transparent vs. mechanical

[Marco]

In the post on diceless Sim, Ron says:

1. Marco, quick clarifier: I do not suggest that either The Window or Theatrix is any sort of Sim exemplar in game design at all. Far from it. I tried to explain how both, in my view, go all kerflooey in actual play. That's about all I can say about either in GNS terms. In line with Mike Holmes' correct and all-too-rarely heard points, all-kerflooey play is not Sim.

This was in regards to an earlier post where Ron said that games that (this is my paraphrase) aimed for transparency during play (FUDGE) vs. mechanical riggor (GURPS, I think) are going for the same thing--but go about it different ways.

My observation was that I had found that most games (that I had seen) that touted transparency were very different in creative asthetic (what they were shooting for) from, say, GURPS (which I know extensively) or Hero (which I realize is also not categorically Sim in Ron's assessment-- but which I find creatively almost identical to GURPS).

I wanted to discuss this, so I'm starting another thread (rather than hijacking the Sim-Diceless thread).

So here's my observation: The Window  is considered (by me--and others) about as transparent as systems come. Unisystem (Lite) gets credit for being "transparent" too--although it's, IMO, considerably heavier.

GURPS Lite is, frankly, pretty easy on the rules too (I've never tried to play with just those rules--but people tell me that, yes, it's playable).

Now: GURPS vs. GURPS Lite  clearly is a case of the same asthetic (end-goal) being addressed two different ways--but GURPS Lite (AFAIK) was never touted as transparent (i.e. SJ Games doesn't say "GURPS Lite is the version that gets out of the way and lets you tell the story!")--it's just easier to get into GURPS.

Similiarly, IIRC Over the Edge was/is considered coherent and Narrativist although really it's (a) one of the most transparent systems out there and (b) other than it's extreme lite-ness I woulda said it share the same creative asthetic as GURPS/GURPS Lite.

Now--lest anyone think I'm gearing up to disagree with Ron--and everyone's welcome to contribute--but I'm also askin' Ron directly--I don't remember OtE all that well and I'll buy that Theatrix and The Window have (as is noted) some problems.

So I don't disagree with the conclusions--but I'm interested in knowing:

1. Why the creative asthetic of OtE is different from, say GURPS Lite: Almajara (if one existed).

One reason I can think of is that you could play, say, an intelligent pay-phone in OtE but that'd be a bit harder in GURPS (although it could be done with the expanded rule-sets or one giant disadvantage: PayPhone).

But I'm not sure this is a basic creative-asthetic issue though. If we were using the systems to simply run an X-Files investigative game (set in OtE's world--this doesn't seem like a real perversion of OtE's spirit), everyone would be some sort of normal-human and both systems would, IMO, function nearly identically and well within their asthetic.

As I said, it's been a loooooong time since I looked at OtE--so tell me where my assessment misses the mark.

2. If many of the games that tout transparency are, in fact, "incoherent" or "have problems in play" then is it fair to say that games aiming for transparency share a real asthetic with those that shoot for mechanical simulation?

Certianly Unisystem-Lite and GURPS/GURPS-lite seem to share some asthetic but I think these are not really text-book examples of the transparent system asthetic.

-Marco

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Marco,

There are too many angles on this topic for me to provide any actual, sensible, single response.

The first angle is that I have gone to great lengths to demonstrate that "transparency" is a meaningless term (see Transparency again). As far as I can tell, it is no more nor less than saying "the system works for me" by a particular person, and therefore meaningless as a descriptor of anything specific.

The second angle is that my points to Chris are wholly within the context of his discussion of Simulationist play. Actually, this is two angles: (1) straightforward Simulationist play as opposed to other Creative Agendas, including those which might combine Sim with other things; and (2) play rather than game design.

The latter is actually the most important. I think we were pretty careful in the parent thread to stick with talking about play rather than pointing at rulebooks. That's going to be crucial here too.

Now, finally, the third angle, which is I suppose sort of a response to your inquiry ... the two forms of play we're talking about, in my view, are incontrovertibly, completely, and non-controversially united by their common aesthetic goal. The observation that they are considered wholly separate by their practitioners, to the point of subcultural division, is to me a perfect example of The People's Front of Judea vs. The Judean People's Front.

