The Forge Archives

I'm trying to catch up with all the posts over on the Front-loaded relationship-driven Nar/Sim overlap thread, and I'm getting boggled with all the "this is what sim means to me" stuff.

Well, I don't think that it's helpful for everyone to have his (or her) own notion of what the word means unless it leads to a consensus; and having played simulationist in several different ways, I'd like to try to get that consensus started.

There is something almost clinical about simulationist play. Simulationism is in a sense about modelling a reality to see what happens.

I'm going to go out on a limb and bring in the computer Whopper from Wargames. The kid wanted to play the game because he wanted to beat the game; he was playing gamist. But can it be said that the computer wanted to win? The computer is programmed to play that game, global thermonuclear war, over and over and over again and again, modelling every possible outcome, to see who wins and who loses each time. It doesn't care whether the U. S. or the Soviet Union wins; it cares whether it can find out who wins.

Now, what Whopper is doing looks gamist; but it can't really be gamist from Whopper's perspective. The computer can't want to earn the respect of meeting the challenge. It knows nothing of challenge; it only knows outcomes. It has been programmed to optimize whatever side or sides it is playing for a winning outcome, but it's still not playing gamist--it is playing simulationist, asking what would happen if every participant played as well as he could, and which choices actually are "as well as he could".

It is possible that simulationist play can inadvertently result in challenge or in theme; the point is, the player doesn't care. He's not there for the challenge or the theme, and if that emerges, fine, and if it doesn't, fine.

This means that simulationists can get along with narrativists and gamists reasonably well, as long as the simulationists don't feel like the others are tinkering with the model to get some desired outcome (whether theme or challenge). The gamists and narrativists might find the simulationist play irksome, though, if the simulationist is choosing what the character probably would do which is actually boring and doesn't promote challenge/theme when there was another plausible action (deemed by the player less probable) which was not chosen.

One of the earliest Multiverser playtesters was apparently simulationist. His "theory of the verse" (an explanation each player character invents to explain what is happening to him) was that he had been knocked out of the real world into the realm of human fantasy, and that he had the opportunity to watch the stories unfold around him. He wasn't interested in creating stories or meeting challenges. He just wanted to see what each world was like, what was happening in it, and where it was going. Now, if other characters (player or non-player) asked for his help, he would usually become involved to the degree necessary to help them--but he still looked at it as part of the experiment, the exploration of what is happening in this world, whether his involvement made any measurable difference, and what that difference was. He wasn't trying to win. He wasn't addressing themes. He was playing with worlds as petri dishes, in which his actions were part of an experiment to see what would happen.

Haven't you ever been in a game situation in which you just wanted to do something to see what effect it had on the world? You come to the balancing rock and decide to see what happens if you tip it? You travel to the Grand Canyon just to see what it looks like now? You enter the caves or ruins because you're curious about what's inside?

I had a girl decide that she was going to go see the elves because she had always wanted to meet elves and see what elves were like. Were she in Middle Earth, she'd have gone to Lothlorien or Mirkwood just to meet the elves and see what they were like--she didn't need a theme or a challenge to get her there, as it was pure discovery that drove her that direction.

I create worlds that people like to explore for the sheer strangeness of them, for the experience of being in a world that is so unlike the real world that it is worth taking the time just to look, to be a tourist or sightseer in an alien landscape in the imagination.

It has nothing to do with detailed rules or crunchy bits. I could run simulationism entirely freeform, if you like, as long as I've got a clear image in my mind of what it is that you're likely to discover, and you take the time to move through it and ask good questions. Rules are more necessary for gamist play, in my experience, where some measure of challenge is needed to create that feeling of overcoming.

Simulationist play is right there--it's the scientist discovering what happens if you do this, the tourist seeing the world no one else has seen, the stranger in a strange land. There might be theme and there might be challenge, but these are not relevant to the experience--they're peripheral, the things that happen as we're exploring. We don't particularly want them, or avoid them. They're data points, information about the world, things we learned. We discover what it takes to defeat a dragon not because we want to be able to say we beat a dragon, but because it's interesting to know what it takes to do that. We fall in love not because we have some desire to create a theme about unrequited love but because love is one of the things that happen in this world and it's interesting to know what that's like here. We're involved in an experiment, and exploration, a discovery. That's why we're here. That's simulationism.

Now, I also play gamist and narrativist, and I have been known to move from one to another in game; I don't always (or perhaps even often) play this way. But I know it; it can be a fascinating way to play, like reading or watching travelogues but of places that exist only in the mind; like reading science texts but of the physics of other worlds.

Verisimilitude is not simulationism. Verisimilitude--the idea that the world has an internal consistency on which the players and characters can rely--is an essential component of most play, and is not more essential to simulationism than to the others. That is, you can as easily explore an unreal world in which consistency is absent for the interest such a dimension offers as you can find challenge or theme in such a world. It's not a matter of how much sim do you want in your nar or gam; it's a matter of whether you really want sim, or whether you really want nar or gam instead.

I hope this helps someone.

--M. J. Young

M.,

As one of the 'here's what Sim is to me!' posters from that previous thread, I'm sorry for muddying the waters.  Here's an attempt at a more focussed statement.

QuoteThere is something almost clinical about simulationist play. Simulationism is in a sense about modelling a reality to see what happens.

Quote
It has been programmed to optimize whatever side or sides it is playing for a winning outcome, but it's still not playing gamist--it is playing simulationist, asking what would happen if every participant played as well as he could, and which choices actually are "as well as he could".

Quote
It is possible that simulationist play can inadvertently result in challenge or in theme; the point is, the player doesn't care. He's not there for the challenge or the theme, and if that emerges, fine, and if it doesn't, fine.

Hm.

I agree with the third point, disagree with the second point, and am waffling on the first.

My particular problem with the Wargames example is that I think the computer was playing Gamist the whole time.  It's just that when it played gamist against itself, it realized that there was a No Win Scenario, and it basically worked out for itself a version of the Prisoner's Dilemma.  I don't see any Sim at work.  Or, rather, I see the computer AI as being Gamist, and the Gamism arena was the Thermonuclear War Simulation system.  So there was Sim involved, but it was subservient to the Gam priority.

My current Apprehension of the GNS Cosmic All leads me to think that Sim play is an outgrowth of a love of some element or elements of the imagined world that are not involved with anybody being Challenged and don't necessarily result in Narrative Consequence.  They are elements added to the game or the game world purely because the Sim-oriented player or GM likes them and likes to think about the fiddly little details of whatever this thing is.

This is not the same as sheer curiosity about the in-game consequences of tipping a rock over to see what happens.  I think there is a cognitive disconnect between the term 'Explore' and the actual in-game activity taking place in heavy Sim play.  It's not that what Ron or others have described as Exploring isn't happening, it's that people who don't really do much Sim gaming, or aren't aware of it, get side-tracked by some of the connotations of the word Explore that I don't think map very well onto the play-styles I see most often in the play I identify as Sim.  That's probably a whole 'nother thread, though.

I see heavy Sim play most in grognard Traveller players.  They desperately care about vehicle design sequences.  They sometimes spend more time Simulating starship engineers than actually face-to-face gaming.  Worldbuilding in most games can fall into this category, too (although there is, at least for me, a question of boundary -- does 'prep time' count as Gaming?).

It also seems to be common in historical wargamers.  Sure, they're playing with some gamist priorities, but the historical accuracy of the units effectiveness and the terrain effects and communications and line of sight trump straight gamism.  It has to be an accurate Sim before they can really throw themselves into the gamist bits.

A related phenomenon, I think, is gamers who are playing with a beloved licensed property.  The cry of "but that's not how it works in the show" is, for me, a big cry for a player desiring a more accurate Sim before they're willing to Step On Up, indulge in Story Now, or even do much Exploring.

I don't know about the Wargames example, but the rest of it jives with how I've always seen Sim and most of my motives in playing.

A while back, we had a thread called Revised does S really exist. Or It's everywhere!.  I gave a response that seemed to clarify the issue for some of the people involved, and which fits MJ's analysis very well:

QuoteWhen I sit down to role-play, my primary source of excitement is in being able to take on the role of another person.  I want to find out how he thinks, what his life is like, and what life is like in general for someone in a fantasy or sci-fi world.  I want to get outside of my head and get to know an imaginary person in a way that makes him real.
 
Do I want some challenge in that?  Yeah - after all, I don't want to role-play a blacksmith making his hundredth horseshoe.  But I'm not going to seek out challenge for itself - I'm much more committed to having this imaginary person act true to himself. I do like to have a character who shapes major events in his world, but not for the challenge.  It's only through changing things that you can really experiment with what makes them work.
 
I don't even think about the implications of moral choices or themes.  When a choice comes up, I consider it from character's sense of morality and decide as he would.  I can't even envision why or how I would promote a theme in what he does.  Sometimes I can look back over play and pull a theme out of it, but it's purely a retroactive process.
 
But at the end of the day, I'm happy just to learn about this person and his world, and that's my priority.

[/quote]

Justin, your quote pretty much matches my understanding of RGFA simulationism.  However, as I understand it, under GNS it isn't important whether you consciously think about your play as just being your character.  What matters is patterns in the result of your play.  

Quote from: AnyaTheBlueMy current Apprehension of the GNS Cosmic All leads me to think that Sim play is an outgrowth of a love of some element or elements of the imagined world that are not involved with anybody being Challenged and don't necessarily result in Narrative Consequence.  They are elements added to the game or the game world purely because the Sim-oriented player or GM likes them and likes to think about the fiddly little details of whatever this thing is.  

I would take issue with this.  As I see it, what constitutes "Narrative Consequence" is purely a matter of personal interest.  The same things which bore one person might intrigue another, and each will formulate different notions of what the story was.  Do the poems in Tolkien have Narrative Consequence?  What about the long non-fictional chapters on whaling life in Melville?  The technical explanations in The Dragon's Egg?  For GNS, Narrativism at least specifies Egrian Premise, which puts it in terms of a specific person's interest (Egri).  

I suspect that there are multiple disagreements which underlie most Nar/Sim arguments.  The two most common issues I see are:
1) Different levels of interest in detail
2) Self-conscious consideration in literary terms (i.e. theme) versus purely in-character approach

Quote from: AnyaTheBlueI see heavy Sim play most in grognard Traveller players.  They desperately care about vehicle design sequences.  They sometimes spend more time Simulating starship engineers than actually face-to-face gaming.  Worldbuilding in most games can fall into this category, too (although there is, at least for me, a question of boundary -- does 'prep time' count as Gaming?).

I would say that prep time certainly counts as gaming -- though it is a different type of gaming from action resolution in face-to-face play.  People differ on what is proper behavior for during-session versus "offline".  

I have a soft spot for Traveller play since in junior high school, it was formative for my interest in astronomy and physics.  (I went on to get a Physics PhD and do cosmic ray research.)  It was an excellent for learning basic mechanics and astronomy, and even drove interest in particle physics with innovative ideas like the meson gun.  I haven't played a campaign since then, but I still remember it fondly.  

I think this all comes down to what level of detail you are interested in.  Some players will roll their eyes if you describe your character's hair color and clothing.  To them, it isn't interesting and they don't fit it into their understanding of the narrative.  Others will find interest and relevance in it.

What is this, international everyone get nostalgic about Traveller Sim Day? (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?p=84412#84412)

And for Dana's points about out of game activities such as world design and vehicle design feeding the sim hunger... I get this knee jerk that with much vehicle design I've seen, Gamist advantage is at least as important as simulation, abusing the mechanics for character gain. And world design can be as Nar or Gam as sim, depending on the priorities of the deisgner (is this town a fascinating, living, breathing representation of societies in this world, a heap of moral dillemas, or a source of equipment and political challenges?)

And what about character design? In Gurps or hero, it can be as involved as  vehicle design (ahh... no, nothing's as involved as Gurps vehicle design). Yet, despire the biases in the systems, individual characters can be built with any of GNS prioritised. So why do we (and I include myself) have an initial reaction that character creation is GNS depending on the player, but vehicle creation tends to be Sim regardless?

And how many Nar vehicle designs are there (oh, Octane, right...)

On another thread that was diverted over here:

Quote from: AnyaTheBlueFirst, I think Valamir is right, that Simulation is Exploration + Something Else.  I think the 'Something Else' is something I'd call 'Simulation', though, and if I do that, how do I seperate 'Simulation' from Simulation?

Perhaps, instead of "invention" or "simulation", it could be called "Discovery"?  Discovery of what's going to happen next, discovery of what's around the corner, discovery of what's over the horizon.  Isn't that the point of Sim-prioritized play?  Peeling away the onion?

Sigh ...

First of all, let's get clear that people who are just now discovering the terms of GNS tend to use slightly-disparaging terms toward modes of play they've found dissatisfying in the past. Dana, when you describe the processes of Simulationist play as "being distracted by the fiddly bits," can you see that your phrasing is biased? A few more such phrases on more than one person's part, and we're setting ourselves up for an aesthetic backlash that sabotages any actual point being discussed.

Second, remember: Exploration is, in and of itself, not role-playing. You can replace the term with "delighted imagination" in your head, if you like. No one is having a character do anything yet. No one is telling anyone else what their character is doing or seeing yet. Think of Exploration, in isolation, as trembling on the threshold of play.

Now play. Exploration now becomes communicative. It does so only in the context of some creative agenda.

