The Gamist GM & players choose their S/C/S based on what they think will allow them interesting opportunities to Step On Up -- but there is not likely to be any Stepping On Up in the choice itself.  

Selecting S/C/S can be very important for a Virtualist.  His ideal goal is to have a game that consists of "winding the characters up and letting them go."  But at the same time, he rarely wants to play Paint Drying: The Watching.  So he must be careful how he chooses his S/C/S.  He has several metagame goals to meet in making this choice.  He must choose well to make sure that the game is interesting to himself and his players.  If it is important to his playing group that the party remain together, then the characters must be carefully chosen so that they are likely to remain together in the face of the potential adversity.  If his playing group is interested in a combat-light game, he must choose the S/C/S so that combat is not likely to be a regular part of the characters' lives.  This is a careful balancing act for a GM with a heavy commitment to Virtuality.  

Despite careful planning -- or because of its lack -- things may go wrong.  The game may evolve into Paint Drying: The Watching.  If this happens the GM has a number of options that are consonant with Virtualism.  The GM also has the option of abandoning his commitment to Virtualism and "getting the game back on track" with a metagame interference in the game world.  But this is not his only option.  He may revisit his choices on any inherently metagame decision, without sacrificing his commitment to Virtuality.  This gives him a many options, including:

 1.  He may cancel the game completely.  He may then opt to start a new game, or not.  
 2.  One or more of the players may retire their characters and create new ones.  
 3.  The game may be "fast forwarded" to a point where the Situation has changed into something interesting.  

Summing Up

Now that we've examined Virtualism in a bit more detail, we can see that the appropriate statement would be:  

Quote
In a Virtualist game, internal cause must rule every decision where it can be applied.  

If this is kept in mind, much of the confusion about Virtualism will be cleared up.

-----------
I've presented the two "quotes" above using

Quotefor formatting reasons only.  I don't mean to imply that I'm quoting them from somewhere.

A background note on this.  

"Virtuality" as a term was coined by Ben Lehman in "Subtyping Sim".  I used it afterwards in Virtuality and Ouija Boards.  As I have been using it, it is an exact synonym for rgfa Threefold Simulationism.  Thus, you can read more about it in my Threefold Model FAQ and my essay Simulationism Explained.  

I don't have comments on Lee's point yet.

I completely agree with Lee on the first post, by the way.  I also see other misconceptions from other threads.  The following was a comment in post to the "New 3D Model" thread:

Quote from: Caldis

Quote from: ValamirA big part of my recent essay was trying to rip the Dramatism back out of Sim, but its become such an ingrained assumption here that high GM control of plot and theme = Sim (which is ridiculous) that I haven't met with complete success in that endeavor.

But high GM control of plot can be valid in Sim.  The GM has control of the whole world so he can bring about any situation he wishes by twisting the dials, making forces beyond the pc's direct the plot for a bit.  Yet play itself can continue trying to answer the 'what if' of the current situation.

If the GM is twisting the dials to get the situation he wishes, then he is not pursuing 'what if'.  i.e. It isn't Sim in the rgfa Threefold or Ralph's model.  If the players are pursuing 'what if', then this is at best incoherence.

This is a very well written post. I agree with it strongly. It may even help clear things up.

There have been several recent posts here that assert things like the idea that Vrtuality play, without intentional thematic guidance from the GM, will become Paint Drying: The Watching.

Objections (usually from the same posters) that present-form GNS Sim simply "includes Virtuality as an encompassed stylistic mode" are natural outgrowths of the orignal misconception.

If Virtuality was well understood and usefully defined under present-form GNS we wouldn't see the Paint-Drying misconception in the first place and the discussions wouldn't lead to the "it's-included-already" objection in the second.

-Marco

Quote from: John KimIf the GM is twisting the dials to get the situation he wishes, then he is not pursuing 'what if'.  i.e. It isn't Sim in the rgfa Threefold or Ralph's model.  If the players are pursuing 'what if', then this is at best incoherence.

I'm not trying to describe Sim as per rgfa threefold or under Ralph's model, I'm trying to show how they differ from sim under GNS.  

'What if' is not the heart of simulationism under GNS, it's an important component but not the sole motivating factor.  Sim under GNS is any game that puts the experience of the game (of being present in an imaginary world) ahead of premise and challenge.

I think Jay (Silmenume) is on to something when he speaks of meaning structures.  Though I find his use of language hard to follow, his posts have been full of interesting concepts that seem accurate to me.

QuoteThe question then becomes, what concepts are created in the Sim CA? While in Gamism one addresses many Challenges and their effectiveness is measured in terms of Victory, and while in Narrativism one addresses a couple or one premise and their effectiveness in commenting on the human social condition is put to the test, in Simulationism one address conflict not for any specific goal, but to create more concepts which define, expand and support the Dream which is itself a meaning structure. .... As more structures are created via the address of conflict, the more of The Dream that is manufactured during play. Thus Sim is the creation of more Dream (meaning structures/concepts), not the understanding of its constituent components. The Dream and fictional meaning structures are identical. The Dream is not just something it is a different point of view – it a different way of looking at reality.

This text reminds me of something you wrote once John, and I'm afraid I couldnt find the quote, that you dont play to try and create story but to see what the shared imaginings of the players come up with.  Can you see how this differs from just trying to see 'what if'?   It's not trying to find out what exactly would happen, what is the most realistic result but rather what the players at the table think would be an interesting and plausible result.

From your Threefold simulationism explained essay

QuoteOn rgfa, most simulationist posters were opposed to coercive personality mechanics...  In discussion, the primary argument was accuracy. Adding in such rules was not felt to make character behavior more real. For a skilled roleplayer it would interfere with attempts, and for a poor roleplayer it would simply add uncorrelated random reactions to the poor roleplaying -- and real people do not behave randomly. I feel this argument is strong, but there is a further reason. The emotional power of Simulationism usually stems from the consequences of player choice. For similar reasons, Simulationists tended to favor point-based character creation rather than random-roll.

To try and get back to Lee's topic I have one comment to make.  I understand Virtualism and have no problem with it, however it is looking at something different than GNS precisely because of it's exclusion of the metagame.  GNS believes the metagame decisions can be as important in determining creative agenda as the in game decisions.  

As an example consider a game based on gladiatorial combat.  The metagame decision is made that all players will be gladiators and that they either dont want to or cant escape.  Play will focus on combat sessions in the arena where due to a ranking system gladiators will usually fight against someone of the same skill level.  Players are free to do what they chose but just as with the decision not to play out Torak's negotiations with the armorer most situations that develop outside the arena floor will not be played out.  Once play starts internal cause is king and whatever happens happens.  Meets the standards of virtuality as presented here but the game is going to provide the 'step on up' that a gamist is looking for and not the 'right to dream' of GNS simulationism.

I think what i've written in the past hasnt been clear enough, my apologies for that. To try and be clear I do not think that under virtualism play will warp to whatever the gm finds interesting and that he will move the bars to create an interesting story.  My contention is that the meta game decisions that he makes before play can warp the outcome and make it more or less appealling to narrativists, simulationists, or gamists.
I also contend that simulationism under GNS goes beyond virtualism in scope.