This issue strikes me very much as a Techniques question, which itself requires us all to recognize that a given Creative Agenda is not, itself, a "thing" until we specify it to a group and to a set of techniques they practice. With respect, I sometimes get the idea that you'd like to see each Creative Agenda skewer the Big Model in a unique way, relative to the internal Techniques, and that overlap or commonality of Techniques (or in this case, distinctions within one of them) tends to strike you as inconsistencies in the whole framework.

Dedicated practitioners of Sim play, for various reasons, are vulnerable to a lot of synecdoche in their thinking. Our way to get "here" is the way, or the real way. I consider most of the comparison and distinctions between the two are very interesting and important as techniques, but are fully consistent with the overriding Creative Agenda at the definitional level.

The Techniques-splits among folks who are interested in Sim play (or more than interested, more like fixated on it) are interesting to compare with the massive Techniques-crossovers among folks who are primarily interested in both Gamist and Narrativist play.

Dunno if any of this helped or made sense. I'm not real optimistic about this thread, but will be happy if someone surprises me about that.

Best,
Ron

[Marco]

Ron,

Thanks for the reply (although the gloomy tone of it leads me to wonder if you find the question annoying).

A few comments and a question:

1.I understand what you are saying about transparent as a general term. I thought you were pretty clear when you used it and I felt I was using it in the same vein. If that's not the case, let me know.

2. I understand that Sim in actual play is different than game-design (and the relation between the two areas is where I have most of my questions about the model). I'm not sure where this falls. I'd thought your post was pretty explicitly about game-design (your post talks about game design and, I thought, design goals). If it was explicitly about play, that's cool too--either way.

3. I'd thought an answer to my questions about your perspective on the matter (the one about OtE vs. GURPS Lite, and the one asking about many transparent games having play-problems) would shed some light on the topic.

Did you feel those were too broadly stated or unclear?

Question:

Now, finally, the third angle, which is I suppose sort of a response to your inquiry ... the two forms of play we're talking about, in my view, are incontrovertibly, completely, and non-controversially united by their common aesthetic goal. The observation that they are considered wholly separate by their practitioners, to the point of subcultural division, is to me a perfect example of The People's Front of Judea vs. The Judean People's Front.

In terms of play what exactly are these two forms? How does "transparent" vs. "representational" apply to techniques?

-Marco

[clehrich]

I think the problem here is that "creative aesthetic" is being used for multiple purposes.

You give this example where the question is, "Can you play a pay-phone?"  I don't get what this has to do with creative aesthetics.  This seems to me like a constraint on what games are about, not what they accomplish.

I think what Ron is saying is that these various kinds of Sim all want the same thing, and use very different means to achieve them.  But what it is they "want", i.e. the CA or creative aesthetic principles and goals, is not part of setting or "what you can play" or that stuff.  It's about what Ron calls the Dream, i.e. the way we interact with the SIS.

My sense is that we have to start by looking at what particular Sim games have in common as an aesthetic agenda in play.  Only within that commonalty can we begin to consider what differentiates their methods and purposes.  If in fact these do not have a common agenda at all, then for sure GNS is broken as a classification system, but I think there has been general agreement that these games can be put in the same box.  We cannot, however, begin with games that are not in the same box in the first place; if OtE is classified as Nar, then it's non-comparable with GURPS at the level of CA.

I guess I'm still not quite getting what your focus is here, Marco.

[Marco]

I think the problem here is that "creative aesthetic" is being used for multiple purposes.

You give this example where the question is, "Can you play a pay-phone?"  I don't get what this has to do with creative aesthetics.  This seems to me like a constraint on what games are about, not what they accomplish.

That was mostly an aside--I could see someone telling me that OtE was vastly different from GURPS-lite because it's scope was broader. I would say that objection is tangiental to the discussion too.

I think what Ron is saying is that these various kinds of Sim all want the same thing, and use very different means to achieve them.  But what it is they "want", i.e. the CA or creative aesthetic principles and goals, is not part of setting or "what you can play" or that stuff.  It's about what Ron calls the Dream, i.e. the way we interact with the SIS.