1. Gamist play - Step On Up, with reference to what's being Explored.

2. Narrativist play - Story Now, with reference to what's being Explored.

3. Simulationist play - Dream what's being Explored.

In the past, someone once referred to Simulationist play as "Exploration squared." That works for me, because I interpret the "squared" as meaning: brought into action through people talking to one another, and recursively reinforced by everyone being further inspired to do it some more.

Best,
Ron

QuoteSecond, remember: Exploration is, in and of itself, not role-playing. You can replace the term with "delighted imagination" in your head, if you like. No one is having a character do anything yet. No one is telling anyone else what their character is doing or seeing yet. Think of Exploration, in isolation, as trembling on the threshold of play.

I think this is actually the part that there was some disagreement on in the Invention thread.  I'm not sure that Exploration =/ roleplaying is true.  In fact, I think alot of the very passive "lets go around and see the world" play that has been categorized as Simulation in the past really is just Exploration that never HAD any additional creative agenda attached to it.  They really are just day dreaming, only with a group.  But I think it would still be recognized as role play.  That frees up Simulationism to actually get its own real live legimate creative agenda that's more than simply defined as "the absence of the other two".

Ron,

Hang on, don't sigh at me just yet!

Quote from: Ron Edwardswhen you describe the processes of Simulationist play as "being distracted by the fiddly bits," can you see that your phrasing is biased?

Of course I can.  But if you'll check above, I think you'll see I didn't use the term 'distracted' (I may have in another thread, but I don't think so).  I may have implied it, but if so that was accidental.  I didn't intend to be dismissive.

I think a lot of my own play is in fact Sim.  Regardless, I definitely am one of the Traveller Grognards I was talking about up above.  I'm not as fiddly as some people, but I certainly have my share of High Guard designs laying around.  I like fiddly!

I don't mean to derail the current topic.  I'll just say now that I have in fact found all modes of gaming fun and enjoyable (Gam/Sim/Nar), although I don't pursue them in equal amounts for myself.  But I'm very conscious that the balance of them is something variable and personal, and I try to respect other people's balance.

I've been trying to hunt for where I fall in the GNS spectrum for purely descriptive reasons (I see GNS as a descriptive, rather than proscriptive, theory), and I think I'm an Illusionist player, for the most part.  Success in that arena (for me) involves being able to identify and provide an appropriate GNS mix to a group of players such that they are distracted and having enough fun that they don't notice the Woman Behind The Curtain who is effectively cushioning them from certain kinds and classes of consequence.

Anyway, I don't intend to disparage any particular balance of GNS or play style.  If you're having fun, you're doing it right, and I think ultimately that's the most important thing.  I apologize if I've accidentally said or implied that one mode of play was better than another, because I most definitely didn't mean it.

(To put it another way, no play style that a person enjoys is wrong, better, or worse than another.  Trouble only shows up when two players have styles that interfere with each other and causes their (and/or the group's) enjoyment of the game to drop "Too Far", where "Too Far" is fairly subjective from person to person and group to group.)

Hi there,

Ralph, you wrote,

QuoteI'm not sure that Exploration =/ roleplaying is true. In fact, I think alot of the very passive "lets go around and see the world" play that has been categorized as Simulation in the past really is just Exploration that never HAD any additional creative agenda attached to it. They really are just day dreaming, only with a group. But I think it would still be recognized as role play.

There's the miscommunication. As soon as you add the "only with group" phrase, in my view, then you have actual play happening. As soon as you have actual play happening, then the Exploration becomes, itself, a creative agenda, and the name for that is Simulationism.

I swear, the more I try, the worse it gets. Now people are trying to separate "creative agenda" from GNS, which is absurd - the new term is defined as the generalized category of which G, N, and S are three types.

Best,
Ron

P.S. Hey Dana, you're cool. The fact that it's clear to me that you are not engaging in such judgments means that your posts are good examples for people to learn from, in terms of phrasing.

Quote from: LxndrPerhaps, instead of "invention" or "simulation", it could be called "Discovery"?  Discovery of what's going to happen next, discovery of what's around the corner, discovery of what's over the horizon.  Isn't that the point of Sim-prioritized play?  Peeling away the onion?

I doubt it would surprise anyone who's read the other thread (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=8108) that I'm not wholy happy with "discovery" as a term.  Someone is making this stuff up - now that can be entirely done in prep - either by the group or a game designer - or it can be done in whole or in part during play.  Only in the former case can it be really termed discovery.

I think if we define simulationism as the enjoyment of the shared imaginative space for it's own sake then simulationism is fine as a term.  This enjoyment can be happening using actor stance - a kind of subjective simulationism - or at an author/director stance level - a kind of objective simulationism.  I definitely fall into the latter camp, a lot of people seem to fall into the former.

I suppose one could even use pawn stance - if I do this with my guy, what will happen? - without any particular attachment to the character.  Kind of a scientic observation kind of a kick.

And I think this constitutes the 'something more' - the additional focus.

Quote from: Ian CharvillI think if we define simulationism as the enjoyment of the shared imaginative space for it's own sake then simulationism is fine as a term.  This enjoyment can be happening using actor stance - a kind of subjective simulationism - or at an author/director stance level - a kind of objective simulationism.  I definitely fall into the latter camp, a lot of people seem to fall into the former.

I suppose one could even use pawn stance - if I do this with my guy, what will happen? - without any particular attachment to the character.  Kind of a scientic observation kind of a kick.

Hm.

I agree about "discovery" vs. "exploration" -- I think they both have the same connotative issues in describing what I'm personally thinking about.  They both work, but they can mislead because they have connotations beyond my conception of the thing we're all talking around, and those connotations mislead people away from the actual nature of the thing we're trying to talk about.


Hm.

I also reject the 'scientific observation' limitation on Sim play -- I think that it does happen like that sometimes, but I don't think it's a defining characterization.

I would contend that people in Heavy Sim games know the outcome most of the time.  That's why I'm not enamored of either 'Explore' or 'Discover' as terms for whatever this is.  They have a certain conception of how things in the game work, and they care a lot about them actually happening in that way.  That's not the same as saying they have to happen that way, but as I see it there's some constraint on how things work (what is constrained, and how it is constrained, varies a lot) -- not any old outcome will do, only certain outcomes happen when there are certain inputs, for some (largely arbitrary) set of inputs and outcomes.

Maybe 'Emulation' would work as a good word here?  Could we say that Simulation is "Exploration + Emulation"?  Or maybe "Exploration + Faithful Emulation"?

Edit:

Quote from: RonP.S. Hey Dana, you're cool

Keen!  Thanks, Ron!

Hi Dana,

I think you might be mis-reading Ian ... he's offering that "scientific simulation" as a possible application within Sim play, not as a defining feature.

Ian, I think you're on it. You're stating that any Stance can be taken during Simulationist play, which is consistent with my (often ignored) point that GNS mode does not dictate which Stances may be employed.

More generally, what exactly is the purpose of this hunt for some new term? A new term for what, exactly? Note that in my Simulationism essay, I concede that "Emulation" would probably be the best term if there were any reason to have a new one, for [Exploration extended to creative agenda].

Best,
Ron

Ron (and Ian)

Yeah, you're right -- Sorry Ian.  I agree that it can work that way, but that it doesn't have to.

As for the definition hunting, I personally have a (minor) quibble with Exploration and Simulation for two reasons.  First, because I think the terms are getting overloaded, and second, because I think Exploration specifically has certain connotations for most people that don't map well onto what I think we're all talking about when we discuss Exploration in the GNS/Forge Terminology sense.

This is mostly just a semantic argument on my part, though, not a big difference of opinion.  It's a semantic quibble hoping to make the descriptive  terms clearer.

Shrug.

To be (pedantically) clear:

I'm going to use X for Exploration, and Y for part of Simulation

I see a tree:


__X___
         |_X + Step On Up == Gamism
         |_X + Story Now == Narrativism
         |_X + Y == Simulationism


For X, I would like a term that describes doing something socially -- A social interaction, METAGAME term, I think.  I almost want to suggest "Hanging Out", but I don't think it's general enough -- it's what *I* do at that level, but I definitely don't think my experience in gaming is representative.

For Y, I would suggest (or reaffirm -- Dang, have to go reread Ron's essays! =) Emulation.

Does that make sense to anybody other than me?

The X state, for me, is the basic social activity that's at the underlying root of all table-top, face-to-face, roleplaying.  Exploration isn't a wrong term for it, but I think the word exploration has a lot of additional connotations that I think are misleading in this particular context.

Actually, I'm not sure the tree structure is quite right, either, because I think solo play and prep time are part of Role Playing Games, too, and they don't have X much or at all, I don't think.  So I think there's a Z involved somewhere, too, but I really don't have a good grasp of what Z is, and it's definitely beyond the scope of this thread.

Like I said before, this is a purely semantic quibble, not any sort of disagreement with the underlying ideas or structures.

(Edit:  Actually, one slight addition -- While I can see Simulation as being Exploration-Squared, I definitely think there's a difference in kind as well as quantity between what I think of as Simulation and what I think of as X.  So X^2 doesn't map well onto what I think of as "X + Y"/"X + Emulation"  I see X & Y/Emulation as being distinct things.  I may not be right, though.)

Hi Dana,

The term you're looking for is Social Contract, and it actually encompasses everything we're discussing - given that we're talking about role-playing, and not "thinking about role-playing."

Social Contract [Exploration [G, N, or S]]

Where the brackets surrounding GNS are called the "creative agenda."

Social Contract: "let's create together"
Exploration: "let's create this"
creative agenda: "this" in action

But it's not a linear progression like the above little bit might suggest. Exploration is a *type and piece of* Social Contract. Creative agenda categories (GNS) are *applications* of Exploration.

Best,
Ron

Hi Ron,

QuoteSocial Contract: "let's create together"
Exploration: "let's create this"
creative agenda: "this" in action

As far as I can recall, this is the first time I've seen this presented with the operative verb being "create" all the way through. Before, it's always been "explore," with "explore" being defined as "imagine (in a shared way during play)." "Create" has hitherto appeared only in the general term "creative agenda," and then again under Narrativism in explaining that the creation of Story is being prioritized.

The difference (if any) between "explore" and "create" is for me the crux of the whole issue. What is being explored or created are, or course, the five elements. It appears from my experience that all of the elements are being imagined through play (though to varying degrees), while in a given game or portion of a game, any, all, or none of them might be being created through play. When I say "created" I mean a human being making something up, not communicating or sharing something already made up or decided upon, and not turning the crank on a mechanical system and watching a result pop out.

Anya's "Y" and Valamir's additional Sim creative agenda is what I'm calling CCI, for Commitment to Creative Imagining, which is also very similar to Ian's "Inventionism." It's the prioritization of creation, by human beings, through play, of (one or more of) the five imagined elements, as separate from the communicating or sharing of imagined elements that already exist or that arise from mechanism. It's all "exploration" but they're very different agendas.

I believe it's useful to make the distinction between Exploration in general, and the more specific CCI. Here are some examples of why, from my essay-in-progress, from a section called "CCI pries open some Simulationist black boxes":

QuoteNo-Myth Play
The effective difference between players participationally playing through a pre-planned scenario (evolution of situation), and playing "no-myth" style in a traditional GM-driven way, has been the point of much debate. It's obvious that the two styles of play are very different, but the difference seems to come in entirely underneath GNS's radar. Once it's established that the GM retains control over the Story in both cases, and that neither play style is Narrativist (at least, as far as the non-GM players are concerned), GNS mostly just shrugs. Looking at it from the Exploration point of view, one sees as usual plenty of Exploration going on in both cases. No help there.

The difference in terms of CCI, however, is enormous and obvious. Module play is (primarily) Imagining of Situation. No-myth play is (primarily) Creative Imagining of Situation. In no-myth play, players' actions affect the evolution of Situation in a sufficiently direct way (despite the possible intermediation of system and GM decisions) that Situation is legitimately a creatively imagined element.

Fortune in the Middle
The benefits of Fortune in the Middle are normally described in terms of character protagonism. This makes perfect sense when discussing Narrativist play, but it's less clear what Protagonism means in the context of Simulationist play, where creation of formal Story (from which the meaning of "Protagonism" derives) is not prioriized. Usually it's interpreted as the player's opportunity to make the character look good, by avoiding the "whiff" phenomenon in which an outcome dictated by the resolution system is interpreted as a character blunder or shortcoming. But whether and why a character should look good in Simulationist play is not clear-cut; it's one of the many trade-offs between different varieties of Fidelity. (Fidelity to genre expectations in which main characters usually look good tends to conflict with fidelity to in-game-world causality or plausibility that would create the expectation that sometimes the characters should look bad.)

On the other hand, the benenfits of FitM in facilitating CCI are very clear and obvious. The process of narrating FiTM outcomes is itself a venue for Creative Imagining. Equally important, Fortune in the Middle turns what's normally an ex post facto editing process (the player proposes a course of events, and the system determines whether it happens or not) into a process of inventing with prior constraints (the roll determines the constraints – specifically, whether the outcome is an overall success or failure, with possible additional constraints such as concessions – and then the player invents an outcome within those constraints). Prior constraints and subsequent editing can both be spurs to creativity (some authors give their editors a lot of positive credit for their influence over the work), but prior constraints are much more so in a "right now" way. Knowledge that a proposal is subject to editing or rejection by other agents (such as the system) can induce hestancy or even indifference while a prior constraint offers a clear opportunity to build on or within the pre-established framework.

