An effort to un-gum the Discussion.

[M. J. Young]

I cannot believe that functional roleplay includes not roleplaying but rather sitting back and listening to someone else roleplay.  I think that in your #4 situation, what is happening is that the players are having a meaningful impact, but would prefer not to think so, for any number of reasons.

Let's suppose we have a gamist game in progress. We've got a mid-sized group, eight or nine character players and a referee. The referee sets up the challenges, of course, and the players as a group face them. In this particular group, three of the players always step up to the challenges and overcome them. The rest of them encourage them to do so and cheer their successes, riding the coattails of the really capable players toward ultimate team victory.

It's a bit like you an me being on a basketball team with three NBA stars. We're not going to contribute anything but fill out the roster, while they're going to run up and down the court and score a lot of baskets--but in the end, we're going to feel like winners when our team wins.

That tells me that you don't have to step up to the challenge to be playing gamist. You don't have to do anything at all, except facilitate and encourage the play of whoever is the active player.

What we may have here in an X-ist game is a batch of players all of whom have gone into "cheering" mode.

The question then becomes, are you legitimately playing in a particular agendum if you, personally, are not ever significantly contributing to the contents of the shared imagined space but you are accepting and endorsing the contributions made by those who are? I think it's clearly the case that you are a participant in the game by virtue of your positive social reinforcement of the development of the shared imagined space. Thus it is fair to suggest that it might be possible for a dozen character players to be doing nothing more than encouraging the referee to continue to tell his story, and this be a functional role playing session.

How is this different from storytelling? I don't know. Does it have to be? Obviously, listening to books on tape is an extreme--the storyteller gets no feedback from the audience. The teacher reading to the class gets some feedback, but does not alter any of the content of the story, nor even the phrasing, but only possibly the delivery. A scoutmaster telling a story by a campfire is probably somewhat more responsive to his audience, phrasing his story to enhance their response. A referee creating a story around the imagined personae of his players' characters is as much telling a story as Charleton Heston is when he records a novel, but he's interacting with his audience a great deal more, because they are encouraging him. I don't think it has to be more different than that. I don't think you always have to be able to say, "this is storytelling" versus "this is roleplaying" in any particular instance. It's role playing if the players feel like they're part of it, and storytelling if they feel like they're listening. It's at that point entirely subjective: what do the participants believe they are doing? That's what they are doing.

I think that the crux here is that an approach implies that one intends to do something, and that means one has to have some sort of impact.

When we speak of the creative agendum of a game, we are speaking of the unified creative agendum of a gaming group. If we don't have a unified agendum, we have dysfunction.

However, because we are talking about the agendum of the group, your concern here evaporates. A gamist creative agendum does not mean that every player at the table expects to step up to the challenge--the referee clearly does not, but is playing just as gamist as everyone else. What the group agendum means is that as a group we intend to do some specific thing. It does not matter to the sense of their being an agendum which members of the group actually are doing it. It only matters that at least one member is doing it and the rest are "on the same page", reinforcing and encouraging that choice.

--M. J. Young

[Silmenume]

OK – here's part two of my response.

An offshoot of this is the fact that play without CA is impossible.  You cant approach situation without an idea of how to do so.  You must approach the situation in some manner, that approach is CA.

Caldis, I do agree with you that the "approach" to Situation is CA (or at least central to or definitional), but I am not certain that players always do have an idea of how to approach Situation.  "Tourism" is a perfect example of this "style" of play.  Now "Tourism" may ultimately be consigned to the umbrella of Zilchplay, but there are players who do Explore (share imagining using the elements of Exploration – sans conflict) who do not have an "approach to Situation."  Or perhaps they do have an approach and it is simply, "I don't want to have to deal with Situation," or "I'm not interested in Situation."  Zilchplay itself may ultimately find itself outside the model, but there are people who Explore without an "approach" to Situation (conflict).

As a quick not I believe there are three types of Situation from a Character's point of view – [list=1][*]Negative = conflict – there is something in the Setting that is impeding a character goal.[*]Positive = success - there is something in the Setting that is aiding or fulfilling a character goal.[*]Neutral – that portion of the Setting which does not have a noticeable impact on a Character goal either positive or negative.[/list:o]Why go through this trouble?  Because I believe that Situation has been assumed to be of the "negative impact on Character goal" variety, i.e. conflict.  I don't believe the Model ever explicitly states that "conflict" is the only type of Situation that is being referred to when speaking of CA.  Thus some are arguing, M. J. Young for example, that Situation neutral play (Tourism) is an acceptable form of roleplay.  If this is to be clarified some notation about the necessity of conflict or "negative Situation" needs to be made thus making the assumption overt.