Quote from: Caldis
To try and get back to Lee's topic I have one comment to make.  I understand Virtualism and have no problem with it, however it is looking at something different than GNS precisely because of it's exclusion of the metagame.  GNS believes the metagame decisions can be as important in determining creative agenda as the in game decisions.  

(Emphasis added)

I think there's no question on anyone's mind that GNS-Sim is a different animal from Virtuality (GDS-Sim).

The reason these threads exist is that GNS seems to hold that Virtuality is simply a "stylistic method of playing a GNS-Sim game." In other words, that Virtuality is cleanly and benefically encompassed by being included in the GNS Sim bucket.

From the section you quoted I can derrive one of two meanings:

1. That GNS doesn't really address Virtuality-games because it is, as you say, focused on the meta-game and that, therefore, for Virtuality players either another terminology or an extension of the theory would be required. I say this because of the use of the term "[Virtuality] is looking at something different than GNS" (italics added).

2. It is believed that Virtuality exists on a lower-level of the big-model (as a technique?) and therefore isn't specifically addressed as one of the three main lobes--but is correctly and benefically encompassed in the Sim bucket.

If we're going to say that Virtualists need a theory that extends or modifies GNS, then, based solely on observations of these forums I have to agree. It clearly, historically, doesn't serve them well.

If we're going to describe Virtuality as a sub-mode then I have to ask what the value is of putting it in the Sim bucket: as we can see that it doesn't exactly aid communication or discussion (it requires a new term that will, I think, need an essay on par with the one for Narrativism or Gamism--to look at John's essay).

I also wanted to touch on this:

Quote
The metagame decision is made that all players will be gladiators and that they either dont want to or cant escape. Play will focus on combat sessions in the arena where due to a ranking system gladiators will usually fight against someone of the same skill level. Players are free to do what they chose but just as with the decision not to play out Torak's negotiations with the armorer most situations that develop outside the arena floor will not be played out. Once play starts internal cause is king and whatever happens happens. Meets the standards of virtuality as presented here but the game is going to provide the 'step on up' that a gamist is looking for and not the 'right to dream' of GNS simulationism.

My only issue is with the "can't escape"--in terms that absolutes are very problematic for Virtuality. If a character wants to escape and something happens that allows it, you have an escaped gladiator.

I think it's perfectly valid to say "make characters who are down with the program"--this, as a starting-condition constraint, is part of the S/C/S that Lee talks about--and getting it right is important. So I've no problem with that.

But ... if during play events transpire that lead a PC to want to escape, will the player reign in his emotions? No. The starting constraint does not carry over into play (in the sense of being some sort of meta-game restriction on what a player or character may feel or do).

A game based in an arena is an example of what I would call a very "tight" situation--the PC's have few good options (they can, for example, refuse to fight--but the consequences would be clear and grim). I do, indeed, find this a valid form of Virtuality (if one precieves that the players are disempowred by gaming with "tight situations", I believe that is a misconception).

But the distinguishing factor between Virtuality and, say, functional Illusionism is still deeply distinct even under those circumstances.

-Marco

Quote from: Caldis
As an example consider a game based on gladiatorial combat.  The metagame decision is made that all players will be gladiators and that they either dont want to or cant escape.  Play will focus on combat sessions in the arena where due to a ranking system gladiators will usually fight against someone of the same skill level.  Players are free to do what they chose but just as with the decision not to play out Torak's negotiations with the armorer most situations that develop outside the arena floor will not be played out.  Once play starts internal cause is king and whatever happens happens.  Meets the standards of virtuality as presented here but the game is going to provide the 'step on up' that a gamist is looking for and not the 'right to dream' of GNS simulationism.
.

I disagree that the game in question must be run as a gamist game.  The defining question is how the GM makes his decisions (the players too).  If he keeps his eye on internal cause at all times, even when that interferes with Step On Up, the game is sim.  It can be argued that the conditions are such that it is impossible to distinguish between these two criteria in this particular case.  If that is so, then you have identified a degenerate case -- a game which genuinely qualifies as both Sim and Gamist.  No one ever said GNS or GDS was perfect, just that the categorizations are useful precisely because they resonate with so many gamers.  Another degenerate case would be an attempt to run a game in a world based on Russian Fairy Tales [as best I understand that genre].  If internal cause is followed strictly, this game must be both Sim and Nar -- the very nature of the world being simulated will continually push the game back onto Premise.  

Degenerate cases are not the only examples of games which cannot handily be classified by GNS/GDS -- there are examples of things that fall through the cracks by engaging none of the CAs (rather than the present examples, which may be argued to fully engage more than one).    

That said, I do think that in this case you can distinguish between running the game in a Sim mode and in a Gamist mode.  But I think with a little more care it's easily possible to construct a clearly degenerate case.  

It's also possible to construct degenerate cases of Nar and Gam -- imagine a game with a whole bunch of really crunchy rules that are all about how to address a Premise.  Imagine a crunched-up version of Pendragon, made to make the game all about Honor.  Or Passion.

Quote from: Lee Short

Quote from: Caldis
...Once play starts internal cause is king and whatever happens happens.  Meets the standards of virtuality as presented here but the game is going to provide the 'step on up' that a gamist is looking for and not the 'right to dream' of GNS simulationism.
.

I disagree that the game in question must be run as a gamist game.  The defining question is how the GM makes his decisions (the players too).  If he keeps his eye on internal cause at all times, even when that interferes with Step On Up, the game is sim.

Sure. It's possible that the game is Narrativist, too. We don't know anything about CA here - although it certainly looks to me as though it could facilitate G right out of the box, that would depend on aspects of System not specified in Caldis' example (is there an agreement to use a reliable ranking ladder that ensures in-game that gladiators will meet reasonably challenging opponents?). OTOH, it's also a setup that could go right into nice juicy Premise (do you spare an opponent and make a moral statement, or go for the easy fame of being a blood-letter?). Just because ICIK, not necessarily Sim, just because clear win-lose conditions exist, not automatically Gamist.

Quote from: Lee Short
 It can be argued that the conditions are such that it is impossible to distinguish between these two criteria in this particular case.  If that is so, then you have identified a degenerate case -- a game which genuinely qualifies as both Sim and Gamist.  No one ever said GNS or GDS was perfect, just that the categorizations are useful precisely because they resonate with so many gamers.

I don't think so. You can't tell if the game is Gamist or Sim because you have agenda clash. ICIK interferes with Step On Up and 1 or more players  wanted Step On Up? Dysfunction. ICIK interferes with Step On Up and players are on board with What If? Functional play. GNS analysis really only becomes clear when there is a clash of priorities in the instance of play. A game cannot be said to be G or N or S until we know what agendas are operating, and often agendas don't become clear until they come into conflict.

The so-called degenerate case here is a game where different players (or the same players at different times) are prioritizing different goals. As long as this is out in the open and supported by System, it can remain functional in many cases. This would be Congruency. The game is not simultaneously Sim and Gamist - it is either hybrid with one subordinated or it is in dysfunction because the players do not agree what should be prioritized.