In both cases, though, non-CCI Sim players have viewed the technques in question as illegitimate tampering with the desirable objectivity of (respectively) setting or system/causality. For me, these and many other examples show that CCI vs. non-CCI Sim are as different in practice from each other as either is from either of the other two modes.

- Walt

Ron,

Quote from: Ron Edwards
Social Contract [Exploration [G, N, or S]]

Where the brackets surrounding GNS are called the "creative agenda."

Social Contract: "let's create together"
Exploration: "let's create this"
creative agenda: "this" in action

But it's not a linear progression like the above little bit might suggest. Exploration is a *type and piece of* Social Contract. Creative agenda categories (GNS) are *applications* of Exploration.

No, I think I get this (although maybe I don't -- Hmmm).  What I'm trying to communicate hasn't had enough time to simmer, so I don't think I've been articulating it well.  Hm.  Again, this may be entirely semantic (and it may be appropriate to put it in it's own thread).

Social Contract is the key, clearly.  Everybody sits at a table and, instead of just talking about the weather or their pets, they formalize their socializing using a combination of metagame stuff and actual formalized records (ie, rulebooks, character sheets, previously decided on house rules, whatever).

"Exploration", which I was calling X, was the process I perceive as being the next level up.

Playing an RPG always involves social contract, even when you are doing solo stuff.  There's an interaction between you and the  players who exist in potential only in the future.  Even though there is no direct feedback, there is still a formalization of your actions which are governed by either a pre-existing social contract (prepping for people you've gamed with previously), or the potential one which will presumably grow out of future play and about which you are making certain inferences about based on your own comprehension of the game.

Prep and solo play are a part of and interact with the social contract, I think.  But they have distinct differences from sitting at the table and gaming with three or four other people.  I'm not sure if they are all exploration, or if they are all the same kind of exploration, if that makes sense.

Perhaps the differences I'm perceiving here are differences in Creative Agenda, and not categories of Exploration.  I think they are modes of Exploration, however, distinct from Creative Agenda.

So, the mode of Exploration that occurs during face-to-face play at a table is, at it's most base level, 'playing the game'.  By which I mean, rolling dice, moving figures around, stating actions, determining consequences for actions, and all that.  I still see it as Role Playing, even though no Creative Agenda has been prioritized, in my mind.  It's just going through the mechanical motions as provided by the formalized social contract, and enjoying the metagame social aspects almost entirely.  It is the 'action' step, defined by, but distinct from, the Social Contract.  It's the 'agendaless Creative Agenda' being realized, 'Exploration' without G, N or S being prioritized.

This is different from what I see as Sim play because with Sim play, you don't just do More Exploration, but you actively provide more complicated constraints and formalism with a different goal from the main game's non-prioritized simulation systems.

This is a subtle distinction, and I may not be right about it being real.

I'm talking about the difference between, "This game has a combat system for handling fights" and "this game has a combat system for handling fights, AND that system realistically Emulates blood and limb loss, fatigue, morale, headwounds, and battlefield distractions," or even "This game has a combat system for handling fights, AND it's really good at Emulating cinematic wire-fu and high action."

All of these combat systems are simulations in the mundane sense of the term.  But the latter two have an additional Creative Agenda connected to Faithful Emulation of something important beyond the basic system.  You don't just abstractly resolve conflict.

This 'running the game' step is what I mean by X, and 'running the game' plus 'Step On Up' gives you 'gamism', while 'running the game' plus 'Emulation' gets you Simulation.

Prep work still has a social contract, and a Creative Agenda, but I think the 'running the game' details are different.  Likewise with Solo Play.

So I guess what I'm saying is that I think Exploration might have modes of it's own independent of GNS, and one of them might be my 'X'.

I seem to be seeing a lot of people get hung up on the "Finding out about the Unknown" connotations that the word exploration (and discovery, too) has, and in the process sort of missing what I see as the important point, that exploration can just mean "range over all the possibilities".  You can explore something which has no surprises and no unknowns.  Exploration in the Forge/GNS sense can certainly involve inquiry into the unknown aspects of a simulation, but I don't think that dimension is important or defining for Simulationist play.

Again, I don't think I'm actually disagreeing with anything.  I think this is a semantic issue.  At most, I'm quibbling about how Exploration in the [SC[E[GNS]]] diagram relates to the SC, and if it has modes independent of the GNS Creative Agenda modes.

I'm sorry if I'm running back over ground that is in an essay or earlier thread.  If anybody has specific pointers, lay 'em on me!  =)

(I see Walt responded.  I think I need to wait longer in between postings, to let other people get their words in edgewise =) )

Hi, Walt!

Quote from: Walt
Module play is (primarily) Imagining of Situation. No-myth play is (primarily) Creative Imagining of Situation. In no-myth play, players' actions affect the evolution of Situation in a sufficiently direct way (despite the possible intermediation of system and GM decisions) that Situation is legitimately a creatively imagined element.

I'm not intimately familiar with 'No-Myth' (I believe I've read a thread or two on it), nor am I exactly a GNS expert, either.

But.

How is this distinction different from Director or Author vs. Actor or Pawn stances?  I see the 'Imagining of Situation' to be Actor or Pawn stance, with 'Creative Imagining of Situation' as being Director or Author stance.

Am I missing something?

That's good stuff Walt, though I find myself stumbling over CCI as a term.  Perhaps Creative Invention is a better choice (its at least as accurate a term as any of the other isms).

In GNS as it exists today there are two very clearly different animals being housed under the Sim umbrella...a fact which regularly brings up "Simulationism is just the dumping ground for stuff that isn't G or N" arguments.  All of the 3 have different flavors, but I've grown to think that these are much more fundamentally different than being just different flavors of S.

It seems to me we have the following Situation:

All Roleplaying Starts with Exploration:

Add Step on Up and get Gamism.
Add Story Now and get Narrativism.

but for Simulation currently now you simply have:

Add nothing but greater focus on Exploration and get Simulation.


What I think we really have, however, that's not being captured currently is two distinct animals:

Add nothing but greater focus on Exploration and get Simulation1
Add Creative Invention and get Simulation2

Sim1 is the "I want to experience the world as if I was really there, I the player, am mostly along for the ride" type of voyeuristic play.

Sim2 is the "I will take an active hand as a player in forging this world and making in my own, not for any step on up purposes or story now purposes, but because I'm into the world building of it"


Now what I had suggested earlier is that Sim2 is Simulation.  Its the third Creative Agenda of the 3.  Sim1 by definition lacks its own Creative Agenda.  IMO "the Right to Dream" as its defined currently is NOT a Creative Agenda...its the absence of a Creative Agenda and is why we have the "which one of these things is not the same -- which one doesn't belong" discussions.

Sim1 is nothing more than Exploration.  Its Exploration plus nothing.  By definition, since there is not additional Creative Agenda to emphasize, the emphasis is exclusively on Exploration.  If Sim2 is Simulation, than Sim1 is simply Exploration itself...its located back at the "root" so to speak.

I think Ralph's points are good.

I don't like the "being along for the ride" phrase since it seems to me that a player who's engaged will be forging ahead to see what there is to see and do what there is to do--while neither directly seeking challenge or story nor "world building."

An additional case would seem to be where what's being exploried is something like color or situation at a very deep level (some very nunaced Call of Cthulhu-world-style play comes to mind) so that the play is story like in structure, the characters are fairly free to do what they want, but the basic premise-style-question has been answered by the world/genre. In that case the particiapnts may really want and develop a story-like structure as a high-priority--but it won't really be Narrativist play (or at least it'll be one of those boarderline cases).

In neither of these cases is the play exactly vouyeristic nor is it constructive in the sense that I usually think of as world-building (although you could see covering the entire map on a cartographic expidition as world building--it's just not the term I'd pick for it).

-Marco

Quote from: MarcoI think Ralph's points are good.

Thank you, although they are nothing more than the amalgamation of what a number of folks have been stumbling towards for a while and have only begun to articulate in rough fashion in a few recent threads.

Quote
I don't like the "being along for the ride" phrase since it seems to me that a player who's engaged will be forging ahead to see what there is to see and do what there is to do--while neither directly seeking challenge or story nor "world building."

I think the operative part missing from your quote is "I the player am along for the ride".  The character very well may be forging ahead, but the player is mostly just observing and vicariously participating in what happens.

Note:  in reference to earlier "characters don't exist" threads, if there is an occasion where the player has completely subjugated their own agendas in favor of maximum character portrayal, this is where such play would fall.  In this sense, the player really is "along for the ride" so to speak.

Note #2:  A couple of us (notably myself and Mike H) have long submitted that metagame rules and director stance is not anti-Simulationist and such things function perfectly well in conjunction with Simulation.  Not everyone has agreed; and I think this split reaches the why.  For what I called Sim2 above, the act of "creative invention" (and where my Sim play has historically fallen) works quite comfortably with such techniques.  Sim1 which is Exploration devoid of Creative Agenda does not...because Directive Stance and Meta Game mechanics presuppose a Creative Agenda on the part of the player.

QuoteAn additional case would seem to be where what's being exploried is something like color or situation at a very deep level     [snip]

In neither of these cases is the play exactly vouyeristic nor is it constructive in the sense that I usually think of as world-building (although you could see covering the entire map on a cartographic expidition as world building--it's just not the term I'd pick for it).

-Marco[/quote]

Well, as I noted, each GNS mode has several sub flavors that approach the general concept differently (and sometimes incompatably even), so I'd suppose that what you've identified here are similarly different flavors of the overall concept.


The more I think on this, the more convinced I am that Sim1 and Sim2 are really a required split of what we call Simulationism now.  Partially because such a split helps address several obstacles and issues (like those mentioned in my Note 1 and 2 above) that we've been wrestling unsuccessfully with for some time.

The only stumbling block would be that I believe Sim1 is nothing more than Exploration itself, and I think Ron has previously committed to the notion that no roleplaying occurs at the Exploration level, that its the next box up.  

I think the solution is to realize that the Venn diagram doesn't have to be one where each layer is 100% nested within the larger.  There can be layers than overlap.  For instance Techniques don't have to be nested underneath GNS.  They can overlap both GNS and the larger Exploration box.  

At that point you have the part of Exploration that includes the GNS creative agendas and Techniques; the part of Exploration that does not include the GNS agendas nor Techniques (and represents other non roleplaying Exploratory activities) and the part of Exploration that does not include the GNS agendas but does include various Techniques (which identify the activity as roleplaying).

You then have:

Exploration + Step on Up + Techniques = Gamism
Exploration + Story Now + Techniques = Narrativism
Exploration + Creative Invention + Techniques = Simulationism (Sim2)
and
Exploration + Techniques alone = Sim 1

Ralph, I see what you're saying, but I think you're putting too much into an important distinction. Aren't you just distinguishing simulationism with director stance from simulationism with actor stance?

You could as easily argue that front-loaded narrativism (narrativism with actor stance) is completely different from mainline narrativism (narrativism with director stance); I suspect you could make the same arguments for gamism, although director stance in gamist play has to be more tightly controlled--but isn't Donjun (is that the spelling?) gamist with director stance?

No one argues that there aren't differences between subcategories. Obviously, in simulationist play, someone is creating the world which  is being explored. Does it cease to be simulationist if those creative abilities are shared? I don't see it.

--M. J. Young

What I think is this:

As usual, people are confusing Techniques with Modes.

"Creative invention" is a Technique. It can be found in all of the Modes, or rather, each of the Modes contains a potential subset which includes "inventing stuff into play."

Walt, your use of Create vs. Explore is opaque to me. "Imagine," to me, may or may not include the creation-thing; it's still imagining, either way.

Best,
Ron

I wasn't really understanding the "splitting Sim" concern until now, but it's starting to grow on me...

Quote from: Ron Edwards"Creative invention" is a Technique. It can be found in all of the Modes, or rather, each of the Modes contains a potential subset which includes "inventing stuff into play."

I think they actually have something, Ron.  Sure, invention can be a part of all Modes, but so can Gamism and Narrativism.  Mixing Modes is the name of the game, so having "Creative Invention" in other Modes doesn't necessarily restrict it from being a Mode.

Furthermore, lately, as I've been playing with more and more people who are new to roleplaying, I've had a pretty good chance to observe how they react to it and what they seem to latch onto.  Since most of these newcomers don't have very competative personalities, they aren't really attracted to "Step on Up," even when I encourage them to take part in it.  They definitely do grasp onto "Story Now" in a major way.  However, that's only part of it.

The main motivation for several beginning players seems to be a kind of "Wouldn't That Be Cool?" perspective.  At first, it starts out as pure Exploration.  I would be GMing Nobilis and describe mountains made of glass or a rollercoaster covered in climbing roses.  Inevitably, one of the new players would mutter something like "Wow, that's so fucking cool."  But after a while, when they begin to realize what they can make "happen" in the shared imaginative space, they start asking questions about what they can do.  "Can I poke him in the eye?"  "Can I make him turn into a frog?"  "Can I make it catch on fire?"  "That would be SO cool!" Eventually, as they gain confidence, their questions simply become declarations.