Now on to Chris' rephrasing of Caldis.

Okay, here's how I read this.  There are three elements to CA-meaningful play:

How I

approach play
What impact I have on play
What result I get from play[/list:u]

This formulation is eerily close to the formulation that I had provided in my original post.

CA expression -> effect -> affect = Functional roleplay

Now let me provide a Rosetta stone to translate –

[*]effect = impact on play.[*]affect = result I get from play.[*]"CA expression" was a very poor phrasing of an idea I've been fussing over basically since I arrived here and became familiar with the model.  What I meant by CA expression was something like this.  When a player decides to roleplay he is trying to fulfill a desire.  This "desire" is the desire for the affect of "Step on Up, Story Now or the Dream."  However, in order to fulfill his desire (attain his desired affect) he must engage Situation in a certain fashion in order to try and create the circumstances whereby he then "feels" the desired affect.  That certain fashion is "approach to play" or more specifically approach to Situation/conflict.  Thus one's desire for a specific type of affect guides how one "approaches play" i.e. how one drives effect.[/list:u]The irony of this cycle is that we start off in with this real but admittedly subjective affect with a desire, we then operate on (have an effect on) a fictional non-tangible objective reality in the hopes of creating a real but non-tangible subjective affect.  This leads me to this formulation –

Desire for specific affect (Step on Up, Story Now, the Dream) -> effect -> affect.[/list:u]One problem in the model lies in how CA's are delimited.  Ostensibly they are defined by process of effect.  That is extremely workable and works perfectly within one of the base notions of the Model that one can only use "observable" behavior to make diagnosis about CA.  IOW CA is defined by the observable behavior of the participants.  That which is observable is the players communicating about the objective but fictional SIS.  We know the players are there ultimately to satisfy affect, but the problem is that affect is not objective and directly observable but interior and subjective.  CA is not coequal to affect, but defined as the process of trying to create circumstances favorable for the specific desired affect state via (observable) effect.  Yes, I agree that it is silly to "divorce" CA discussions from affect, but how can we argue affect is (can be?) definitional on the one hand and say the model is solely objective on the other?  There is this transformative black box that sits between effect (objective) and affect (subjective) and things can go wrong there.  If this translation process is not perfect can we then define CA by something that may not arise (affect) even if the process (effect) was fully operational?  We are not guaranteed that following process (effect) will lead to affect; conversely just because we conclude (for example) Theme (affect) is present it does not guarantee that addressing Premise (effect) was going on.  Affect is the why of CA, but it is not the observable process of CA which is defined by effect.

Affect is critical, but it is not definitional of a CA.  Heck, we have already argued that affect is not enough to say a CA is being expressed.  IOW its not enough for the players to "say" they are getting their "Step on Up" when they aren't effecting the Situation.

My logic may be faulty, but have I at least shed any light on my position?

Chris,

I'm OK with "impact" replacing "effect," but I think "result" is just as potentially confusing a term as "affect" because "result" easily brings to mind the SIS.  "Impression" or "Impress" maybe?

[Marco]

How is this different from storytelling? I don't know. Does it have to be? Obviously, listening to books on tape is an extreme--the storyteller gets no feedback from the audience. The teacher reading to the class gets some feedback, but does not alter any of the content of the story, nor even the phrasing, but only possibly the delivery. A scoutmaster telling a story by a campfire is probably somewhat more responsive to his audience, phrasing his story to enhance their response. A referee creating a story around the imagined personae of his players' characters is as much telling a story as Charleton Heston is when he records a novel, but he's interacting with his audience a great deal more, because they are encouraging him. I don't think it has to be more different than that. I don't think you always have to be able to say, "this is storytelling" versus "this is roleplaying" in any particular instance. It's role playing if the players feel like they're part of it, and storytelling if they feel like they're listening. It's at that point entirely subjective: what do the participants believe they are doing? That's what they are doing.

--M. J. Young

(Emphasis added)
I think defining what 'storytelling' means is absolutely crucial to using it. I posted on this here.

-Marco

[Caldis]

When we speak of the creative agendum of a game, we are speaking of the unified creative agendum of a gaming group. If we don't have a unified agendum, we have dysfunction.

My impression was that we weren't talking about groups as a whole but as a collection of individuals.  That different focus can make us both right while stating opposing viewpoints. I can see how your view is logical but it's on a different level then what I am talking about.