Quote from: Lee ShortAnother degenerate case would be an attempt to run a game in a world based on Russian Fairy Tales [as best I understand that genre].  If internal cause is followed strictly, this game must be both Sim and Nar -- the very nature of the world being simulated will continually push the game back onto Premise.  

Premise must be important to the players. Do the players have a stake in the Premise built in to the setting and situation? Or are they Exploring "What if the world were such that moral laws had objective embodiments?" If the players are not motivated to make a statement that answers the Premise, they are not playing with a Narrativist agenda. One could even play Gamist in that sort of world - how can I manipulate the moral laws of the universe to my benefit?

Strict internal cause by itself is not diagnostic of Sim CA.

Quote from: Lee Short...It's also possible to construct degenerate cases of Nar and Gam -- imagine a game with a whole bunch of really crunchy rules that are all about how to address a Premise.  Imagine a crunched-up version of Pendragon, made to make the game all about Honor.  Or Passion.

And crunch <> Gamist. Do the players intend to use those rules to engage with significant human questions in order to make a personal statement about them? Or do they just want the rules to simulate a world in which this particular human quality is of signal importance? Or are they competing to see who can create the greatest paragon of Honor?

You've described a case where the rules support a given style of play. Players may Drift them into any CA from there. Drift <> hybridization.

BTW - long time reader, 2nd-time poster. I've played in a few games of Lee's and know several of his more regular players. I hope I'm not making an ass of myself by jumping in with both feet!

Best,

Mark

Mark, your post is excellent, and shows a clear grasp of the concepts.

Quote from: Lee ShortIt can be argued that the conditions are such that it is impossible to distinguish between these two criteria in this particular case.  If that is so, then you have identified a degenerate case -- a game which genuinely qualifies as both Sim and Gamist.

Lee, in terms of GNS, what the game "does" is only secondary. It's what the players are trying to do that determines the agendum in play.

As Mark said, what you've described is "coherence"--you can't tell from the choices made whether the player is playing gamist or simulationist, because the choice that best enables the player to meet the challenge is also that which best reinforces discovery of the nature of the game world. Thus by looking at the fact that the gladiator selects the best weapon and shield to use against the opponent he is about to face we cannot tell whether the player is seeking to achieve a personal victory over the obstacles presented in the game, or the player is seeking to best express what his expert gladiator character would do when faced with this situation. However, that does not alter the fact that the player is doing one of those things primarily. He is either focused in his mind on how he can prove himself as a player against this latest challenge raised by the referee, or he is focused on understanding what the character would do and what this decision is like for him when his life is on the line. Those cannot both be the first consideration in the player's mind at the moment he makes the choice; therefore, he is either playing one or the other, even if he is constrained by situation and system to make those choices within parameters that support both.

"Hybrid" does apply to game designs such as the one described, in which support is available for more than one agendum; "coherence" goes further than that, suggesting that the design is so tight that choices in support of one agendum are not contrary to the goals of another and thus do not create conflict. However (although there is debate over this) it does not seem as if hybrid play is possible. A player can have only one first priority as the basis for his decisions, even if he has other concerns that influence these.

(Doctor Xero will no doubt object that it is possible for a human being to hold two issues of first importance and never have to choose between them; I am unpersuaded.)

--M. J. Young

Quote from: Marco
If we're going to say that Virtualists need a theory that extends or modifies GNS, then, based solely on observations of these forums I have to agree. It clearly, historically, doesn't serve them well.

If we're going to describe Virtuality as a sub-mode then I have to ask what the value is of putting it in the Sim bucket: as we can see that it doesn't exactly aid communication or discussion (it requires a new term that will, I think, need an essay on par with the one for Narrativism or Gamism--to look at John's essay).

Here I think you are right.  It doesnt fit entirely into GNS sim, that's why things like John Kim's Water Uphill campaign can be entirely Virtuality and yet allow for mixed sim/nar play.  I think the similarities in terminology have mixed everyone up for quite awhile and not allowed people to realize how different what we actually were talking about are, while still accurately describing what they were intended to.

Quote
A game based in an arena is an example of what I would call a very "tight" situation--the PC's have few good options (they can, for example, refuse to fight--but the consequences would be clear and grim). I do, indeed, find this a valid form of Virtuality (if one precieves that the players are disempowred by gaming with "tight situations", I believe that is a misconception).

The example I had in mind was a very tight situation.  One of what Lee called a spotlight time decisions made was that the play would revolve around what happened in the arena, and by that I mean combat.  There would be little to no play that focused on down time between fights.  Consider it a magical arena of the gods where after the battles the characters are whisked away to limbo where they stay in a coma like state until their next battle.

The player still is open to choosing any option available to them, drop the weapon dont fight back, try and kill, cheat to win, whatever but they wont have a wide range of options.  The point of the example is that it can still remain technically virtualist and still provide no support for gns sim but tons for gamism.

Caldis,

Very much agreement. Virtualist play may also fall soundly under Narrativist play--which makes asigning it to the Sim bucket questionable.

What we are looking at here are three things:

1. What the player gets out of playing (I value plausibility. I value emotional impact. I value intellectual stimulation. I value challenge. I value peer admiration of my play.) It think it's clear that a player may value two or even more equally.

2. What methods the player will use in decision making (stances, priority of decision, etc.)

3. What methods the player expects the GM to use in decision making (the GM will work to ensure that challenges are prevalent and interesting, the GM will try to always choose the most-plausible direction of events, the GM will choose to have the world work to further drama, the GM will have things happen in a way as to be congruent with the PC's actions from a premise standpoint, etc.)

Mike's model, I think, explicitly addresses these (although I'm not sure it's as definitive on the last point as I'd like).

Because both GDS and GNS will functionally be used to express goals and desires of play (from both sides of the GM's screen) I think having a language that crosses over both of them is good (saying "I'd like to play a game where the observed behavior will center around Premise" is awkward and doesn't, for example, explain how the player would like to get there--on this board it sure doesn't imply Virtuality).

-Marco

Quote from: Marco
Mike's model, I think, explicitly addresses these (although I'm not sure it's as definitive on the last point as I'd like).

Because both GDS and GNS will functionally be used to express goals and desires of play (from both sides of the GM's screen) I think having a language that crosses over both of them is good (saying "I'd like to play a game where the observed behavior will center around Premise" is awkward and doesn't, for example, explain how the player would like to get there--on this board it sure doesn't imply Virtuality).

I like Mike's model in some aspects but Ralph had a good question regarding where premise fit and MJ's latest post in that thread also made me reconsider it as well.  I think his model catches the main points of both GNS and GDS but it may miss out on some of the finer distinctions made within each.

I'd prefer to keep GNS as it stands and add GDS into the big model, making it a seperate concern that in someways overlaps and influences gns and in someways is subservient to it.

Quote from: Caldis
I'd prefer to keep GNS as it stands and add GDS into the big model, making it a seperate concern that in someways overlaps and influences gns and in someways is subservient to it.

Well then you do have to decide whether or not Virtuality falls under Sim (as originally stated (and what about participationism? Illusionism?). I think Ralph's assertation does well with that--but then Participationism doesn't fit anywhere (IMO).