And here's the thing.  They aren't motivated by Step-On-Up challanges with the other players (or the GM) and they aren't really thinking of the overall narratiev structure of the story.  They just want to make something "really cool" happen right now.  I suppose you could call that a kind of pro-active Exploration ("let me make something that I want to experience"), but that doesn't differentiate it from similar things that happen in Gamism and Narrativism, where players also set up situations that they want to experience for the purpose of Step On Up (creating conflict and taking on challanges) or Story Now (making the narrative flow in various desired directions).  In a sense, this is a kind of Sim that could be called "Exploration Now!" which maybe, I guess, what you meant by Sim being a kind of extreme Exploration.  If so, then I guess I really am just dense for not understanding that before.

Jonathan,

Quote from: Jonathan Walton...invention can be a part of all Modes, but so can Gamism and Narrativism.
[Snip]
The main motivation for several beginning players seems to be a kind of "Wouldn't That Be Cool?" perspective.  At first, it starts out as pure Exploration.  I would be GMing Nobilis and describe mountains made of glass or a rollercoaster covered in climbing roses.  Inevitably, one of the new players would mutter something like "Wow, that's so fucking cool."  But after a while, when they begin to realize what they can make "happen" in the shared imaginative space, they start asking questions about what they can do.  "Can I poke him in the eye?"  "Can I make him turn into a frog?"  "Can I make it catch on fire?"  "That would be SO cool!" Eventually, as they gain confidence, their questions simply become declarations.

In my experience it's very very very rare (if not impossible) to play an RPG and not have all three GNS elements present.  The key, I think, is not the presence or absence, but the relative strengths and priorities.

Your description of player-transition during your games sounds to me like players flipping from Actor or Pawn stance to Author or Director stance.

QuoteIn a sense, this is a kind of Sim that could be called "Exploration Now!" which maybe, I guess, what you meant by Sim being a kind of extreme Exploration. If so, then I guess I really am just dense for not understanding that before.

Exactly, that's a great parallel way of putting it.

The distinction I'm seeing, however (which I think is more fundamental than MJ) is between this and the more passive voyeuristic play where the exploration just "happens" rather than being driven.

If the "just happens" was simply an initial stage before the players fully developed into Exploration Now, than perhaps there would be no distinction...but for many, it seems to not just be a stage, but to be the desired final destination.

Quote from: ValamirIf the "just happens" was simply an initial stage before the players fully developed into Exploration Now, than perhaps there would be no distinction...but for many, it seems to not just be a stage, but to be the desired final destination.

I'm not sure, but I can think of two things that might be happening here under the GNS model.

First, it might be that what you are seeing from these players is in fact not Sim-priority play, but Gam-priority play with a subordinate Sim layer and very low Step On Up paired with low competition.  I've seen this happen in groups where the play is mostly Sim/Gam (or Sim/Nar), and there are a few Gam/Sim players mixed in.

The Sim will burble along for awhile, until eventually something will provoke the Gam players and push things to the Hard Core, or the Gam player will set up some Gam-priority elements that some of the Sim/Gam players will also indulge in and enjoy (but put less priority into) -- I think the Legolas/Gimli kill-tally at Helms Deep is a sort of example of this.  The player who only cares about combat, and whom the party has to 'wake up' (or go fetch from his position in front of the Atari) when combat starts to happen is in this category, too.  I think players like this are a lot more rare now than they were in the 80s, where every group seemed to have one or two.  I think now they're mostly playing Mage Knight, Warhammer 40k, Magic, or Computer Games.

Second, it might be what I was talking about (earlier in this thread, I think) about 'running the game'/'exploring' without a Creative Agenda -- basically Exploration without G, N, or S.  I believe Ron is on record saying this is not Roleplaying, but I think I respectfully disagree with him.

These are just guesses, though.

I think that the extra thing for the 'passive' sim players is the subjective experience of the exploration - and I think this is what people are getting at when they talk about immersion.

And yes, what I described as Inventionism is different from the subjective sim - to the extent that I wouldn't play the other way.  But then, I'm perfectly happy with team co-operative gamism, but despise player vs player with a passion (probably due to bad past experiences).  Too, as far as Narrativism goes, yay to front-loaded, nay to conscious overt tackling of theme (I think that subtexts ought to be, well, subtexts).

These divisions don't split modes in my mind, they just acknowledge that even within a mode different play styles exist.

As an aside, I tend to agree with Ron that pure exploration with no creative agenda would not be roleplaying.  That's mainly because I'm having difficulty imagining what such play would look like.  If someone could post an actual play example of what Exploration without G, N or S would look like, I'd be interested to see it.

--edited to add: I know I initially raised the possibility of Inventionism being a new mode. I've backed off following thought along the lines of paragraph two

Hello,

I've come to the point where I can't tell whether people think they're agreeing with me or not. Jonathan started by saying "they have something," meaning people perceived to be disagreeing with me, then ends by perfectly paraphrasing my point, and then Ralph (who's supposed to be disagreeing with me) agrees specifically with that point.

Jonathan and Ralph, everything you posted in the above two posts is consistent with what I've been saying all along. I can't imagine what's different, unless it's wrapped up with some kind of terminological glitch (like "create" vs. "imagine," which I'm using synonymously for role-playing purposes).

I've come to the conclusion that this thread represents the "working it out for oneself" process for most of the participants, with a couple of exceptions, and that it's raised the point that Invention (which I consider relatively low-stress, as a concept) is a hard nut to chew when people consider modes of play.

We've seen this before with Director Stance, especially when people get some kind of wild hair up their asses that this Stance "is" Narrativism. It takes a long time to settle people down from the flip-out of this mistaken perception. In this case, there's no such direct error, just a lot of ... I don't know ... stress, over Invention.

So some Simulationist play really grips (Explores) certain things, up to and including character motivations or thematic elements. So some of it doesn't. So what? The GNS modes are modes, not "ways to play" or (unlike the Threefold) "styles." Within a mode, there are dozens if not hundreds of identifiable combinations of Techniques and approaches.

Best,
Ron

Quote from: Ron Edwards
Jonathan and Ralph, everything you posted in the above two posts is consistent with what I've been saying all along. I can't imagine what's different, unless it's wrapped up with some kind of terminological glitch (like "create" vs. "imagine," which I'm using synonymously for role-playing purposes).

Well.  Then I'm doing a pretty poor job of articulating.  Lets try this.

The last two posts were about what I temporarily labeled Sim2 above and which I put in the Simulation slot in GNS.  You rightly point out that this is exactly what you've been saying all along.

But if the last two posts had been about what I temporarily labeled Sim1 above, you'd also have pointed out that that's what you've been saying all along...and you be write.  Because both Sim1 and Sim2 have been combined into that Simulationist box.

What I'm saying is I don't think they belong there.

Now you correctly point out (as did I several times) that each GNS mode has several flavors.  But as I said above I think this difference is fundamentally different than simply another flavor.  Let me see if I can articulate that difference.

1) The difference between the Exploration box and the GNS box is the Creative Agenda.  The Exploration box is devoid of Creative Agendas.  G, N & S are Creative Agendas.

2) Except for S.  Currently the model calls the S Agenda "The Right to Dream".  Sounds good, makes all three modes have snazzy sounding alternate terms.  Until you dig a little deeper.  The S Agenda isn't really an Agenda at all.  Its the absence of an N or G Agenda.  People have been critical of Simulationism as being defined by what its not for some time.  An effort has been made to counter this by CALLING the absence of an Agenda an Agenda.  By saying that the devotion to avoid the other Agendas is itself an Agenda.  Its worked...but for me it works in about the same fashion as sticking a matchbook under a wobbly chair leg...its a jerry rig that allows us to move on, not a permanent solution, IMO.

3) Earlier you pointed out

QuoteIn discussions, when I phrase things to be more like the former, I get hastily "reminded" that people care enough about Exploration per se to reinforce it socially and to put some attention toward maintaining it as a "thing," not just an absence.

Then, in other discussions (like recent ones), when I phrase things to be more like the latter, people start gesticulating at the Beeg Horseshoe and saying, "But that's 'just Exploration'!"

To which I promptly agreed.  People are doing this.  Because right now you have both of these things included in Simulation.  The first paragraph above is what I called Sim2 and the second paragraph above is what I called Sim1.  And you are again right "But that just Exploration!"...which is where I've come to believe Sim1 belongs.  NOT in GNS at all but just in Exploration alone.

4) Why do I say this is more than just 2 sub flavors within the same S Mode.  Because they are fundamentally different.  Sim2 actually has a real honest to god proactive Creative Agenda, equally vigorous and palpable as Step on Up or Story Now.  But Sim1 does not.  Sim1 really is the absence of such an Agenda.  It is pure Exploration with no Agenda.

Since G, N, and S are defined as being the Creative Agendas that shape Exploration, S needs to have a legitimate Agenda.  But Sim1 does not have a legitimate Agenda its just Raw Exploration and as such shouldn't be part of G N or S at all.  Its pure Exploration without G N or S priorities.


When I mentioned earlier that this notion solves many of the issues that have been raised about GNS in the past, I think that includes the Beeg Horseshoe theory.  Almost every student of GNS eventually comes to at least give some consideration to the Beeg Horseshoe.  Why?  Why does that keep cropping up again and again.

Because if you define Simulation as being Sim1...thats really what you have.  Raw Exploration at the base, with 2 Creative Agendas (G and N) comeing out of it.

And when you do that you have guys like Ian saying, but wait a minute...isn't there more to Simulationism than that?

Answer, yes...what he called Inventionism and I simply labeled Sim2.


By segregating Sim1 issues out of of Simulation and really paying some attention to recognizing the Creative Agenda of Sim2, I think the model makes alot more sense.  All three modes are now equal.  None of them is defined as the absence of the others, and the mode of play that is essentially just pure Exploration, is put back in the Exploration box where it belongs.  Metagame vs Non Metagame concerns in Simulationism goes away.  The Beeg Horseshoe Theory goes away.

A win win situation all around I think.

(Although I will caveat this by saying it makes Simulationism an even poorer label for Sim2).

I'm still having problems making my brain divide "exploring stuff that's already come out of someone's head," and "exploring stuff that's still coming out of people's heads" into fundamentally different agenda.

There's an implication in this thread that exploration of a pre-mythed (can't find the right term, arrggh) system isn't a creative agenda. Which sounds odd to me, so I'm probably misunderstanding. Especially since there are also implications that a no-myth game must, at some stage, tilt towards gam or nar. Which I'll acccept is certainly a strong possibility where the gam or nar factions have a strong motivation to "do something" with the system, while the sim faction is happily exploring / extending the system...

Am I really odd in thinking that exploration can be an agenda on it's own? Isn't curiousity enough? Isn't it creative enough?

Because I'm beginning to think that's the big creative impulse behind sim, and, crucially, the one that is de-emphasised in Gam and Nar. A gamists curiosity only extends as far as tactical or strategic gain; a narrativists curiosity only extends as far as "does this help me address premise?"

For both, a rabid curiosity will only get in the way of their agenda, unless it is subsumed into it.

Maybe my problem is because I used to get very hung up on doing settings right, and got hung up on "am I doing this world wrong?" Having chanegd my attitude to treating systems as toyboxes, full of cool stuff to either play with or ignore according to my whim, I'm much happier, but tend to scratch my head about folks who treat creative inputs into the creative process differently.

Maybe I'm the only one marching in time...

Pete,

I think the big difference between inventive and immersive Sim is seen in play. In inventive sim the room to create is prioritized, choices are made to maximize creative input and options, this is necessarilly tempered by the social elements of the group, so cooperative behaviors involve leaving room for someone else to fill in some portion of your creation, etc. In immersive sim, definition is key, players need to all be on the same page as frequently as possible to eliminate disparate views of that being explored. Structurally, the former is more like brainstorming, the later like consensus building.

Now, whether these belong both under Sim, or should be separated is a harder question, certainly the theory doesn't fail because they are combined, no more than keeping Step on Up and Challenge both under Gamism does. Also there needs to be some structure in Sim (at least in the basic theory), and I think that this serves that purpose admirably. One thing I seriously disagree on is that immersive Sim is supposedly not a creative agenda, yet it serves as a socially developed constraint on the exploration being performed, and a clearly observable one at that. How does this fail to be a creative agenda? Prioritizing fidelity or immersion is still a priority, and it is one that can be easily diagnosed as such.

Also, it seems that when ever GNS is challenged it becomes construed as a claim that the theory is wrong or flawed. GNS is far to useful to be wrong, however it may be incomplete, especially as it does not claim to be complete. Hence the purpose of this discussion is not to invalidate GNS, but to extend it. If we are serious about study and advancement of RPGs, then we must develop more theoretical tools for this purpose, theory extensions are a key way to do this, especially because there is a level of agreement maintained, the theory and its extension remain compatible, no contradictions occur between them, only a mapping of concepts and terms. I cannot stress this enough, theory extensions are very good things.

I hope that helps,

   -Mendel S.

Ralph, I think that your Sim1 requires just as much "creative invention" as your Sim2.  Therefore, I disagree with the need to make a distinction.  Oh, and what Pete said: G and N both deprioritize pure curiosity (The Dream). So really, G is the absence of N/S, and N is the absence of G/S.  Just as S is the absence of G/N.  I dig.