The reason why looking at it as collection of individuals is valuable is in seeing where dysfunction arises.  You are assuming the group is functional, I want to know what it takes individually to make the group functional.  I agree that it's a unified agendum but still feel that the individual members will have their own agenda and if it's not the same as the rest of the group disfunction will occur.

When situation arises in the game the player has to decide how to react, how to treat the situation.  If one player is treating it as an opportunity to step on up and another is looking for address of premise possibilties it's likely that disfunction will occur.

Using your basketball example when we get on the court we know we are playing a game and trying to sink baskets.  A player doenst come on the court grab the ball and try and use it as a pillow while he takes a nap.


Jay,

I think I see where you're coming from.  I think where we disagree is in the ability to observe effect or impact.  You seem to think it's clear and present when it shows up, I think it's a little murkier than that. A recent thread at rpg.net had the perfect example, sorry I cant find it again or I'd link to it.

A player was building powerhouse characters and whenever combat came up would quickly decimate the opposition.  When the game ended and the group talked about their next game the player voiced the opinion that she would prefer less combat.  Everyone was stunned, they felt that the way she acted showed her preference for combat.  She replied that she made powerhouse characters so she wouldnt have to deal with combat for long.  Get it done and over with so she could get back to what she really enjoyed. Now she could have been deceiving herself and really getting a thrill out of combat however I believe their likely were signs of her disaffection in play.  Those signs or tells are what we use to diagnose CA,

[Silmenume]

Hey Caldis,

I think where we disagree is in the ability to observe effect or impact.  You seem to think it's clear and present when it shows up, I think it's a little murkier than that.

Actually, I never tried to promote the idea that "it's clear and present" when it shows up.  It is murky and difficult to determine.  What I am saying is that observing and looking at "effect/impact" is the only place where the determination of CA can be made.  Player social reinforcements just point to the effect/impact that is CA relevant to the reinforcing player; we as observers must then tease out the pattern in the socially reinforced effects/impacts (which requites time and many effects/impacts) to make our CA diagnosis on the socially reinforcing player.  Determining the CA of the player engaging Situation is more difficult because usually they aren't expressing their support for a given action but are actually engaged in action.  IOW the tells are harder to see in the engaged player, yet we must still look to effect/impact to make the CA diagnosis.  Is the player addressing Premise, Challenge or engaged in Bricolage.

A player was building powerhouse characters and whenever combat came up would quickly decimate the opposition. When the game ended and the group talked about their next game the player voiced the opinion that she would prefer less combat. Everyone was stunned, they felt that the way she acted showed her preference for combat. She replied that she made powerhouse characters so she wouldnt have to deal with combat for long. Get it done and over with so she could get back to what she really enjoyed. Now she could have been deceiving herself and really getting a thrill out of combat however I believe their likely were signs of her disaffection in play. Those signs or tells are what we use to diagnose CA.

If I was living in a cartoon my wig (if I wore one) would have somersaulted over on itself!  OK.  I thought on this for a while before I realized several things.  You never gave a final diagnosis of her CA.  You saw here handle combat extremely effectively and assumed her effectiveness for interest.  What you didn't say was what effect/impact she was interested in lavishing time and attention upon.

You say that there were likely signs of disaffection.  Fair enough.  But that would only support my position that one would have to look at what effects/impacts that she was disaffected by.  That she was disaffected (showed affect) would not say anything more than she was disaffected until they were matched to effects/impacts.  I think is important to note that in your analysis you did not say what she was positively affected by.  She may have lavished great time and energy on those few moments when she could find opportunity to express the CA she wished, but as it appears that the players present were looking to get their Step on Up on, that no one was really paying attention to those moments which were not Gamist conducive and where she could have shown brightly is possible.  IOW that you were surprised by her end of game revelation may be due to that you didn't notice her expressing another CA simply due to inattention to/during non Gamist Situations where another CA could/would be expressed.  When there was a Situation that did not support Gamism effect/impact it was off radar and just not noticed.  I'm not saying this necessarily happened, but looking for another CA is not easy especially in the thick of things and when you're not sure what it is exactly that you are looking for.  You were there and obviously you know much more than I, but that is my take given what I have to work with.

[edited to add]
If the game was indeed Gamist facilitating, and the player in question was not Gamist in orientation there arises two issues that should be accounted for in what appears to be a single game diagnosis.  First she would not have had many non-Gamist Situations to (cross CA) Socially reinforce and thus show her CA colors.  Conversely because there would have been few opportunities for her to engage the type of Situations that would be conducive to her CA expression, there could have been a general paucity of data due to lack of opportunity to out weigh her seeming interest in combat (and thus the assumed interest in Challenge).