In other words: if we keep GNS, what is Sim?

-Marco

Quote from: Marco
Well then you do have to decide whether or not Virtuality falls under Sim

Only if I can be persuaded that virtuality exists, which I am not, and...

Quote(and what about participationism? Illusionism?).

... are not CA's but techniques, and thus do not need to fall anywhere in GNS.  And thats still true even if there is an iron consistency between selection of technique and a particular CA.

QuoteIn other words: if we keep GNS, what is Sim?

See Articles above.

Quote from: Marco

Well then you do have to decide whether or not Virtuality falls under Sim (as originally stated (and what about participationism? Illusionism?). I think Ralph's assertation does well with that--but then Participationism doesn't fit anywhere (IMO).

In other words: if we keep GNS, what is Sim?

-Marco

Sim remains any game that puts the reality of the game world ahead of the narrative or game considerations.  This includes metagame as well as in game decisions.  I think it is close to the virtuality description but slightly different because it does include the metagame decisions which virtuality does not.

Virtuality can fall within any of the creative agenda's.  If it's is set up tightly then it can be designed to provide a gamist his step on up while still remaining virtual as in the gladiator experience, a different set up can provide for the right to dream, and another one will allow narrativism.

Contra,

What is it you find impossible to believe in concerning Virtuality? This thread might be a good place to ask it if you don't believe it's possible for a GM to do what Lee suggests.

-Marco

I can't see what its is about this "virtuality" that is not Sim.  I don't claim it's not do-able at all, I just claim that when its done its sim.  

I ask, what would I use as a diagnostic characteristic of virtuality that would tell me there was a virtuality game, as opposed a sim game, in progress?  How would I distinguish between the two?

If no distinction can be given than I just think its another word for Sim, which we don't need.

Quote from: contracycle
I ask, what would I use as a diagnostic characteristic of virtuality that would tell me there was a virtuality game, as opposed a sim game, in progress?  How would I distinguish between the two?

(Emphasis added)

You distinguish between the two exactly the same way you spot illusionism. If done sufficiently well, the Narrativist will play in the most railroaded, panama-canal, Bobby-G style game and not know it, right?

So you assert there is no difference between the two?

If that's the case then why do we need a description of Narrativism?

-Marco

Quote from: Marco
You distinguish between the two exactly the same way you spot illusionism.

Fine, pretend I'm a noob, how do you spot illusionism?  And what do you campare it with?

Quote
If done sufficiently well, the Narrativist will play in the most railroaded, panama-canal, Bobby-G style game and not know it, right?

No; I fully expect a narratavist will chasfe at not beoing able to trigger the conflicts they feel are iportant in favour of the GM's.  But then its not suprising that we would see just such a CA clash.

Quote
So you assert there is no difference between the two?

If that's the case then why do we need a description of Narrativism?

You are failing to answer the question, Marco.  You've given a jargonsmorgasbord and comer back with a challenge; why can;t you just tell me what Virtuality looks like and how it is distinct from Sim?   Seeing as you are so adamant there is a distinction, tell me what it is.  It shouldn't be that hard.

Quote from: contracycleYou are failing to answer the question, Marco.  You've given a jargonsmorgasbord and comer back with a challenge; why can;t you just tell me what Virtuality looks like and how it is distinct from Sim?   Seeing as you are so adamant there is a distinction, tell me what it is.  It shouldn't be that hard.

If you really want an explanation, demanding an answer within the span of a few hours isn't helpful.  You posted at midnight (12:04AM) and here are upset that your question hasn't been fully answered by 9:30AM when you wake up.  That's just not reasonable.  

Assuming that the GM and players can answer truthfully, you can distinguish a pure Virtuality game by asking them how they decided on in-game events.  If they genuinely attempted to decide based on in-game criteria, then the game is Virtualist.  That is the basic definition.  Note that the genre of the game and themes of the game are meta-game -- i.e. they are not visible as such to the characters, but instead are things visible to the players.  

I'll describe beyond the raw definition, because a lot of people don't grasp the significance of this.  Virtuality is radically different from traditional RPG play.  In most traditional RPG play, the GM designs an adventure based on what he wants to see happen and/or what would be interesting to have happen.  However, in a purely Virtualist game, the GM (if there is one) would decide what is in a town based on what would in-game reasonably be there.  This is still a creative process, but it is a world-creating process which is different from designing based on what events you would like to see.  

Not designing "adventures" is a big shift.  This generally means that either (1) the PCs are proactive and the campaign is largely player-directed (cf my Proactive PCs essay), or (2) there is a central in-game setup to the campaign which moves the reactive PCs -- for example, the PCs are agents who follow orders from a pro-active organization.  

This also enables play as a moral testing ground, because the consequences of PC actions are always followed through.  The group can't have an evil PC be punished because that's what is in-genre or because that's what they want to see.  By playing Virtualist, they are agreeing to follow through what they think would really happen.  

As for whether or how this is distinct from GNS Simulationism, I think that's a tricky question.  Different people have very different views of what GNS Simulationism is.  I would be interested to hear how you think this relates to GNS Simulationism.

Quote from: contracycle

Quote from: Marco
You distinguish between the two exactly the same way you spot illusionism.

Fine, pretend I'm a noob, how do you spot illusionism?  And what do you campare it with?

Quote
If done sufficiently well, the Narrativist will play in the most railroaded, panama-canal, Bobby-G style game and not know it, right?

No; I fully expect a narratavist will chasfe at not beoing able to trigger the conflicts they feel are iportant in favour of the GM's.  But then its not suprising that we would see just such a CA clash.

Quote
So you assert there is no difference between the two?

If that's the case then why do we need a description of Narrativism?

You are failing to answer the question, Marco.  You've given a jargonsmorgasbord and comer back with a challenge; why can;t you just tell me what Virtuality looks like and how it is distinct from Sim?   Seeing as you are so adamant there is a distinction, tell me what it is.  It shouldn't be that hard.

How do you discern Illusionism? What is it contrasted to?

I'm no expert on "catching illusionism"--I'm not much good at reading tells (which is one of the popular modes of CA-analysis)--but how about this: You catch the GM cheating at dice and on being questioned he admits he was manipulating the system, setting or situation for some personal, previously undisclosed goal.

I contrast this with the GM stating his goals up front and being clear about his manipulation of system, setting, or situation. In the case of Virtuality the GM states a commitment to most-playsible what-if play and doesn't secretly overrule mechanics to, say, enhance the game's drama out of line with his stated goals.

Using Illusionsim with Narrativism

The Premise of the game has to do with fidelity in the face of old wounds. The situation involves a single powerful foe the PC's may choose to face alone or together (and they have old wounds between them that make standing together tough). The foe--although powerful--is presented as possibly defeatable by a single character who holds true to what he believes concerning individuality or communalism. The game system gives extrra-dice for holding true to what you believe in that respect.

The GM secretly determines that unless the PC's face a final enemy together they will fail (and be killed). He will make it look like they simply had a run of bad luck--or he may simply make the foe absorb more and more damage until the PC is dead--but either way the character who faces it alone is secretly doomed. The players, however, assume that the GM is "playing it straight" and that while the outcome of the battle is not certian, they have a chance to defeat the opponent if they choose to face him alone: in short, both choices are viable.