Edit: Cross-posted with Mendel. I'm getting the difference better now. But I stand by my statement that they're both the same sort of creativity - a consensual shared imaginitive space. Maybe they're just dials - Invention and Immersion - for Sim play. You can have them both on high, or one high and one low. ?

Quote from: ethan_greerRalph, I think that your Sim1 requires just as much "creative invention" as your Sim2.  Therefore, I disagree with the need to make a distinction.

The distinction is not about which one requires more creativity Ethan.  This is not saying Sim2 is good because you have to be inventive where in Sim1 you don't.

Creative Agendas are really nothing more than additional baggage the player is bringing to the table.

All role playing starts with basic Exploration.  That's a given.
The Gamist then adds the additional baggage of Step on Up on top of that
The Narrativist then adds the additional baggage of Story now on top of that.
The Sim2-ist then adds the additional baggage of "creative invention" (or whatever, that's just a placeholder term anyway)

In all of these cases the additional baggage -- the Creative Agenda -- involves player goals being imposed onto the game world.  All of these Creative Agendas are essentially metalevel concerns.  Its the player's who's being challenged, its the player who's addressing the theme, its the player who's engaged in creating and giving input.

Sim 1 play exists purely at the Exploration level, without any additional baggage.  Without any additional metalevel agenda.  This is the crux of the distinction to me.

QuoteOh, and what Pete said: G and N both deprioritize pure curiosity (The Dream). So really, G is the absence of N/S, and N is the absence of G/S.  Just as S is the absence of G/N.  I dig.

G is not the absence of N or S.  G is Exploration plus the presence of Step on Up
N is not the absence of G or S.  N is Exploration plus the presence of Story Now.
Only S is currently described as Exploration without the presence of anything else.

QuoteEdit: Cross-posted with Mendel. I'm getting the difference better now. But I stand by my statement that they're both the same sort of creativity - a consensual shared imaginitive space. Maybe they're just dials - Invention and Immersion - for Sim play. You can have them both on high, or one high and one low. ?

This is much more IMO than a dial.  This is a fundamental distinction that I believe is a wide as that between Step on Up and Story Now.  We saw how deep the divide is in the various "Characters Don't Exist" threads.

Quote from: RalphOnly S is currently described as Exploration without the presence of anything else.

I don't think it is.  I think people see it that way, though.

I think S is defined as not just Exploration for Exploration's sake, and not just  E without G or N, but Exploration in a particular way.  Exploration with some additional constraints.

For want of a term, I think S is Exploration plus Emulation.  The faithfulness of the Emulation is an additional constraint layered on top of the foundation of Exploration that all RPGs are built on.

To try and put it another way, I think all RPGs have an Exploration layer as a foundation.  G and N add another layer of priorities on top of that Exploration.  Sim adds another layer of Exploration-oriented priorities on top of that Exploration.  These involve not just 'pure Exploration', but Exploration of some specific Things above and beyond the normal-old everyday Exploration that all RPGs have.  It's the difference between having a combat system and a Cinematic combat system.  In the first place, you have 'foundational' Exploration.  In the second, you have 'Simulationism' Exploration of a Cinematic style.

It's not 'more of the same', it's 'more of those same actions about something extra'.

I think that's the way it works, anyway.  My Sim cup of tea may well not be everybody's Sim cup of tea =)

To build on Ralph's point, he's basically saying that Exploration isn't a Creative Agenda.  It's passive, like watching theater.  Sure, there are some creative processes going on, the player has to engage the material and steer their avatar through the shared imaginative space, but like Alice in Wonderland, they are not a pro-active participant in the imagined space.  But eventually, Alice crosses the last river and changes from a Pawn to a Queen, ready to actively work on her environment.  This isn't just Exploration any more, it's "Exploration Now!" or maybe "Dreaming," active creation and stretching the boundaries of the imagined space.

What me and Ralph are objecting to, then, is your description of Simulationism as just "Exploration++," when it's something else that's really going on.  Sure, you might argue that Simulationism is the first obvious Mode to move into after just passive Exploration, but that doesn't make it the same thing as Exploration.  If you define "the Right to Dream" as actively creating within the shared imaginative space (which I don't think you've done), I imagine we'd be happy.

I agree with Ralph that pure, passive Exploration (being along for the ride), doesn't fit into GNS anywhere.  It's not a Mode.  Whether it is "roleplaying" or not depends on your definition, so I won't touch that one.  I'm willing to accept that this is just us wrestling with Simulationism and that you've already come to this conclusion, but, if so, I don't think its been communicated effectively.

Hi Ralph,

That's a very clear statement of your position. My concern is as follows.

1. I think we may be dealing with two different mental images of "Exploration only." In yours, people are indeed role-playing. In mine, they're not. In mine, when they start really playing (and this can include dedicated prep; I'm not getting into that issue now), it's "Exploration-plus" already.

2. I agree that the "plus" is more than an absence. This is the essence of my "Does Simulationism really exist" section in my big GNS essay, and it's the essence of my Simulationism essay - that "The Dream" is an active phenomenon, not a lacuna. I was under the impression that I was solving the "absence" issue at the time - but now, it appears that I'm facing a backlash in that people want to look at what I'd think of as minimal "action" within the Dream and say it's "only" Exploration, and not "the Dream."

So to me, that "action" is the key. I think there's always some, even if it's limited simply to the fact that people are speaking to one another instead of locked into individual imaginative hazes. What constitutes this extra action that's got everyone so het up? Based on the posts so far, Invention (a good term) seems to be involved. So does the presence of an embedded theme, such that play is thematic in the sense of celebrating something known. And I imagine there are others.

3. Yes, there's a profound distinction between Simulationist play without Invention (let's stick with this one) and Simulationist play with it. The same distinction exists, using (as far as I can tell) the same main variables, within Narrativist and Gamist play.

For a visual, imagine a circle whose center (the paper label) is Exploration, and pie-wedges of GNS composing the outer portions. Surrounding the inner circle is a section (about the size of a 45rpm, say), that we'll call "little or no Invention." So each pie-wedge has its section of no Invention. Then the outer, wider portion of each pie-wedge is its "lots of Invention" section.

But hell, maybe the best thing to do is for me simply to pay attention while others talk for a while. I've already probably missed several posts by typing this, and the thread is already getting humpbacked.

Ralph or M.J., if you'd like, maybe you can identify several sub-sets to the thread, so they can be split out into separate ones? Especially since some of the discussion is about "understanding GNS in the first place" and since some of it is about "hoary veterans refining what they know much further."

Best,
Ron

Ack. I'm really not all that gung-ho about arguing over this Sim1/Sim2 distinction. Rest assured that while I may disagree with you from a GNS theory standpoint, Ralph, I clearly understand what you're saying and can see the validity of your claims from a certain point of view. For that matter, I also like Beeg Horseshoe from certain perspectives. Which explains why I typically stay out of theory debates - I'm just not passionate enough about theory in the first place... :)

Well, for example, Jonathan's post.

Fucking terminology. By "Creative Agenda," all that "creative" means is that people are talking to one another and including what they hear into what they're imagining. All that "agenda" means, is "by what social and aesthetic parameters."

That's all. The "creative" is not supposed to be some kind of profound and Invention-heavy thing.

And by the way, I have a lot of trouble with the terms"active" and "passive." For instance, to me, "passive" would mean no one is talking or looking at one another, or, for that matter, in the same room or on the computer or anything. They'd be lumps. Anything besides that, to me, is "active."

Best,
Ron

Confusion fixed, Ron, thanks to your last big post.  Sorry to give you a headache.

Check my new thread on "Defining Roleplaying (According to GNS)" if you want to continue the active/passive discussion.  I was mostly referring to people who share the imagined space, but aren't doing anything at the moment.

Actually, Ron, I'm not entirely certain what there is to discuss here; I understand what Ralph is trying to say, but I don't think it withstands scrutiny.

We've got three GNS modes. Gamism pretty much means that we're here to compete in some way, to test our ability as players to beat something and impress someone (even if it's only ourselves) with our skill. Narrativism means we're trying to explore moral, ethical, or personal issues of some sort. Simulationism means we're discovering a world, a character, or some other aspect of the shared imaginary space.

Within those three modes, players make things happen by utilizing the tools given them to impact the shared imaginary space. Games differ in the number and kinds of tools which are used for this. Most players in most games are able to impact that SIS through the actions of their characters; some players are able to do so through means other than their characters, and some do not have characters and so are limited to other means.

Classic play in all three modes tends to be represented by games in which "players" who are not referees can only impact the SIS through character actions. In narrativism, that most commonly means front-loaded narrativism, although it can mean thematic development through in-game character choice. Narrativism is tremendously enhanced by making director stance creative abilities available to players, but that's a relatively new development in game design. In gamism too we usually have setting-based challenge met by character choice and tactics; director stance in gamism is difficult to implement, but it has been done more recently in a very few games. Simulationism traditionally has been the same: the referee and game designer do all the creative work, and the players interact with this solely through their characters. However, using director stance in simulationism inherently means that some of what the referee does in creating the setting and situation is passed to the players to manage out-of-character.

Three things should be noticed about this.

The first is that what the referee does in traditional simulationist play is not less simulationism than what the players do, even though it is completely different--just as what the referee does in traditional gamist and narrativist play is still, respectively, just as gamist and narrativist as what the players do, despite being entirely different in function and method. To create the world for the purpose of revealing that which has been created is simulationist, just as to discover what has been created is simulationist.

The second is that even in the most traditional approach, the players have some impact on setting, through the actions of their characters--they create and reveal situation, at least, within the world, and sometimes impact setting through their actions. Thus whether they are limited to actor or pawn stance or allowed full author or directoral credibility, they are still impacting the game world. It is not a matter of function, but merely of degree and method.

The third is that there is not this black and white either/or that Ralph seems to be implying; it is a continuum. Always the players have some impact on the reality they explore; rarely (but not never) can they create that reality with the same credibility as the referee. The credibility of the players to impact the SIS is somewhere between not at all and completely.

I think this thread has been very useful in elucidating these facts about simulationism; I'm not certain I saw how director stance could and did fit into the simulationist mode so clearly before. I do not think that we've found a new mode of play, but rather that we've discovered that, just as stance can make a great deal of difference in Narrativism and Gamism, so too it can have strong impact on Simulationism.

And no one has ever said that if you like a certain mode you will like all applications of that mode; that's a red herring.

I'm satisfied, I think, that this thread has gotten much that is good from it, and that simulationism has been greatly clarified through it (although I still see some confusion in spots). I don't really see much more to say on the subject.

--M. J. Young

Argh. Computer problems and out-of-town time have kept me off the board for a few days, so I wasn't able to participate in the latter part of this thread. My apologies to those whose comments on my posts have gone unresponded to.

Since this thread might be coming to a close, I don't want to go into any further detail on anything, but a few general comments:

1. The question at hand regarding invention-in-play seems to be continually getting sidetracked into an issue of Stance. It's not a matter of Stance. Just as there's no specific stance for, say, Narrativism, there's no specific Stance for invention of Elements in play. The process by which a player's creative thought becomes a part of the shared imagined space might be direct (e.g. using Director stance) but it might also pass through other players, system, and/or a GM.

2. When it comes to the Elements of play, fidelity and creativity have a nonmonotonic relationship. (In other words, more of one does not consistently mean more, nor less, of the other). Example: you want to play a Star Wars game, with "Star Wars style monsters." Here are three ways of going about it:

a. Use monsters from the canonical films in which they appear, translating them as accurately as possible into the shared imagined space.

b. Note that the nature of monsters in the canonical films is that no single type of monster ever appears in the story more than once, and accordingly, create an entirely original monster for each monster-encounter episode, while trying to give each invented monster a certain "Star Wars feel."

c. Use the monster encounter tables from the AD&D 1979 edition.

C is low-fidelity low-creativity, B is moderate-fidelity high-creativity, and A is high-fidelity low-creativity. (The relative fidelity of A vs. B is difficult to really pin down, but most people would regard a source book of monster stats from the Star Wars movies as being more "faithful to Star Wars" than a source book of original monsters claiming to have a "Star Wars feel.") Very low and very high positions on the "fidelity" dials both inhibit creativity.

3. Ron endorses the following statement, in this thread (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=8113):

QuoteIn your [Ron's] Simulationism essay, you have this: "'Story,' in this context, refers to the sequence of events that provide a payoff in terms of recognizing and enjoying the genre during play."

Is this the key to distinguishing the abovementioned play modes? My intepretation of this statement is that in Simulationist gaming, a long and complex story might come about and be part of play, but only for the express purpose of bringing about all the appropriate genre elements in the game as part of the internal consistency of the Dream. i.e., A Sim game Colored with elements from Chinese wuxia movies might have a multilayered story involving class conflict, people being trapped by their social position, repressed romance, heavy action, a sorcerer and his eunuch henchmen - but these are all trappings of the genre. So, their inclusion in the game, part and parcel as they are to the Dream, isn't Narrativist because no one is creating a theme that /isn't already there/. In other words, it's just played out as the Situation part of the Exploration; because the dream calls for it, there just so happens to be a kind of intricacy involved.

In Narrativism, by contrast, the major source of themes are the ones that are brought to the table by the players / GM (if there is one) regardless of the genre or setting used. So, to sum up, themes in Nar play are /created/ by the participants and that's the point; themes in Sim play are already present in the Dream, /reinforced/ by the play, and kind of a
by-product.