[Caldis]

A clarification for you Jay, I wasnt present at the play example I listed it was discussed on rpg.net recently.  That's why I didnt make a CA diagnosis I couldnt be sure what it was, the important point is that it is clear her decisions and actions in play didnt not match up with her preference.  As social animals we tend to reach a group understanding of what we're doing and individually do what it takes to make that possible.   For the group activity to be appealing in the long term we have to be engaged by the activity not just following along for the sake of the group.


I'm a little confused on the rest of your post though Jay.  I may just be misunderstanding you affect/effect split yet or I may be just looking at this from the opposite end.  But if the affect shows the players reaction to the effect  then dont we need both to make a diagnosis?  We cant just say this person was affected by the situation so lets see what effect they had on it, we need to know how they were affected to see if their effect was a positive or negative experience.  I dont know if that makes sense, came out like a tongue twister to me.  If it sounds better to anyone replace effect with impact and result for affect.

[clehrich]

I'm a little confused on the rest of your post though Jay.  I may just be misunderstanding you affect/effect split yet or I may be just looking at this from the opposite end.  But if the affect shows the players reaction to the effect  then dont we need both to make a diagnosis?  We cant just say this person was affected by the situation so lets see what effect they had on it, we need to know how they were affected to see if their effect was a positive or negative experience.  I dont know if that makes sense, came out like a tongue twister to me.  If it sounds better to anyone replace effect with impact and result for affect.

I'd agree with Caldis here.  The problem seems to me primarily methodological:

Chronologically,
Approach leads to making specific choices, which then have
Impact upon the actual game, producing
Affective Result for the player.

Methodologically,
Affective Result is the first data-point, telling us how to assess
Impact upon the game, manifesting in actual in-game activities, which leads us to infer what must have been the
Approach, which was what we wanted to know.[/list:u]I think Jay's point is that it's relatively common to speak loosely about this, going straight from affective result to approach, bypassing what's really important.  But to be fair, this is exactly why Ron keeps ranting and raving about Actual Play: in order to analyze, we need not only how you responded to the game but what you actually did in it, which is to say not only affective result but also impact.

[groundhog]

Sorry to come along late to this particular discussion, but I have some input which I cannot stand to keep from the thread.

I think that the term "Simulationism" actually already describes well how someone's character can have little impact on the setting and yet the play could be fullfilling. I lurk here quite a bit without posting, so I think I have an idea about the CAs, but someone please point out where I'm breaking from accepted usage.

A Gamist is interested in the advantages, the tests of skill, and the best end result. So if there's a chance given an extreme ultimatum such as the hostage test such that both sides can end positively, that becomes the goal. That seems easily agreeable.

A Narrativist is interested in the story, in the morals and ethics of the character, and sometimes even desires to roleplay toward the experience of an interactive fable. If there's a point to be made or a better story to be told by what choice is taken, then the choice with the better point or the better story will be chosen. This seems agreeable, too.

I see (at least)  two types of Sim play being tossed around, so I'm going to address those two types below.

Let me say first, though, that my idea of Sim as I understand it doesn't limit PC impact. I've always just thought of Sim as play without Gam or Nar leanings. The player isn't trying to make a better story, and isn't trying to make use of advantages for the PC like a Gamist would. The player still makes choices, and the system determines whether or not the tasks resolve successfully just like in Gam. The player just isn't tweaking, taking extra joy in outdoing the other players, trying to take extra time to come up with a best solution to a problem, or any of that. It consists of a story of intertwined fate, chance, and free will if you like. As tasks come up, the Sim player takes them on at face value using the skills, equipment, and methods that are obvious. As the Beatles might say, the Sim player is happy to "Let it be". If the decisions are amazingly brilliant, good. If they are disasterous and another option would have saved the day, so what? Real people don't get extra time between clock ticks, and they don't always think things through to the right conclusion before acting. I think a Sim player does just that -- acts without OOC regard to reward, because that's what the character would do. The player thinks IC of how to do things, about motivations, and about results. The character's decision is what is presented because that's what some people feel the hobby of role-playing is about. The decisions could still have great impact if the player understands his or her character differently than the GM does. However, if the GM is good enough at predicting people's actions, you get what I call Sim type 1 below, where the PC's actions are already calculated into the GM's storytelling desires.