IMO, the GM has answered the question (he runs the foe, keeps track of damage, rolls dice behind his screen, etc.) but the player will never succeed and, in fact, will be punished for going against the GM's decision.

[One can, and I imagine will, make the argument that they would be making the statement and answering the question by simply deciding to face the foe. I think that if you then point out later that they were irrevcoably doomed to die because the GM didn't like that answer (and it wasn't clearly suicidal). In short, the statement that is made by the game is that individualism is deadly while fidelity is what works].

If the illusionism is artfully handeled the players will never know (unless they catch the GM cheating at dice, for example). They will believe the game was run in a Narrativist manner. For this hypothetical, I assume that the players who are killed are very unhappy but consider the game functional (it's a Fortune system, dying was always a possibility, after all) until they learn the truth.

But that isn't what's important.

What's key is that the difference between Virtuality and Participationism lies in how decisions are made. You can say that that distinction isn't made by GNS and argue that--but I think it's very clear that ultimately that *is,* functionally, what GNS (and GDS) are about--and if the formal definitions don't say that, then the formal definitions (which don't exist) are out of line with the common and profitable usage of the taxonomy.

It's key to understand is that Illusionism in either Virtuality or Narrativism will not reliably lead to a satisfying game (my example is one where it leads to a disappointing game but one that is still considered functional, unless the truth comes out)--if the players had agreed with the GM about fidelity the ending would've been happy and no player would've been punished for his decision.

Similarily, using the 'Dramatist' mind-set to run a game for a Virtualist will not reliably produce a satisfying game whether or not the GM is caught.

That's the key point. Not getting hung up on 'observed behavior' or third-party analysis (which either will or won't be relevant depending on how good your mad-telepathy-like-people-reading-skills are when it comes to reading tells).

-Marco

Quote from: John KimVirtuality is radically different from traditional RPG play.  In most traditional RPG play, the GM designs an adventure based on what he wants to see happen and/or what would be interesting to have happen.  However, in a purely Virtualist game, the GM (if there is one) would decide what is in a town based on what would in-game reasonably be there.  This is still a creative process, but it is a world-creating process which is different from designing based on what events you would like to see.

So far, so Sim. A particular flavor of Sim, to be sure.  Typically even Story-sim GMs pay attention to plausibility, although they don't place as strong an emphasis on it as Virtualists.

Quote from: John KimNot designing "adventures" is a big shift.  This generally means that either (1) the PCs are proactive and the campaign is largely player-directed (cf my Proactive PCs essay), or (2) there is a central in-game setup to the campaign which moves the reactive PCs -- for example, the PCs are agents who follow orders from a pro-active organization.  

So Virtuality is distinguished so far by 2 things, as I see it. There is a different division of labor, in that the players are principally responsible for generating plot and the GM reacts to it. And there is a commitment to GDS-Sim decision rules in which aesthetic and game-mechanical System components are not just subordinated but disallowed except in specific and limited ways.

This certainly leads to a very different and distinctive style of play than more traditional allocations of plot responsibility do, but I still see the outcome as being geared mostly toward GNS-Sim ends - the production of a desired experience of "being there." Degree of player empowerment and methods of decision change the look and feel, but so do different die mechanics, or play-by-post vs tabletop. Virtuality is real, but does it fall outside Sim? I can't see any reason to think so.

Quote from: John KimThis also enables play as a moral testing ground, because the consequences of PC actions are always followed through.  The group can't have an evil PC be punished because that's what is in-genre or because that's what they want to see.  By playing Virtualist, they are agreeing to follow through what they think would really happen.

Perhaps. But the commitment to logic as resolution puts players in a bind when attempting to address these moral questions - in the end, the Universe doesn't care about their values. If the evil PC is sufficiently effective, the answer to the question "Does Might make Right?" is always YES. Not that this is necessarily a bad thing, but it does limit the effectiveness of Virtualist techniques in handling Narrativist play goals.

Quote from: John KimAs for whether or how this is distinct from GNS Simulationism, I think that's a tricky question.  Different people have very different views of what GNS Simulationism is.  I would be interested to hear how you think this relates to GNS Simulationism.

I've been pretty concise in my other thread on what I think GNS Sim is. I don't think there's a one-to one map between it and Virtualism, and I don't think that all Virtualist play is a subset of GNS Sim, but I think that Virtualist techniques most reliably support GNS-Sim goals.

Best,

Mark

Mark,

The idea that GNS Sim is simply RPG play with a focus on plausibility (and nothing else, really) isn't new. The problem is that a "focus on plausibility" or a "focus on exploration," while these can both be ascribed to Virtuality and Participationism, are about as meaningful as saying "both types of games might use dice."

It doesn't hit on what is important to both of them.

I submit that the player who doesn't want to die unless their death is "meaningful" isn't committed to a what-if (or 'being there') experience. After all, we must, in reality, accept that our deaths could be 'meaningless.'*

In fact, the very stipulation the universe doesn't care about my moral statement is, for me, what validates it when I make said statement. If I can be assured that my statement will be facilitated by the GM because it is mine then, for me, it has less power.

Of course if my statement is blocked by the GM because he doesn't agree with it, that's even worse.

This points out why Virtuality, while it might be a technique that can produce something descriptively Narrativist, is not (for many people) going to be the most reliable way to achieve that result (although there are some techniques the GM can employ if he wants to that can really help with that).

But that's also why Participationism, while it kinda looks like Virtuality, isn't the same and won't appeal to people the same way. Grouping them in a given agenda is because they seem similar is not a mistake people who are familiar with both would, IME, make.

-Marco
* There are some metaphysical arguments to the contrary and I'm down with 'em--but in a this-lifetime, human-level-of perception situation people die from slipping in the bathroom all the time.

If anyone takes this to mean that a Virtuality must/should model characters slipping and dying in the bathroom, however, they're missing the point.

I make some new points about where Vituality might fit in the grand scheme of things in this thread (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=12421) that might have some application here.

Quote from: John Kim
If you really want an explanation, demanding an answer within the span of a few hours isn't helpful.  You posted at midnight (12:04AM) and here are upset that your question hasn't been fully answered by 9:30AM when you wake up.  That's just not reasonable.  

That had nothing to do with my criticism, tho.  I criticised the jargon smorgasbord, not that delay.

QuoteI'll describe beyond the raw definition, because a lot of people don't grasp the significance of this. Virtuality is radically different from traditional RPG play. In most traditional RPG play, the GM designs an adventure based on what he wants to see happen and/or what would be interesting to have happen. However, in a purely Virtualist game, the GM (if there is one) would decide what is in a town based on what would in-game reasonably be there. This is still a creative process, but it is a world-creating process which is different from designing based on what events you would like to see.

I do not think this is an unusual play style at all.

First of all I think the whol issue of what "would really be there" is a tricky one as per the discussion of "what would really happen".  Apart from that wrinkle, I think 90% of non-participationist Sim is exactly what you describe, the phenomenon is unremarkable, and not worthy of a name.  Sim does just fine.