So whether themes are created in play, or already present, is (of course) critical to Narrativism. And yet, most seem to be claiming, whether the Elements of the Dream themselves are created in play or front-loaded is just a matter of preference or technique, it's all just Exploration, it's all creative, it's not a "modal" distinction.

I don't buy it. I agree with Ralph, this is a big blind spot that's been hindering understanding of (the range of play currently described as) Simulationism since day 1. It's the reason for the "every time I try to describe simulationism as X, someone says, no it's Y" problem.

- Walt

Whew.  Lots of posts over the weekend.

Can I attempt to clarify the debate here?  I think that, at this point, the definition of simulationism comes down to two possibilities.  I name these after theories, but I do not imagine that what I am saying is exactly what Ron or Jared believe, but rather what the "final picture" looks like (two styles or three.)

1)  The Beeg Horshoe solution:  The presence of absence of any premise, moral choices, step on up, challenge or competition within the Dream of the game shifts the game into a Narrativist or Gamist category.  This relegates Sim to a very thin slice in the middle.  According to this, Vampire LARPs are generally Gamist and my preferred playstyle is generally Narrativist.

2)  The GNS solution:  The prioritization of Dream over other things is what determines whether a game is Simulationist or not, regardless of any other content.  This means that Sim can, and often does, coexist with Nar and Gam content.  According to this, both Vampire LARPs and my preferred playstyle are generally Simulationist.

The important thing here:  These are two models that describe the exact same situation.  This is not a matter of what is "really out there --" we seem to all agree on that.  Rather, it is merely a means of discussing it.  I submit that both of these definitions have strengths and weaknesses, and that the important thing is that we choose one to inform future discussion and prevent future confusion.

Both of these choices involve a change to the present state of theory.  The first implies that Sim, as a category of play, is very small to the point of nonexistence.  The second implies that Sim can, and often does, coexist with other creative agendas.

yrs--
--Ben

P.S.  It is important to note that I am strictly discussing actual play, here.  There are many gamebooks which can be called quite "Simulationist" but, in the light of #1 above, would simply be "easily driftable."  And, in the light of #2, simply provide a dream framework in which other material may be inserted.

Hi, Ben!

Quote from: Ben LehmanBoth of these choices involve a change to the present state of theory.  The first implies that Sim, as a category of play, is very small to the point of nonexistence.  The second implies that Sim can, and often does, coexist with other creative agendas.

Is it a corollary of the Beeg Horseshoe that G and N play is mutually exclusive?  So that Sim play is the chassis and G OR N is put on top of it, but not both?  Because that seems wrong to me.  I can see arguing about whether 'pure' Sim is a seperate category (or two, as some would have it), but not that play has a single mode which excludes others.

It seems to me that one of the strengths of 'stock' GNS is that it categorizes play by what is being emphasized or prioritized as opposed to what is present.  I don't think I've ever played in an RPG that didn't include aspects of all three modes in the GNS triad, and my understanding of GNS is that calling something, for example, Gamist does not exclude N or S.  G is just the top of the heap.

Quote from: Walt1. The question at hand regarding invention-in-play seems to be continually getting sidetracked into an issue of Stance. It's not a matter of Stance. Just as there's no specific stance for, say, Narrativism, there's no specific Stance for invention of Elements in play. The process by which a player's creative thought becomes a part of the shared imagined space might be direct (e.g. using Director stance) but it might also pass through other players, system, and/or a GM.

Walt,

Maybe I'm confused on terminology.  My understanding of the Stances was that Author and Director involve meta-game conversation, knowledge, and creation, while Actor stance generally involves putting things into the shared imagined space through the agency of the character and it's actions only as opposed to through any sort of metagame statements or Invention.

If this is the way that Stances are intended, then you can get or not get what I think you are calling Creative Invention in any of the three of GNS by pairing it with a stance.  All three of GN and S can have modes where the players are 'Inventive' or 'not Inventive', which appears to be the distinction you are trying to hammer out between Sim1 and Sim2.  If you are going to split Sim this way, you don't get four, you get six modes, I think, because you have to split Nar and Gam, too.

Anyway, I certainly agree with Ben:  I think we all agree about what we're talking about in terms of Real Live Gaming, but we're disagreeing on how to label it.

Hello,

In many conversations, a person finds himself in the position of staying with a frustrating discussion only because he doesn't feel himself to be understood or "heard" by the other party. (add feminine pronouns to taste)

This is a problem with the discussion - the person is now only present in order to hear what he said returned to him, regardless of agreement or disagreement, because so far, he hasn't heard it. He wants to have a real discussion about stuff. However, the substance of the agreement or disagreement being offered by the other people is missed or tabled, because the primary urge - to have been understood at all - is not being satisfied.

That's the position I'm experiencing at this point, with this thread. If one single person, just once, could return an accurate paraphrase of my position in the matter, that would be sufficient. People could then disagree with it, agree with it, offer alternatives, and so on, to their heart's content, and I would be profoundly grateful for whatever they offered, no matter what it was as long as it was based on understanding what I did indeed say.

Until that happens, though, nothing being said is going to enter the state of discourse for me. I can't simultaneously continue clarifying my position (into the void) and deal with points that I can no longer tell whether they are agreements with or disagreements with or exceptions to or clarifications of it.

At the moment, based on Walt's recent post that inserts the crucial yet inapplicable word "just" to my discussion of Exploration, and Ben's recent post which seems to miss the profound meaning I intend with the word "prioritize," I am forced to admit defeat - not in any point at issue, but in the process of discussion in the first place.

Let's take a look as well at Pete's post from a couple of days ago:

QuoteThere's an implication in this thread that exploration of a pre-mythed (can't find the right term, arrggh) system isn't a creative agenda. Which sounds odd to me, so I'm probably misunderstanding. Especially since there are also implications that a no-myth game must, at some stage, tilt towards gam or nar. Which I'll acccept is certainly a strong possibility where the gam or nar factions have a strong motivation to "do something" with the system, while the sim faction is happily exploring / extending the system...

Am I really odd in thinking that exploration can be an agenda on it's own? Isn't curiousity enough? Isn't it creative enough?

Because I'm beginning to think that's the big creative impulse behind sim, and, crucially, the one that is de-emphasised in Gam and Nar. A gamists curiosity only extends as far as tactical or strategic gain; a narrativists curiosity only extends as far as "does this help me address premise?"

For both, a rabid curiosity will only get in the way of their agenda, unless it is subsumed into it.

This was a brilliant post. As far as I can tell, Pete's point is 100% consistent with my essay on Simulationism. Note that "just" does not apply. Note as well that the Dream refers to a priority that cannot share the driver's seat with another priority. No matter how much Exploration accompanies a Narrativist or Gamist priority, it cannot be Simulationist play. In my essay, I state that Simulationist approaches can be subordinate hybrids, at most.

But was Pete agreeing with me (or Ralph) or disagreeing (ditto)? When he speaks of an "implication," with which he disagrees, is he referring to those who support a fourth mode, or to others? Does he know? Do the people posting to the thread know? I certainly can't tell.

What in the world do you think I am saying? Anyone?

Best,
Ron

I'll take a stab at a summation, with the caveat that I'm still working my way through the GNS essays.

At the level of playing the game around a table, there is a distinctive meta-game social contract in effect.  One of the facets of that contract is the group (Creative) Agenda.  The game system may or may not facilitate a particular Agenda, and it may or may not impede a particular Agenda.

Functional group play is dominated by a single Agenda, one of Gam, Nar or Sim.  That Agenda doesn't need to be shared by all participants as their own personal primary goal for the play experience, but they have to be willing to be involved with furthering this Agenda, and not impeding it, for play to be Functional.

There is a very specific split in Agendas, into the Gam, Nar, and Sim camps.

Each player of each group, no matter which of the three camps their play is falling into at a particular time, may interact with that Agenda using a combination of Stances.  While Agenda for the game is usually unchanging (or, if changing, it changes over a fairly long time-frame), Stances may be switched between frequently and easily.  All Agendas partake of all Stances, although some Stances are more suited, or more emphasized, by some Agendas.

Just as all Stances can be used to Explore all Agendas, so too can all Agendas be present in any given instance of play.  However, for any particular instance of play, there is an identifiable Agenda being Prioritized by the group, with the other two elements being subservient or largely nonexistent.  Motivation for furthering a certain Agenda is given more weight than the others, and can generally 'trump' the others.  Note that this is for a specific instance of play, with a particular mix of players, playing with a particularRules Set, and operating under a specific Social Contract.

Gamism involves some form of inter-player Step On Up.  Player actions are primarily motivated by an attempt to 'win', for whatever definition(s) of 'win' are appropriate to current play (kill things, not get killed, collect treasure, etc.).

Narrativism involves a focus on development of Narrative and Drama.  The vague and unhelpful "Story", more helpfully stated as "Story Now".  Player actions are primarily motivated by what makes an interesting Tale.  It's not primarily about competition, it's primarily about exploring the interests, events, and plots that circle around the characters and significant NPCs.

Simulationist play involves a focus on the actual process of shared imagination.  Thinking about things the group likes, and simulating them faithfully, through the agency of their character's actions and situation.  Player actions are generally motivated by curiosity about, interest in, and emotional investment in the elements receiving the primary focus of the game's Simulation.  This has been described usefully as "Exploration Now", or "Exploration Squared".

Some in this thread (Walt and Ralph, I believe, but I have to admit that I've lost track) have been advocating for splitting Simulation into two distinct modes, referred to in this thread as Sim1 and Sim2, or alternatively Simulation and Creative Inventiveness.

I (and a few others) have suggested that all three of GNS have the same potential and need for creativity, and that perhaps the "Inventiveness" aspect is either more properly subsumed into the idea of Stance, or is perhaps not a part of the GNS theory at all -- play in any of the G, N, or S modes may or may not have 'Creative Invention', which is indepenend of which of the modes you choose to discuss.

I think Pete was disagreeing with the idea of splitting Sim into two types, and was instead advocating the second position -- that Exploration is a creative Agenda on it's own, and doing so puts it on even footing with G and N, as opposed to in the Saddle point of the Beeg Horseshoe.

I think one area of confusion for both myself and others in this thread has been which thing we're talking about when we say 'Exploration'.

The distinctions that were being drawn between 'Sim1' and 'Sim2', I think, may be the differences between 'Exploration' and 'Exploration Now'/'Exploration Squared'.  The first is at the base of the Beeg Horseshoe, and underlies all three of GNS, while E^2 is the S in GNS, and would be a hypothetical third-tine on the Beeg Horseshoe...

As always, this is just my own following of the thread.  I think we're mostly arguing semantically about what the various things we all see in play are, and what their relative importance is to the play experience.  Some of us may be biased because we're attached to a particular play mode or a particular sort of group Social Contract ourselves, and therefore see it as more (and/or other's as less) valid.

Did I miss anything?  Did I horribly misstate anything?  Did I slander anybody's inbred cousin by mistake?  If so, I apologize in advance!  =)

Pax!

(Edit: Minor cleanup, addition of attempt at levity)

Ron -

Simulationist play is simulationist play whether the engagement with the Dream takes the form of immersion or invention or whatever - the method with which you prioritize the Dream is less important than the fact of the prioritization.

You also seem to be saying that this is the GNS model: agree with it or disagree with it, but that is the model.

(I'm guessing that the guiding implication here - and certainly the reason that I broadly agree - is that if you split sim in this way you open the field to splitting G and N on similar grounds and we multiply variety in a wilderness of mirrors)

I'm not 100% I'm catching the implications of your final point - which would seem to be that you can have Narr with heavy Sim support but not Sim with heavy Narr support.  Anything more than incidental theme and you playing Narr.  You just can't have a sim heavy hybrid.

Yes, Ron, I was trying to do far to much in one post. To tyr to clear up a little...

Firstly, I was fighting against a tendency that I preceived in previous posts that was saying non-creative sim was a weak sim, and not only likely to be subsumed into sim or nar, but probably deservedly so. Yeah, I know, I put a lot of melodrama into other people's posts. Essentially, sim1 is the middle point of the beeg horseshoe.

As a corrolorary to that, prehaps to get sim spread beyond the beeg horshoe's small sliver of sim in the middle, sim2, an active, dynamic creative sim seemed to be proposed as fundementally different, and stood on it's own as equal to G and N.

Now, I proposed that at the heart of sim is curiosity: I'm beginning to prefer this to Ron's use of the term The Dream, but I would, wouldn't I?

Curiosity about the system unifies the proposed sim1 and sim2: I would argue that it can be powerful enough to have step on up or story now present in a supporting role to curiosity, and in that I think I'm disagreeing with Ron, who, if I'm right, feels that sim is unique in that it can only be prioritised in the absence of step on up or story now, and in hybrids must be supporting.

So, I'm disagreeing with people who want to split sim, and I'm disagreeing with Ron about whether sim can be the dominant part of a hybrid.

I'll be in the corner on my own then.

Oh good grief.

Quote from: IAnd yet, most seem to be claiming, whether the Elements of the Dream themselves are created in play or front-loaded is just a matter of preference or technique, it's all just Exploration, it's all creative, it's not a "modal" distinction.

Ron, I wasn't trying to describe your position specifically, but summarize the gist of several different opinions voiced by several different people in the thread. However, let my clarify in relation to your position specificially.