Now, the Sim types I keep hearing about as I am reading them are the player being free to make choices, but always choosing what they think the character would be predisposed to do. That's pointed to as limiting impact because the scenario is written to deal with those actions. I'll call that Sim type 1 here, but I don't think the GM always knows what a character will do, even if a player shows trends in how the character is played. The other is the character being played as the player sees fit, but the outcome of the scenario being preordained by the GM and no choices the player/PC makes will change the end result. I'll call that Sim type 2.

Sim type 1:
A Simulationist is interested in determining how things work, including the character he or she is playing, and playing within those set parameters. The fact that there's no real choice to be made, and that the player will have the character choose as he or she expects the character would choose may diminish the impact of the player on the setting. It does not, though, diminish the impact the player has on the player's own PC. Making decisions in the role of the character that the character would make, but expressing the character's thoughts and feelings, their mannerisms, and the angst or joy with which those actions are taken may very well be the end goal of the Simulationist player. Some may not call it "role-playing", but in the classic sense it is definitely "playing a role". The "game" part is often called a misnomer on the Forge. Perhaps for this type of situation it is completely non game-like. The point isn't to win, nor to tell the best overall story. It's to get into the setting, into the character, and do things as realistically as possible, down to the level the character. Making a believable character, complete with attitudes, character flaws, judgment flaws, overriding passions, and dedication to ideals all the character's own  is not a simple feat, especially if one feels Gamist or Narrative pulls towards coming out on top or making the good guys win. Sometimes, in real life, the good guys lose -- sometimes even if they did everything well.  Maybe being an integral part of a good story with an ending either happy or sad is enough.

In the movies, the writers, directors, editors, producers, costumers, cinamatographers, and even the studio execs often make more decisions than the actors. It's the actors, though, who make the story pop. Maybe the ultimate Sim goal is to make the character the best version of himself or herself, without changing who that is. It'd be real "simulation" -- recreating what it would actually be like if the characters were playing themselves instead of being puppets for the human players. Pride in playing a predestined part well is a rewardign experience in its own right.

Think of where RPGs came from -- from wargames. Some wargamers are also reenactors. Now, if you're playing a game, changing the outcome is fine, but that's Gamist. If you're reenacting, you win if you're on the side that historically won and lose if you're on the side that historically lost. However, many reenactors bring color to their characters that aren't recorded in the history books. Sure, their army lost such and such a battle, and some characters in the reenactment are named for the actual historical figures. But reenactors -- especially US Civil War reenactors, will take on a name, a hometown, a family story, and a personal history of previous battles in which the character fought which are indicative of how things were around the time of a battle, but represent no actual individual who was known to be involved. Their contributions are predestined to lead to a particular outcome, because the real battle was already fought. They can make the soldiers realistic, valiant men no matter which color they wear.


Sim type 2:
Sometimes the goal isn't in being true to the character. Sometimes maybe the goal is being true to the setting itself and making no changes to it. Maybe letting the character sway to the irregular beat of the player's whims is okay, so long as it doesn't impact the game world. It's not railroading, because the choice can be made freely. It just doesn't make any difference. So, your character is supposed to lose.  So what? We all die sometime. Make it a good death, one to be proud of. So what if the character makes no impact? The character can do what needs to be done on an ethical, moral, spiritual, and/or karmic level, even if it will accomplish nothing. Some people believe you must do what is absolutely right, even if it costs you everything and does noone else any good in the realm of mortals. It could be viewed as nihilism. It could be viewed as religion. It could be that the PC wins everything no matter what, too, and that's okay as well. The point is, in Nar, the better act gets rewarded or the story goes on because the tension was built and released. In Sim, the story either goes on because it is supposed to go on, or it stops because it's at the end. The story doesn't change because of the PC's actions, but the PC does. I would consider that Sim. Some might kick me and shout, "No, that's Nar! There are five lights!" To them, I would say, "No, it's Sim, because the character developing over time and telling a better one-person story doesn't make for a different overall story. It may become a more interesting story, but the outcome is the same. There are four lights."

The whole battle reenacting thing applies some here, too. Just because we don't know the name and personal story of everyone who lived, died, was wounded, retreated, advanced, or missed a battle due to illness, we know the outcome. Putting a personalized story to it surrounding the battle just makes it more human. We know certain units flanked, some were outflanked, some advanced up the middle, some temporarily retreated, and certain ones pulled all the way away. The reenactors show us individuals, not battle maps. They take a part, and some are valiant while others flee in terror. Which ones do which makes little difference, as long as the proportions are correct. They aren't trying to tell a better story. They're trying to tell the story. Maybe Sim is about that -- even though there's not necessarily an exact event in real life to amtch, perhaps the important thing is that the right story, as conceived, is told correctly. The PCs are part of somethign bigger than themselves, and they are there to add color. The PCs are played by people other than the main creator of the story so that there's additional variations of that color and so that the players are immersed in the story.