Quote from: contracycleI do not think this is an unusual play style at all.

First of all I think the whol issue of what "would really be there" is a tricky one as per the discussion of "what would really happen".  Apart from that wrinkle, I think 90% of non-participationist Sim is exactly what you describe, the phenomenon is unremarkable, and not worthy of a name.  Sim does just fine.

I actually sort of agree with part of this. I'm not sure that Virtuality (as a basic goal) is all that unusual. And I also find that in some Forge conversations there is too much reliance on jargon and handwaving Although I find that you (contra) are engaging in this when you say "non-participationist Sim is exactly what you describe."

If there is such a thing as "non-participationist Sim" then logically it would be what is described as Virtuality. If it *is* virtuality, then Ralph is right: Sim, by itself, is a question of what-if--and therefore Participationist goals don't belong in the Sim bucket any more than it belongs in the Nar bucket.

-Marco

Quote from: Marco
If there is such a thing as "non-participationist Sim" then logically it would be what is described as Virtuality. If it *is* virtuality, then Ralph is right: Sim, by itself, is a question of what-if--and therefore Participationist goals don't belong in the Sim bucket any more than it belongs in the Nar bucket.

I'm afraid I can't see how any of that has to follow.  Its just sim.  The term virtuality has not meaning if you agree that virtuality is just bog standard, garden variety sim.  That does not imply a validation of Ralphs claim.  Futhermore you still make the error of placing techniques in the buckets when the techniques are not meant to fit in the buckets; techniques are external to the buckets.

I mean, I pointed that out 5 days ago on the 20th.  I also asked for a distinguishing characteristic of Virtuality and you have conceded that it is in fact ordinary sim as ordinarily practiced.  So its existance as something that requires being distinguished from sim is not established.  The error of allocating techniques inside the CA instead of outside the CA is still being made.  There is no coherent or convincing argument here as far as I can see and this all rather makes for a storm in a teacup.

Quote from: contracycle

Quote from: Marco
If there is such a thing as "non-participationist Sim" then logically it would be what is described as Virtuality. If it *is* virtuality, then Ralph is right: Sim, by itself, is a question of what-if--and therefore Participationist goals don't belong in the Sim bucket any more than it belongs in the Nar bucket.

I'm afraid I can't see how any of that has to follow.  Its just sim.  The term virtuality has not meaning if you agree that virtuality is just bog standard, garden variety sim.  That does not imply a validation of Ralphs claim.  Futhermore you still make the error of placing techniques in the buckets when the techniques are not meant to fit in the buckets; techniques are external to the buckets.

I mean, I pointed that out 5 days ago on the 20th.  I also asked for a distinguishing characteristic of Virtuality and you have conceded that it is in fact ordinary sim as ordinarily practiced.  So its existance as something that requires being distinguished from sim is not established.  The error of allocating techniques inside the CA instead of outside the CA is still being made.  There is no coherent or convincing argument here as far as I can see and this all rather makes for a storm in a teacup.

The reason that people picked up on the term Virtuality is that GNS Sim as commonly used doesn't fit. Look at Ron's post on introducing Narrativists to Simulationists:

Quote
Furthermore, here's the point (or we discuss the point a bit, arriving at it together), and that's what it's about. Keep on doing stuff that supports that point and makes the game "about" that point, and we'll all get along. I'll throw a whole bunch of things at you that are pretty unequivocal regarding their relationship to that point.

That isn't Virtuality--so either Ron is describing something different than what Sim is (which is a contention you can take up with him) or there needs to be a distinguishing term.

Furthermore, If "virtuality" is "just Sim" (which was Ralph's contention--and I think it makes sense) then if you consider Participationism another CA it needs to be broken out with it's own name.

If you consider Participationism a technique (reduced player input) then it follows that the opposite: increased player input is a technique as well, and a form of Participationism belongs under Narrativism too (i.e. Narrativist becomes Themist and it has modes of high player empowerment and low player empowerment).

What I've always said is that Participationism shares as much (or more) with Narrativist play as it does with Virtuality/Sim play (i.e. not a lot).

-Marco

Quote from: Mark WoodhouseSo Virtuality is distinguished so far by 2 things, as I see it. There is a different division of labor, in that the players are principally responsible for generating plot and the GM reacts to it. And there is a commitment to GDS-Sim decision rules in which aesthetic and game-mechanical System components are not just subordinated but disallowed except in specific and limited ways.

This certainly leads to a very different and distinctive style of play than more traditional allocations of plot responsibility do, but I still see the outcome as being geared mostly toward GNS-Sim ends - the production of a desired experience of "being there." Degree of player empowerment and methods of decision change the look and feel, but so do different die mechanics, or play-by-post vs tabletop. Virtuality is real, but does it fall outside Sim? I can't see any reason to think so.  

Well, this depends on your personal view of GNS Sim.  You consider it to be based on conveying the experience of being there.  Thus, you would presumably exclude games without the "myth of reality" -- for example, Theatrix, or various comedy games.  

Quote from: Mark Woodhouse

Quote from: John KimThis also enables play as a moral testing ground, because the consequences of PC actions are always followed through.  The group can't have an evil PC be punished because that's what is in-genre or because that's what they want to see.  By playing Virtualist, they are agreeing to follow through what they think would really happen.

Perhaps. But the commitment to logic as resolution puts players in a bind when attempting to address these moral questions - in the end, the Universe doesn't care about their values. If the evil PC is sufficiently effective, the answer to the question "Does Might make Right?" is always YES. Not that this is necessarily a bad thing, but it does limit the effectiveness of Virtualist techniques in handling Narrativist play goals.

I think this may be a clash of philosophy.  I do not believe that might makes right -- but I also don't think that illogical and/or supernatural power is necessary for might to not make right.  So, for example, I think you can have a story where a good person is killed -- but he is still distinctive as being good.  

Quote from: contracycle

Quote from: John KimVirtuality is radically different from traditional RPG play. In most traditional RPG play, the GM designs an adventure based on what he wants to see happen and/or what would be interesting to have happen. However, in a purely Virtualist game, the GM (if there is one) would decide what is in a town based on what would in-game reasonably be there. This is still a creative process, but it is a world-creating process which is different from designing based on what events you would like to see.

I do not think this is an unusual play style at all.

First of all I think the whol issue of what "would really be there" is a tricky one as per the discussion of "what would really happen".  Apart from that wrinkle, I think 90% of non-participationist Sim is exactly what you describe, the phenomenon is unremarkable, and not worthy of a name.  Sim does just fine.

Well, I can't really answer what the statistics of games are.  In my experience, there are a great many non-participationist games which are based on genre and drama, rather than virtuality.  i.e. The GM deliberately designs dramatic adventures for the players, but they are ones which don't lock the PCs into a pre-defined plot.  Instead, the players have the power to change the adventure considerably -- but they are still trying for a dramatic storyline.  I'm surprised that you find this style so much rarer than Virtuality, but I am aware that experiences differ.

Quote from: contracycle
Only if I can be persuaded that virtuality exists, which I am not, and...