Right--and because I'm still not clear on exactly what it is they want in his opinion, I'm thinking that maybe if he can be more explicit about how games that I see as vastly disparate achieve that same-ness then it might be clearer.

My sense is that we have to start by looking at what particular Sim games have in common as an aesthetic agenda in play.  Only within that commonalty can we begin to consider what differentiates their methods and purposes.  If in fact these do not have a common agenda at all, then for sure GNS is broken as a classification system, but I think there has been general agreement that these games can be put in the same box.  We cannot, however, begin with games that are not in the same box in the first place; if OtE is classified as Nar, then it's non-comparable with GURPS at the level of CA.

Well, if we assume that OtE is "Nar" because of "X" and GURPS-Lite is Sim because of "Not-X but instead Y" then yes, I agree.

That's exactly what I'm asking about. What is the "X" that makes OtE Narrativist when GURPS-Lite would (presumably) be Sim? See, I don't remember OtE that well. There are probably some nuances of the system I don't recal--and if someone points them out to me I'll go "oh, yeah, okay--I remember that." and then maybe I'll agree (or not)-but I'll know what Ron's sayin'.

But right now I see games that claim to be "transparent" as being quite different in goals than games that are more representational. My focus was to ask:

1. Is the goal really the same: Is "getting out of the way so you can get to the story" really the same as "giving you the tools to model an imaginary world"?

It may be--and it's possibly an insightful statement to make--surely the foundation of Big Model Sim. So I want some further explanation of how, say, GURPS-Lite (say) has different goals than OtE.

Edited to add: That's still asked in terms of game design. A more play oriented way to say it is: "I want play that's a good storyand doesn't focus on rigorous defintion of character or action or any kind of real-world plausibility" vs. "I want play that simulates being in an actual imaginary universe."

2. How is that carried out in terms of design (i.e. why does The Window fall short?)

I guess I'm still not quite getting what your focus is here, Marco.

Hopefully the above was a bit clearer.
-Marco

[Valamir]

To understand what Ron is saying you have to understand what Ron means by Simulationism.  To do that you have to pretty much discard the word Simulation and replace it with Emulation.  I mentioned to Ron awhile back that if he'd labeled the term Emulation from the beginning there'd be about 20,000 fewer "what the hell is Sim" posts on the Forge today.

GNS Sim...the Dream...is about Emulation.  Its about people sitting around a table, getting a groove on about a particular genre or subgenre or trope and then making sure actual play accurately Emulates that.

The reason that Transparent vs. Representational Sim rules can be said to be similar is because they are both about delivering Emulation.

In the Tranparent approach all of the players already know, understand, and appreciate the target of Emulation.  They don't need or want rules getting between them and the expression of that Emulation.  The less they have to drop into rules and the more they can simply rely on their shared understanding the more and better they can shape their Emulation.

In the Representational approach you use the rules to deliver Emulation.  If it is part of the shared understanding of the given genre that a hero is either swift but weak or strong but slow then there will be rules built into character generation that range from encouraging to requiring adhereing to the acceptable archetypes.  The goal here is that simply by playing the game with the rules as written Emulation will be achieved because the rules already disallow that which is not emulative and encourage that which is.  An advantage to these rules is that you don't need shared understanding of the genre's tropes in order to play...just someone policing the rules and the tropes will fall into place.  Also you are not at the whim of players with less commitment to Emulation because regardless of their personal commitment to it, enforcing the rules will force them to adhere to at least minimal Emulative standards.

Both seek Emulation...both are very different approaches to the same thing.

Clearer?

[Marco]

Hey Ralph,

Good answer--and, yes, I've known for a long time that Sim != Simulation*. In terms of what the various game-designers (Steve Jackson for GURPS, Steffan O'Sullivan for FUDGE, or Scott Lininger for The Window, etc.) wanted vs. what "Sim players" want, I can see how the goals of design could be very different and the goals of play could be the same--it seemed to me that Ron was stating that the goals of design for the various systems were really the same, ultimately--which surprised me.

But I'm guessing I misunderstood that.