Think of where besides recreation role-play is used. Therapy, conflict resolution, marriage counseling (part therapy and part conflict resolution, to be sure), education, crime reporting, children's group pretending (which  on some level amount to freeform RP) and ...um... let's just say intimate fantasy role-playing. The idea in most of these examples is to let everyone see everything from different points of view. From these different points of view, with people taking on roles other than themselves, they are meant to have emotional and/or intellectual breakthroughs by picking up on how it feels to be in someone else's shoes or to see how someone else pictures them. In one example, it's pure escapism.  If we forget about the odd possibility that someone is doing recreational roleplay with their character based on another real person in the group, then we still have POV change and escapism in play. It's not the same to listen to a story as to be the character in an interactive story, even if your interactions make no difference. There's still an emotional tie on some level to your character. There are motivation other than yours. There are goals other than yours. There are feelings other than yours. Realizing that not everyone thinks, feels, and reacts like you in the very same situation is powerful stuff. It's part of growing up to be a good adult member of society, and it's something many people sadly never fully grasp.

So for Sim, maybe it's a growth experience. It's definitely not a "game" per se. Its existence is debated because unlike Nar and Gam, it's not to see who can make the best of a task, or the best of the story, or even cooperatively to make the best story. Maybe the conflict in the SIS isn't resolved so much as the issues the participants bring with them to the session. It's each person involved putting himself or herself into the place of the character and just seeing what that is like. It's a group escape or a group POV therapy. Maybe it's both. Maybe it's one for some in the group and the other for the rest. Maybe it's neither, and something we're all still missing. Maybe I've really gone off the deep end and offended a bunch of you with my insane ramblings... If you think about it as personal growth, what's been called dysfunctional play may not be play, and probably isn't dysfunctional either.

Conclusion:
So, that gives me 3 -- count them, 3 -- types of Sim. The focus is on getting the details right. Which details may change. I think the important thing to remember here is that the name "Simulationism" almost begs to tell us that the reward is in the attention to detail (character, setting, or both) in the imagined world. Let me state that again. The attention to detail is itself the reward. Other rewards, like self growth, enjoying the story as it flows (without thought to making it a better story), enjoying controlling the character (without thought as to making the character be the best character), are similar and grow out of the attention to detail. Model builders often build exact replicas of planes, boats, trains, and cars, then only sometimes customize them at all. Sim players just do the very same thing, only with smaller copies of people instead of smaller copies of vehicles. You don't have to change things to enjoy them. Sometimes being part of what they are is enough, especially when you've chosen what it is with which you're going to commune.

I could handle Gamist or Narrativist play with a character that's a serial killer. I may even enjoy it, because I'd just be playing a game or telling a story. I could have a detachment from the character as a means to a Gamist end or as just a character in a Narrative story who needs an actor.  I don't think I'd ever want to play such a villain in Sim, because in what I consider Sim, one can start to build an empathy with the imagined character. I'll leave that to criminal profilers and not do it for fun. There's less detachment when you try to think just like the character instead of with ulterior motives.

Now that I've said that, I think it's easier for me to give an in-the-short idea of what I think makes Sim: it's playing a character (in the theatrical sense of "play", not necessarily a gaming sense) with no ulterior motives. Thought of winning or losing and thought of telling a better story are ulterior motives for roleplaying. That's where Gam and Nar come from.

It's not that Sim is hard to find because it's not roleplaying. It's hard to find because once you use the word "game", you introduce a motive for character actions. Once you mention "authoring" a story, you introduce the motive of "Authoring" with a big "A" -- writing it, revising it, making it a better story. Once these motives are present, just playing a character ad-lib because it's fun to pretend is gone.

Sure, Sim tends to have tight systems to explain things about the world. Is that the rule, though, or just a tendency? If you're doing Sim the most "realistically" in every way possible, yeah, it's probably important. Sim with exploration of character rather than setting, though, could just as easily be freeform, with no other thing making it Sim than being true to the character rather than looking for outside influences. That's "simulating" a character to me.

[clehrich]

Personally, I need to read all that very carefully.  Ron, can we split this?  I think it's moving toward a new debate.

My actual comments will come tomorrow....