Quote from: contracycleI can't see what its is about this "virtuality" that is not Sim.  I don't claim it's not do-able at all, I just claim that when its done its sim.  

These two quotes would appear to be contradictory.  Have you simply changed your mind, or is there another explanation I am missing?

Quote from: Lee Short

Quote from: contracycle
Only if I can be persuaded that virtuality exists, which I am not, and...

Quote from: contracycleI can't see what its is about this "virtuality" that is not Sim.  I don't claim it's not do-able at all, I just claim that when its done its sim.  

These two quotes would appear to be contradictory.  Have you simply changed your mind, or is there another explanation I am missing?

??  Virtuality as a special subset, form, type of sim appears not to exist.  It's indistinguishable from common or garden sim.

Quote from: contracycle
??  Virtuality as a special subset, form, type of sim appears not to exist.  It's indistinguishable from common or garden sim.

Do you find games that "have a point" (as Ron describes in his discussion of talking to Nar players coming to Sim games) to be identical to Virtuality?

Can you understand why someone might wish to distinguish between the two in terms of a request to a GM?

-Marco

Quote from: John Kim
Well, I can't really answer what the statistics of games are.  In my experience, there are a great many non-participationist games which are based on genre and drama, rather than virtuality.  i.e. The GM deliberately designs dramatic adventures for the players, but they are ones which don't lock the PCs into a pre-defined plot.  Instead, the players have the power to change the adventure considerably -- but they are still trying for a dramatic storyline.  I'm surprised that you find this style so much rarer than Virtuality, but I am aware that experiences differ.

I'm inclined to think its very common, especially amongst adolescent gamers.  It seems to encompass what I have referred to as "wandering psychopath" play, in which the characters are sorta freelancers wandering the landscape and living more or less hand to mouth.

Quote from: Marco
Can you understand why someone might wish to distinguish between the two in terms of a request to a GM?

Marco, I asked you for the differences between virtuality and sim precisely because I cannot distinguish between them, as they are described so far.  How would you discuss the distinction you perceive with a GM?

Quote from: contracycle

Quote from: Marco
Can you understand why someone might wish to distinguish between the two in terms of a request to a GM?

Marco, I asked you for the differences between virtuality and sim precisely because I cannot distinguish between them, as they are described so far.  How would you discuss the distinction you perceive with a GM?

In the ways that have been detailed here over and over, Gareth.

In terms of picking the "considered most-probable" result of an action--or most probable sequence of events instead of making decisions deisgned to enhance the dramatic value of a situation or to "keep it interesting" or to "keep it moving."

Not having events or (especially) coincidences occur in order to "maintain interest."

Not mutating situation to make the outcome of decisions palatable or satisfactory to the players when the GM thinks "what would really happen" would be something less palatable or frustrating.

Careful watch over implementations of "Dramatic Timing" of events--having events occur when their dramatic impact will be the highest even if the GM thinks that's probably unlikely.

A lack of attention to theme in terms of the GM making absolute decisions about a message the world promotes. Genre may be trappings (the Cthulhuian monsters are out there, so, yes, it's "like Lovecraft") or mechanics ( "The game rules for a hard-boiled game make a blow to the back of the head a near-certain knockout") but not as a goal of play that is enforced the same way as internal cause would be ("The fem-fatal would probably cut and run now, but she's got to hang around for her explanation/confession scene.")

An understanding that the players will behave as they think their characters would, rather than agreeing to engage with presented conflicts for the sake of "keeping the story interesting" or because "the GM made a spy game so we have to be satisfied happy spies." (in the begining of the game they might be if the GM stipulated that--but if the mission gets dirty and the player thinks her character would document the events and go to the press the GM is ready to accept that 'that's what she thinks would happen.')

There are probably more--and these are just some examples I'm coming up with off the top of my head ... and I haven't paid extremely careful attention to my language so there's likely some loopholes in there--but these are all based on tratis I've seen attributed to GNS Sim here.

Moreover: this is stuff I think we've been over before.

-Marco

Quote from: Marco
The reason that people picked up on the term Virtuality is that GNS Sim as commonly used doesn't fit. Look at Ron's post on introducing Narrativists to Simulationists:

They appear to fit to me, so lets be explicitly about what the distinctions are.,  We don;t need to appealk ot other peoples arguments to lay those out, surely, so why not just provide a statement as to what the specific intent is.

Quote
That isn't Virtuality--so either Ron is describing something different than what Sim is (which is a contention you can take up with him) or there needs to be a distinguishing term.

To me it seems perfect for virtuality; clearly we are interpreting thes epassages in evry different lights.

A game at the table, using a product like Blue Planet, can easily be be ABOUT "what if...we weere on an alien water-world".  And the GM can and will introduce elements that reinforce the presence andf reality of that waterworld and its particular conditions in order that the players can get their groove on being in this virtual (that is, imginary) space, paint the colour.

Quote
Furthermore, If "virtuality" is "just Sim" (which was Ralph's contention--and I think it makes sense) then if you consider Participationism another CA it needs to be broken out with it's own name.

Erm, on the basis of what, they have both hitherto been labelled techniques?  The map is not the terrain.  There is no similarity between virtuality and participationism if virtuality does not exist.

Quote
What I've always said is that Participationism shares as much (or more) with Narrativist play as it does with Virtuality/Sim play (i.e. not a lot).

It may well be there is a Narr form of participationism.  I don't think its likely myself, but it could be discussed.  This does not seem to be served by a redefinition of sim, however.

Quote from: Marco
There are probably more--and these are just some examples I'm coming up with off the top of my head ... and I haven't paid extremely careful attention to my language so there's likely some loopholes in there--but these are all based on tratis I've seen attributed to GNS Sim here.

You are correct that they have all been, and still are, attributed to Sim.

So what distinguishes that stuff above FROM virtuality that virtuality needs its own term to be introduced?

Quote from: contracycle

Quote from: Marco
There are probably more--and these are just some examples I'm coming up with off the top of my head ... and I haven't paid extremely careful attention to my language so there's likely some loopholes in there--but these are all based on tratis I've seen attributed to GNS Sim here.

You are correct that they have all been, and still are, attributed to Sim.

So what distinguishes that stuff above FROM virtuality that virtuality needs its own term to be introduced?

Gareth,
What Ron discusses in that quote I gave you is that the game has a point. While I think that it is probably literally possible to take "being on a waterworld" as a point of a story, I frankly don't buy it.

Each one of my samples I gave you is an either-or that would distinguish one mode of play from another. We don't have a name for the either-part other than GNS Sim.

-Marco

Quote from: Marco
What Ron discusses in that quote I gave you is that the game has a point. While I think that it is probably literally possible to take "being on a waterworld" as a point of a story, I frankly don't buy it.

Fine.  That we can discuss, it is how I have read it to date.

Please note you have subtly change "game has a point" to "point of a story".  Sim is not story, and the point of sim would necessarily not be the "point" of a story.

Quote
Each one of my samples I gave you is an either-or that would distinguish one mode of play from another. We don't have a name for the either-part other than GNS Sim.