By "It's just a matter of preference or technique" I meant that whether Elements are created in play, and by whom, is not a distinct creative agenda on the level of the GNS taxonomy. I shouldn't have lumped "preference or technique" together like that, I guess, since technically all aspects of the social contract are "matters of preference;" what I meant was "just a specific (secondary) preference within a prevailing (Sim) creative agenda." I do feel justified in saying "just... technique" as the "techniques" box in the GNS Venn diagram is inside the GNS box.

"It's all just Exploration" please read as "It [creation of elements in play] is indistinguishable from Exploration in general" which I believe does state your position correctly:

Quote from: Ron Edwards"Creative invention" is a Technique. It can be found in all of the Modes, or rather, each of the Modes contains a potential subset which includes "inventing stuff into play."

Walt, your use of Create vs. Explore is opaque to me. "Imagine," to me, may or may not include the creation-thing; it's still imagining, either way.

Quote from: Ron Edwards alsoSo some Simulationist play really grips (Explores) certain things, up to and including character motivations or thematic elements. So some of it doesn't. So what? The GNS modes are modes, not "ways to play" or (unlike the Threefold) "styles." Within a mode, there are dozens if not hundreds of identifiable combinations of Techniques and approaches.

I think my use of "just" accurately characterizes your use of "So what?"

Regarding subsequent posts, I wholeheartedly agree that "Sim1" or "weak Sim" is in no way artistically inferior (and that therefore the latter term shouldn't be used). There's nothing wrong with role-playing a module as a more engaging way of telling/hearing the module's story than reading the module (or the same story in novel form) would be. Nor with role-playing a system as a more engaging way of operatig a mechanical simulation and observing and appreciating its behavior than doing so in the third person would be. Most of my own professional career has been the creation of "weak sim" in various media, and I can attest that there is a great deal of craft and a deep vein of art in it. Furthermore, as a practical issue in role playing, I've seen as many problems in Actual Play (and in the forum by that name here) with players wanting less commitment to creative invention than the GM wants them to take on ("my players aren't proactive enough; they want the situation to come to them") as with players wanting more of it than the GM is willing to permit.

The fear of splitting Sim requiring an equivalent splitting of Gamism and Narrativism is unfounded, I believe. If at any other time I had suggested that one could play Narrativist without substantial player commitment to creative imagining (that is, without the players strongly contributing to inventing Elements in play), I'm pretty sure I'd have been contradicted by many here. How could there be the all-important "player authorial power" without player commitment to creative invention (especially, of character and situation)? In other words, the "Narrativism with little or no invention" sector of Ron's circle either cannot exist or is, at least, rare.

Gamism with substantial player invention of the Elements of play is also rare, though it is clearly possible. Most resource-management challenges are dependent on the resources being managed being finite in variety and known in advance. The exceptions, the "Gamist with lots of invention" sector (remember, we are -- or at least, I am -- talking about invention of the Elements of play, not invention of other things such as strategies), would be games promoting Step On Up based on inventiveness itself, challenges of the "who can make up the coolest stuff" nature, as in Once Upon a Time.

It's only in Simulationism that the "inventive vs. non-inventive" distinction becomes acute and polarizing.

- Walt

Hi Walt,

QuoteIt's only in Simulationism that the "inventive vs. non-inventive" distinction becomes acute and polarizing.

In-teresting. And yet, I disagree a little. For instance, I think that Narrativist play can function quite nicely with relatively little invention. Theme can be created specifically through player-input through character decisions, wholly within the in-game context. The sole requirement is that the player(s) be empowered to do so; i.e., no single person reserves procedural control over their characters' decisions, and the players do not sit pat, without investing in those decisions.

So, no Invention. The setting and situation may be laid out in detail (as long as no outcomes of player-characters' decisions are dictated, or inflexibly expected to go certain ways, which are essentially the same thing). The players may be using no abilities or whatnot that aren't on the character sheet. No Director Stance, no scene/conflict framing control, none of that stuff, beyond the GM.

But if the protagonists' decisions do make the story, and if those decisions are not pre-loaded or overridden, then you have Narrativist play. In my experience, The Whispering Vault lends itself very well to this sort of Narrativist play, given enough sessions to see the reward mechanic in action and without rushing the individual Hunts.

I suggest that the same applies to Gamist play - some of it is quite Invention-heavy, and some is extremely Invention-limited.

In both of the above cases, I submit that play-preferences may be extreme, and that a hypothetical person who's very committed to Invention-heavy Narrativism may well mistake his preference for the thing itself, and insist that low-Invention Narrativist must be Simulationist. (All right, I admit it - this isn't hypothetical. It's a pernicious and common error of understanding even among some Most August Forge members.)

Final point: let's say I'm dead wrong about all of the above, and Simulationist play (as I see it) is uniquely characterized by a "split" over the Invention issue ... Let's say Ralph's point is 100% right on the mark. I submit that it's no particular threat to the theory as currently constructed. What's difficult about that potential split being a feature of Simulationist play as a category? In-play features and diversity aren't expected to be parallel among the modes. We found a feature of Sim play-diversity. Cool.

Best,
Ron

Quote from: Walt FreitagIt's only in Simulationism that the "inventive vs. non-inventive" distinction becomes acute and polarizing.

Walt,

Couldn't it be that with Sim "inventive vs non-inventive" the distinction impacts on the consensual imaginary space - the space which is the point of play?

Wouldn't one expect parallel splits in gamism over competition and Narrativism over theme?

QuoteLet's say Ralph's point is 100% right on the mark. I submit that it's no particular threat to the theory as currently constructed. What's difficult about that potential split being a feature of Simulationist play as a category? In-play features and diversity aren't expected to be parallel among the modes. We found a feature of Sim play-diversity. Cool.

You mean changing it to be more accurate isn't enough of a reason?  Has GNS really accumulated enough inertia to begin discouraging change? </tongue in cheek smart ass mode>

But as to more concrete reasons as to what's difficult about that split, I direct the reader to several points in the thread already where I addressed some.

In one I pointed out that Ron's expressed exasperation articulated in another thread is as a result of this split.  As I've already quoted that one several times, I won't bother to do so again.  But such difficulties would go away.

Another is the continual resurgence of the Beeg Horseshoe theory...which seems like a good, perhaps even better alternative way of looking at GNS...as long as the person advocating the Horseshoe is talking of Simulationism only in terms of what I've called Sim1 above.  By stressing that Simulationism is actually Sim2, the Beeg Horseshoe theory goes away albiet with many thanks for helping to point out an area of underdevelopment in GNS.

By recognizing that Simulationism is Sim2 and that all 3 stances work equally well with Sim2 (unlike Sim1 in which Actor is the clear leader) and that metagame mechanics are not a hinderance to Sim2, we can begin to talk about Director Stance Metagame heavy Sim without constantly (and yes constantly) being diverted by "you can't have Director Stance and Metagame in Sim" tangents.  We now can easily see that those individuals are referring to Sim1 and their arguements (while potentially accurate for Sim1) don't apply to Sim2.

Further, I happen to be a believer in symmetry between categories.  If one has several categories at the same level, those categories should be parallel in what and how they are defined.  The existance of an "odd man out" to me indicates a structural weakness.

So, for me, one might discuss the best way to account for the difference between Sim1 and Sim2 in GNS; and perhaps seperating Sim1 out and bringing it back to the root of Exploration is not the best way (I've not yet been convinced otherwise, since it seems a perfect fit); but to just leave things as they are because it doesn't cause *too* much problem seems an inferior solution.

Quote from: Ron EdwardsIn-teresting. And yet, I disagree a little. For instance, I think that Narrativist play can function quite nicely with relatively little invention. Theme can be created specifically through player-input through character decisions, wholly within the in-game context. The sole requirement is that the player(s) be empowered to do so; i.e., no single person reserves procedural control over their characters' decisions, and the players do not sit pat, without investing in those decisions.

Ah, I see the problem. What I've been trying (and obviously failing) to say is, that's invention too. That's one reason I tried to introduce the term "commitment to creative imagination" or CCI, because it goes beyond behavior of the immediately obvious "hey look, I'm narrating a new fact now" variety.

QuoteThe setting and situation may be laid out in detail (as long as no outcomes of player-characters' decisions are dictated, or inflexibly expected to go certain ways, which are essentially the same thing). The players may be using no abilities or whatnot that aren't on the character sheet. No Director Stance, no scene/conflict framing control, none of that stuff, beyond the GM.

The same can be true of no-myth play, which I regard as "inventive" in contrast to participationism, which is not.

You may well ask what, then, is not "inventive" in my view? Anything that violates those "as long as..." provisos, for starters. Dictated player-character decisions, whether they're dictated somehow by the GM or dictated by the player's own pre-established plans or expectations. Do you remember your "what the party does with a closed dungeon door routine" from 1979-edition AD&D? Almost everyone had one. Or more generally, stereotyped behavior in stereotyped situations. Characters designed around a few particular cool and effective maneuvers (e.g. the Wolverine "Fastball Special") or other signature behaviors, who sleepwalk through the game looking for opportunities to "pull the trigger" on those behaviors. Long-term character careers pre-planned by players (which prestige classes unfortunately encourage). Railroading, of course, but also consensual Participationism and high-Force Illusionism, when used to force a pre-planned outcome. And also: mechanically generated outcomes. Even if the outcome is unpredictable, it's not inventive if it's out of human hands. Results tables, event tables, resolution mechanics -- these are not incompatible with invention, but if stereotyped character behaviors + results of resolution mechanics (including randomizers) + pre-existing situation and setting are the entirety of how situation evolves, it's not inventive. Pastiche of constrainingly high fidelity, in which the only permissible criteria for evolution of situation is "what is the most X-like?" (What would Lovecraft do?) Ditto "realistic." Lab-rat sim in which character personality models dictate character behavior and causal models dictate outcomes -- though this last one is pretty rare.

QuoteFinal point: let's say I'm dead wrong about all of the above, and Simulationist play (as I see it) is uniquely characterized by a "split" over the Invention issue ... Let's say Ralph's point is 100% right on the mark. I submit that it's no particular threat to the theory as currently constructed. What's difficult about that potential split being a feature of Simulationist play as a category? In-play features and diversity aren't expected to be parallel among the modes. We found a feature of Sim play-diversity. Cool.

What's difficult is that you've put the most divergent extremists in gaming together in the same box. The most freewheeling make-it-up-as-you-go-along-ers (unconstrained even by any need to stay focused on a theme) with the most meticulous rules-sticklers (without even Step On Up concerns to tempt them to bend the rules or exploit a loophole from time to time). Those focused on aesthetic qualities of outcome vs. those focused on perfection of the process. GMs who cannot imagine fudging rolls with GMs who cannot imagine not fudging rolls. Trekkies for whom fidelity to Trek means a phaser on "kill" vaporizes a humanoid regardless of hit location, and Trekkies for whom fidelity to Trek means that bridge officers always survive no matter what. Players seeking the most points of contact possible (effective Gamism usually evolves limits on points of contact due to their diminishing returns in building resource-management richness, while purist-for-system Sim does not) and those seeking the least (e.g. Shadows-playing uncles who don't mind having too few points of contact to allow negotiation of a consistent Premise). Players deliberately using less than optimum tactics because it will lead to more interesting situations and players deliberately using less than optimum tactics because their character's Intelligence stat is "too low" for them to have thought of a better option. Turku immersionists and character-design-in-play auteurs. And the vastly greater numbers whose preferences are more moderate, but who still manage to see themselves on one side or the other of the divide, which they might express in terms of "process vs. outcome," "high fidelity vs. low fidelity" (but you have to know fidelity exactly to what to figure out which side they're on), "flexible vs. strict," or "rules-oriented vs. story-oriented."

It's a bit like you've seated the most militant anti-abortionists at the same banquet table with the most militant abortion-rights advocates, because they have in common a strong interest in the abortion issue. In this case, what they share is an intense focus on Exploration -- that is, Exploration-squared. (Note: no "just" here.) They differ in just about all areas of technique and asethetics, except for the de-prioritization of Gamist and Narrativist agendas. Once they realize they're in the same box with their opposite members, their natural reaction is to reject the box and its theoretical framework.

Sure, there are diversities and divergences in the Gamist and Narrativist boxes as well (the arena for competition in Gamism, the degree of overtness of the metagame in Narrativsm, among others), but they just don't compare. One can describe a Narrativist-facilitating game mechanism and other Narrativists will agree that's what it is, even if it's not to their exact taste (e.g. too overtly metagame). Ditto Gamist. But there's no such thing as a Simulationist-facilitating game mechanism. Only mechanisms that might facilitate a Simulationist's play and might be detrimental to it, depending on which side their preferences fall on. (Try it with Fortune in the Middle, for instance.)

- Walt

Walt,

That's a well-reasoned and pretty compelling argument for splitting Sim.  I only see two things that keep me from agreeing (and I say that having started the "Things NOT GNS" thread at least partially because splitting Sim seemed bad and wrong to me):

1)  G, N and S are NOT the only really, REALLY important things about roleplaying styles.  I think everyone knows this, and from time to time someone points it out - but "the theory" is called GNS, and thus other stuff is easy to forget/de-emphasize.  I think we'd be better served by adding these other really, really important things to the model/discussions in a more powerful way than we have so far.  Ralph's point that constantly tripping over "you can't have Director Sim" is annoying is well-taken.  But is splitting Sim the best solution?