My question, though, is still about what specifically distinguishes OtE from GURPS-Lite in terms of Nar-vs-Sim since, to my recollection, they were both cause-and-effecty systems.

(and, as a collary, seeing that The Window is as transparent as systems come, IMO, why do we think it *doesn't* it work well for those using the transparency format for Sim play?)

-Marco
* My statement that "I don't know what they want" has to do with the mechanism by which input is confirmed for Sim (the answer to which Ron is still working on, I think). If you tell me there was a game and "everyone's focus was the star trek physics" then I can pretty safely say that's Sim, yes.

[Valamir]

My question, though, is still about what specifically distinguishes OtE from GURPS-Lite in terms of Nar-vs-Sim since, to my recollection, they were both cause-and-effecty systems.

Where are you seeing distinctions between the two being made?  What makes you think that GNS theory would categorize one as being one thing and the other as being the other.

I don't recall anyone concluding that OtE is a Nar game.

I think when it was being designed and playtested it probably was.  But then all of the juicy wacky stuff they dreamt up in playtest became "official setting stuff".  In every game of OtE I've ever seen or heard tell of the primary goal of play was definitely to emulate the wierdness of the setting and either recapture or even one up the bizarro concoctions that the designers came up with.

It strikes me as a very much a Sim game, using Emulation as a definition.

GURPS has always been a representational Sim game.  One that I've criticised in the past (as you well know) for emphasising the Generic Universal aspects over a more custom representational approach.  But clearly emulation (of whatever setting book one is using) is the goal of the design.

I haven't seen GURPS lite, but if its anything like Chivalry & Sorcery Lite then its still GURPS, just trimmed.

As far as criticism of the Window...the Window has been criticised on two levels.

1) for all its vaunted ranting about story, the rules have absolutely nothing to do with story and everything to do with removing any impediment to the GM running his railroad with no rules getting in his way.  The style of play encouraged by the Window is a far cry from Narrativism although the Window is (was...not so much anymore) often the first game internet-game-savvy people think of when narrativism is first explained to them.

2) The rules are pointless.  They aren't a good example of rules light or Transparancy because they're pretty much non functional.  They are 100% illusiary.  Here's how The Window works:  GM wants you to fail, you fail.  GM wants you to succeed you succeed.  In between you pretend like events aren't predetermined by rolling some dice.  The only time the dice actually result in anything is when the GM really doesn't have a preference and is letting a random roll make his decision for him.  Its just a broken system period.  I'm not sure what comparison you're hoping to draw from it.


Edited because an inadvertant mouse click submitted by post only half finished

[Marco]

Well, that might be my point of miss-remembering. I'd recalled seeing a list of Nar games and seeing OtE on it. I can't find it now, though.

I'd wondered about that. If it's considered Sim then that explains that.

:)

-Marco

[Ron Edwards]

Hiya,

Geez, I guess I forced a lot of people into guessing "what I mean." I try not to do that.

Marco, you didn't annoy me at all with this thread. In fact, if you don't mind an after-you-Alphonse moment, I am enjoying all the threads in this forum very much, and I really like the way we are all interacting about stuff. (Plus the crossover with Actual Play since the thread-rearrangement)

Anyway ... I often talk about Over the Edge as a Narrativist-facilitating game, but have come to realize that's because as a reader, I focused on three things that spoke to me: (1) the use of the very same mechanics for every character regardless of concept, (2) Premise-rich elements at the general level of the setting, and (3) Robin Laws' essay. Played with those up front, it'd be hella Narrativist, which is apparently partly much what happened among the core OtE guys (Laws, Tweet, Tynes, Stolze, etc).

But the text can equally be read from a setting-heavy, emulative viewpoint, very much along the lines which Delta Green is written on. Ten years ago, if someone did that, I'd have said something intolerant like "you're reading it wrong."

So at this point, I tend to think of the game text of Over the Edge as being Abashed Narrativist or kinda bogus-fluffy Setting Simulationist, depending on the mental highlighter the reader brings to it. In fact, I'll also peg the first edition as a little more the former and the second edition as a little more the latter.

Best,
Ron