That makes no sense, all the things you atrributed to virtuality are Sim features, as you acknowledged.  So what distinguishes sim from virtuality?  Why is virtuality being proposed as a term?  What does it denote that is not sufficiently described by Sim as it stands?

Quote from: contracycle

Quote from: Marco
What Ron discusses in that quote I gave you is that the game has a point. While I think that it is probably literally possible to take "being on a waterworld" as a point of a story, I frankly don't buy it.

Fine.  That we can discuss, it is how I have read it to date.

Please note you have subtly change "game has a point" to "point of a story".  Sim is not story, and the point of sim would necessarily not be the "point" of a story.

Quote
Each one of my samples I gave you is an either-or that would distinguish one mode of play from another. We don't have a name for the either-part other than GNS Sim.

That makes no sense, all the things you atrributed to virtuality are Sim features, as you acknowledged.  So what distinguishes sim from virtuality?  Why is virtuality being proposed as a term?  What does it denote that is not sufficiently described by Sim as it stands?

Gareth,

1. All RPG's create stories. GM enforced Theme is a common descriptor of Sim. That is most logically, IMO, said to be the "point." Deciding that setting can be the "point" of a game seems bizarre to me. Honestly, I'm not too much more interested in discussing this. I see a is-not, is-too argument.

2. I will pick one of my quotes:

Quote
In terms of picking the "considered most-probable" result of an action--or most probable sequence of events instead of making decisions deisgned to enhance the dramatic value of a situation or to "keep it interesting" or to "keep it moving."

This is relevant to the question you asked and shows two distinctive decision styles--one, the first one, is associated with what is presently being called Virtuality. The second ("keep it interesting" or "enhance dramatic value of the situation") is associated more commonly on The Forge with GNS Sim.

If you want to reverse those, fine--but they are not the same mode of decision making. Distinguish between them by any name you like.

-Marco

Quote from: Marco
1. All RPG's create stories. GM enforced Theme is a common descriptor of Sim. That is most logically, IMO, said to be the "point." Deciding that setting can be the "point" of a game seems bizarre to me. Honestly, I'm not too much more interested in discussing this. I see a is-not, is-too argument.

I do not agree that all RPG's create stories at all - not least because I have run RPG's that were not in the least story-like.  What they were is experience-like.

I will row back a bit from my statement however and say instead that it applies certainly, but perhaps only, to High Concept Sim in which the point is exploration and exposition of an interesting event, place, situation etc.  

You may find it implausible, but I do not believe this is a widely held position; we have had a number of discussions about the high concept and players interrest primarily in exploration of setting.

QuoteThis is relevant to the question you asked and shows two distinctive decision styles--one, the first one, is associated with what is presently being called Virtuality. The second ("keep it interesting" or "enhance dramatic value of the situation") is associated more commonly on The Forge with GNS Sim.

From the Glossary:

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

Nothing here about "keeping it interesting" or "story".

From the Right  to dream article:

QuoteResolution mechanics, in Simulationist design, boil down to asking about the cause of what, which is to say, what performances are important during play. These vary widely, including internal states, interactions and expressions, physical motions (most games), and even decisions. Two games may be equally Simulationist even if one concerns coping with childhood trauma and the other concerns blasting villains with lightning bolts. What makes them Simulationist is the strict adherence to in-game (i.e. pre-established) cause for the outcomes that occur during play.

My emphasis.  Is that bolded section not precisely what is being claimed for alleged "virtuality"?

I don't see where you get the idea that sim likely or necessarily contains something story-like.  If you can show what bvrings yoiun to this conclusion, perhaps that might be constructively discussed.  However, at this time the problem I see with with your position is that alleged virtuality is already contained within sim, and so this title can be used for sub-CA but is not a CA properly in its own right.


The only place that I can thinik of that "story" might be brought to bear is that it seems to me that virtuality play often tails off into nothing play, that is, nothing interesting happens.  Which is not surprising, because most of the time "what would happen" in our immediate environment is not very interesting.  Therefore often some device is used to regulate changes to the environment to make it interesting, and these are often story-like elements of rising tension. But that dramatic crutch is not the point of the exercise, its just an excuse to keep changing the sets so that the primary explorative interest can be taken further.  But this strutural device is not a cretaive agenda and does not dilute the operational creative agenda.

Quote from: contracycle
I do not agree that all RPG's create stories at all - not least because I have run RPG's that were not in the least story-like.  What they were is experience-like.

Gareth,

I'll give this one more try and that's it. You ignored my second point which was sailent (and I don't think this is accidental):

1. People have been saying 'All RPG play creates stories' here for ages. I now suspect you didn't argue with them then because the people saying it were supporting the dominant paradigmn. In the case of virtuality play story is meant in the "this is what happened" sense. The quality of the story from a literary perspective will vary depending on what techniques are used for any style.

2. I agree that virtuality play creates, usually, a 'story with poor or zero literary structure.' This is because the participants are not interested in using techniques or whatever to enhance the drama or keep with literary themes or anything like that.

3. So what do you call the mode of play where story-structure is the intent of the participants (but without the focus on co-creation of Nar play)?

I don't care if we chuck virtuality (at this point, I'd rather examine the 3D model and see if we can chuck Sim altogether)--but something has to distinguish those two modes.

If you want to keep on about this, PM me.

-Marco

Quote from: Marco
1. People have been saying 'All RPG play creates stories' here for ages. I now suspect you didn't argue with them then because the people saying it were supporting the dominant paradigmn. In the case of virtuality play story is meant in the "this is what happened" sense. The quality of the story from a literary perspective will vary depending on what techniques are used for any style.

In fact I did argue with them, going back over years now you will find posts of mine suggesting that becuase tge brain is built to interpolate action over time, it necessarily constructs a series of events into a "narrative".  But these are often highly simplistic, as in the childs form of "and then.,.. and then.. and then...".  I have also suggested that the viewer of a wildlife documentary on say foxes feels pathos for the fox becuause it is the central "character", but we can then also watch another documentary about birds and cast the fox as an Enemy.

You will also note that recently I have made suggestions that the term story be stricken and not used with qualifiers, because it is too general; a term to be said to apply to anything specific.  Not all speakers mean formal story by the term, they often just mean a sequence of events, and I think greater clarity would be useful.  Not all colloquial references to story reference the same thing.

Quote
2. I agree that virtuality play creates, usually, a 'story with poor or zero literary structure.' This is because the participants are not interested in using techniques or whatever to enhance the drama or keep with literary themes or anything like that.

Right.  Standard sim behaviour.

Quote
3. So what do you call the mode of play where story-structure is the intent of the participants (but without the focus on co-creation of Nar play)?

Mostly, participationism, or extraordinarily skilled illusionism.  But a propose that scene framing can also be used in this way, and that a game can be created which is "virtual" when the action is "live", and constructed in literary terms when seen across all framed scenes.  However, these are all techniquies not creative agendas.

This is because I argue that like the wildlife documentary, the story part lies in the technique with which the piece is built, not because it contains moral and ethical issues.  That is, a story is a compelling way to communicate something about moral or ethical issues, but we should not confuse those issues with the methodology deployed.  That compelling method can be used to communicate something about foxes too.