2)  I think the issues you point to in variably-inventive Sim play certainly exists in other play as well - I've seen Gamists of different stripes at each others' throats because of differences about the flavor of Gamism they want.  Over invention?  Maybe not - I'll have to think on that a bit.  But would that matter?  As long as important aspects of play lead to issues with that  play (within particular GNS modes), does it really matter that inventiveness has particular (though not exclusive) importance within Sim?  Like (maybe) "balance" has particular (though not exclusive) importance within Gamism?

Those are authentic questions - maybe inventiveness IS a big enough issue that it effectively constitutes a Priority at the GNS level.  Your post certainly is persuasive as to its' importance.  I'm just not sure what the best thing to do about that is.

Gordon

EDIT for clarity

Hi there,

All systems of classification are going to rely on some variables and de-emphasize others. I've tried to focus on observable processes of play, and tried to keep G, N, and S about fundamental aesthetics rather than about techniques.

Maybe this will help (Jack Spencer brought this up one time). "Mammal" refers to a variety of animals. In biology, it means not only a set of descriptive features, but also a common phylogenetic history (i.e. literal relatedness).

But some mammals swim and have no legs. Others fly. Others burrow, etc, etc. Now, every child on this planet must have explained to him or her, counter to his or her perfectly reasonable perception, that a whale is not a fish, or to put it in technical terms, that ecomorphology does not have to be absolutely fixed with regard to phylogeny.

The classification stands currently because the idea (classification based on shared ancestry) has been multiply corroborated. It doesn't matter that the one classification (mammal) contains a multitude of diversity, as those diverse variables are not considered to violate the conclusion suggested by the variables used to identify the ancestry.

So what is my "idea" regarding GNS? I'm talking about creative agendas at the grand scale. It seems to me that no one "plays Simulationist" at this grand level, any more than a given mammal can be said to be The Mammal (it cannot). An individual "application" is by definition inadequate to exemplify its larger category. Similarly, any two mammals will be "incompatible" in terms of whether they are the same creature.

Since it seems to me that Techniques operate at a much more applied and localized level than Creative Agendas, most of the stuff you list (which is a great list, by the way) seems to me to be about Techniques.

Best,
Ron

Ron -

And preferences in the domain of Techniques (is 'inventiveness' in that domain?) can be as powerful and important as preferences in the domain of Creative Agenda (GNS)?

I think so - and that therefore, the "solution" is to talk up Techniques a heck of a lot more than we have been, and I sense you heading in that direction.  But regardless of the solution - I want to make sure that "preference for particular Techniques" makes sense to you as a powerful factor in this understanding.  That, I think, might help with the within-Sim conflict issue.  But am I adding something inaapropriate to your analysis?

Gordon

Hi Gordon,

Since play is composed of Techniques, the answer is Yes.

Currency, IIEE, character creation, resolution (DFK), reward systems, and the comparatively fleeting Stances, are all "spheres" of Techniques.

Can we talk about a given profile, or set of profiles, defined by the Techniques it contains? Yes. Could it be possible that some sets, with very little adjustment among their members, satisfy or work well for more than one GNS mode? Yes. Could it be possible that some sets are limited to very specific pinpoint-spots within a single GNS mode? Yes.

Can you talk about Techniques in practical terms without at least referring to the GNS mode or modes also in play? Probably not. That leads us into "roll vs. role" and similar stuff. It's another way of saying that people don't do X, Y, and Z for no reason at all.

This is the kind of stuff I wanted to talk about all along, dating all the way back to the Gaming Outpost. If it hadn't been for all sorts of Sturm und Drang about whether GNS was (a) evil or (b) stupid or (c) misguided (poor fellow), we woulda done it by now. Then again, all the clarification from those days and since then (with special acknowledgment to the Scarlet Jester, for Exploration) has proven valuable.

Best,
Ron

Ron,

Would Illusionistic Sim play be considered a Technique in the sense you are using here?

Yes to inapproriate, or yes to powerful and important?  I'll assume powerful and important . . .

And sure, discussing a Technique without a GNS context might/can/does get all out of control.  But my thought, for what it's worth - fuck it.  Time to just start discussing the Technique, make a GNS context as clear as can be managed, and just take it from there.  Some threads have managed to do this before, and I'd like to see more do so in the future.

There's only so far that understanding GNS can take you . . .

Gordon

Quote from: Gordon C. LandisThere's only so far that understanding GNS can take you . . .

Sure.  But not everybody is walking the same speed, and some people started later than others...

Regarding the mammals analogy, sure, mammals are diverse. But they also have traits in common, even if those traits are no longer definitional for the category. Some are unique to the category (hair, mammary glands) and some aren't (backbones, warm-blooded), but at least there's no need to resort entirely to universals (carbon-based lifeform) and negatives (no scales) when describing mammals. There are some definite characteristics that blue whales and shrews share, along with all other mammals and no non-mammals.

The only things all Sim play shares are universals (Exploration) and negatives (not Gamist, not Narrativist). The efforts so far to come up with a positive quality unique to the category have not had impressive results. ("Iin-game causality," "fidelity," and "verisimilitude" have all proven inadequate as characteristic features, and so far the difference between the Sim-specific "Exploration squared" and the universal "Exploration" is about as clear as the difference between "probation" and "double secret probation" in Animal House.)

Anyway, I feel I've been able to present my case as well as I could have hoped to, and I've been fairly heard, so this is the end of it (unless and until I decide to propose an alternative model).

Quote from: GordonG, N and S are NOT the only really, REALLY important things about roleplaying styles. I think everyone knows this, and from time to time someone points it out - but "the theory" is called GNS, and thus other stuff is easy to forget/de-emphasize. I think we'd be better served by adding these other really, really important things to the model/discussions in a more powerful way than we have so far.

Quote from: And RonThis is the kind of stuff I wanted to talk about all along, dating all the way back to the Gaming Outpost. If it hadn't been for all sorts of Sturm und Drang about whether GNS was (a) evil or (b) stupid or (c) misguided (poor fellow), we woulda done it by now.

OK, let's do it! Would it make sense to do some sort of inventory on the "really important things"? Who should start the thread?

- Walt

Quote from: AnyaTheBlue

Quote from: Gordon C. LandisThere's only so far that understanding GNS can take you . . .

Sure.  But not everybody is walking the same speed, and some people started later than others...

Yup - in no way should the need/desire to "move on" remove the need to explain the starting point, and be nice to those who ask for help in understanding it.

But I do think some movin' on is needed.  

Gordon

Quote from: Walt FreitagWhat's difficult [about that potential split being a feature of Simulationist play as a category] is that you've put the most divergent extremists in gaming together in the same box. The most freewheeling make-it-up-as-you-go-along-ers (unconstrained even by any need to stay focused on a theme) with the most meticulous rules-sticklers (without even Step On Up concerns to tempt them to bend the rules or exploit a loophole from time to time). Those focused on aesthetic qualities of outcome vs. those focused on perfection of the process. GMs who cannot imagine fudging rolls with GMs who cannot imagine not fudging rolls. Trekkies for whom fidelity to Trek means a phaser on "kill" vaporizes a humanoid regardless of hit location, and Trekkies for whom fidelity to Trek means that bridge officers always survive no matter what. Players seeking the most points of contact possible (effective Gamism usually evolves limits on points of contact due to their diminishing returns in building resource-management richness, while purist-for-system Sim does not) and those seeking the least (e.g. Shadows-playing uncles who don't mind having too few points of contact to allow negotiation of a consistent Premise). Players deliberately using less than optimum tactics because it will lead to more interesting situations and players deliberately using less than optimum tactics because their character's Intelligence stat is "too low" for them to have thought of a better option. Turku immersionists and character-design-in-play auteurs. And the vastly greater numbers whose preferences are more moderate, but who still manage to see themselves on one side or the other of the divide, which they might express in terms of "process vs. outcome," "high fidelity vs. low fidelity" (but you have to know fidelity exactly to what to figure out which side they're on), "flexible vs. strict," or "rules-oriented vs. story-oriented."

I disagree, Walt--not that the category of simulationist includes such diverse approaches (it does), but that this makes it different from gamist or narrativist play.

In gamist play, you've got those for whom dice luck is god and strategy pointless versus those for whom the impact of dice should be minimized or eliminated so that strategy can control the outcome. You've got those who need to min/max their characters in any way possible as a gamist priority and those who need to play with what they're dealt as a gamist priority. You've got those for whom any rule that limits ability for arbitrary reasons (e.g., character race, alignment, height) should be ignored, versus those who consider such limits part of the challenge. In some ways, the disagreements are all the fiercer because it is gamist play.

In a sense, what you've expressed shows that the dream is the priority for all the people you've mentioned, precisely because they argue with each other about how to fulfill the dream. Do you see that? Gamists don't really argue about those things; they argue about what aspects of play are part of the challenge and which are arbitrary nonsense that should be revised. Narrativists don't argue simulationist issues; they argue about how much authorial power players should have in addressing theme. Within a category the arguments are about those issues that are important to addressing the goals of that category. We know two players are both gamist if they're arguing about whether min/maxing or playing what you're dealt is the correct way to meet the challenge. We know two players are narrativist if they're arguing about what sort of player credibility is needed to address theme. Similarly, we know that all the people you've named are simulationist, if they're arguing about whether you explore the dream by experiencing it or inventing it, and to what degree. They couldn't have that argument at all if they didn't first share the priority of exploring the dream.

Asides.

Inventiveness is a matter of apportionment of credibility--who has the right to create in what circumstances and within what parameters. Everyone always has some credibility in this area, even if it's only the power to invent the actions of a controled character, and even if there's a canon that is authoritative and rules about who can appeal to it and who gets to interpret it.

In regard to backbones not being unique to mammals, that actually illustrates an important aspect of taxonomy: mammalia is a subgroup of chordata, just as narrativism is a subgroup of social contract.

Warmblooded also illustrates something else. It is a factor found in all mammals and birds, no fish, insects, or amphibians, and (apparently) some (extinct) reptiles. Similarly, and more telling, color vision is found independently among primates, felines, avians, and insects, and largely absent outside those groups, but clearly those groups are not more closely related to each other for that--independent development is the explanation. It is quite possible that the same aspect can be useful to different categories; "warm blooded" and "spectrum-discriminating" are found in some but not all creatures in several diverse categories, just as "author stance" is found in some instances of all forms of GNS play, but is still below GNS in the taxonomy.

Quote from: WaltThe efforts so far to come up with a positive quality unique to the category have not had impressive results. ("Iin-game causality," "fidelity," and "verisimilitude" have all proven inadequate as characteristic features, and so far the difference between the Sim-specific "Exploration squared" and the universal "Exploration" is about as clear as the difference between "probation" and "double secret probation" in Animal House.)

Ah, but perhaps it is the language that is vague; the experience may be quite specific. What is it that makes all fantasy fantastic, all science fiction sci-fi, or all mysteries mysteries? We can't always express what we recognize as unifying factors. Simulationism has this commitment to prioritizing the shared dream, regardless of who is allowed to mold the dream in what ways.

I think perhaps there's a reason for the negative definition that has nothing to do with it being negative: our experience in gaming tends to dictate an expectation of something else. If you tell someone with gamist experience that sim is about exploring the world, they say (in one way or another), "Yes, I explore the world, and overcome all the challenges in my path as I do so, and have become very good at overcoming those challenges." If you tell someone who has been pursuing narrativist priorities that sim is about exploring the world, they say, "Yes, I explore the world and find all kinds of wonderful moral and ethical lessons within it to examine." In both cases, the answer of the simulationist is, "You're exploring the wrong thing. You have prioritized specific aspects of the world to explore. We're not doing that; we have prioritized exploring the entirety of it, and not specific aspects."

Narrativism and Gamism could have been negatively defined as easily as--or perhaps more easily than--Simulationism, but that they are more familiar to experienced players. Gamism is "explore the world, but don't explore anything in any detail that doesn't matter to the challenges  presented." Narrativism is "explore the world but don't worry about anything that doesn't have to do with the themes we're trying to address." Simulationism is "explore the world, but don't get caught up in any tiny piece of it to the exclusion of the rest."

So even the idea that simulationism is different because it's defined as a negative falls apart. Really, gamism and narrativism are the negatives--they exclude vast areas of the world that are not related to their priorities; simulationism excludes that aspect of forming priorities by which to exclude vast areas of the world. It is the more positive concept in game priorities, because it includes everything, not just the things that are relevant to narrowly defined play priorities. Its perceived narrowness comes from its efforts to protect itself against those who would prefer to focus on a part rather than the whole, who would negatively exclude most of the world in favor of those bits that relate to challenge or theme only.

Gamists and narrativists don't see it because of course they are aware of the existence of the rest of the world--they just don't care about it. Sure, the world is there, and it matters in the sense that we have to accept that it's there, but why should we waste time on parts of the world that have nothing to do with what we're really attempting? Simulationists are saying you can't exclude the exploration of aspects of the world merely because you find them boring; they're not boring--they're fascinating. Just like someone might want to discover a new species of plant or animal in reality, a simulationist might enjoy discovering such a thing in an imaginary world. There is neither challenge nor theme there, but it is not therefore unimportant.

That's more than I intended to say; I hope it's helpful.

--M. J. Young