A day at GenCon, and a simulationist comes out of the closet

[Silmenume]

I hope this reply, by virtue of being from a "2^nd" page post isn't bad form.  It's only been 5 days since the previous!

BTW, thanks to everyone who welcomed me and replied.  I can already tell this is a very friendly place.  I feel the love.

Group hug for Hal!

Having read, or actually scanned, the rules I can see why the mechanics would seem disruptive.  From what I could surmise the real world physical needs of employing the mechanics could directly come into conflict with the circumstances of that instant in which the resolution was being invoked to resolve.  IOW you need a surface to roll the dice on!  I can certainly see how that could necessitate the "breaking of the Dream" if you are in the middle of "role-play" and have to stop, fish out dice, move from your current location to find a suitable surface to roll on and then pull out your notebooks if necessary before you can come to a "speedy" resolution.  I know in table top the handling time using such a method of resolution is going to be much less for the simple fact that the surface, dice and character sheet are all typically right at your finger tips.  This doesn't mean that mechanics disappear in tabletop play, but rather because the time and effort ("seek and handling" time in Forge parlance) expended is considerably less thus such a physical arrangement has, potentially, a much less disruptive effect on the "flow of the game."  This is not to say that tabletop play is superior, but rather an observation or a hypothesis about why the mechanics seemed to be especially noticeable.

...and it is true that a large amount of what was in the character background was really Setting description masquerading as character background.

Funny you should put it that way.  See – in "mythic structure" Setting cannot be separated from Character; the two are so intimately intertwined and mutually supporting that one cannot be separated from the other without doing irreparable harm.  That is the whole of "Character and Setting" is more than the sum of the parts.  So its not that Setting is "masquerading" as Character background, but rather it is utterly impossible to have Character background without Setting elements – either explicit or implicit (in Sim that is)!

Certainly everyone was using body-language to communicate with each other.  I know that at one point I (as a reporter) organized everyone into a group photograph (we had a real camera on hand for me to use as my "prop" camera, but no flash powder, more's the pity *grin*), and alot of the mail characters were organizing chairs for the female ones, makeing space for them, etc.  Whether this was spontaneous, observered and then mimiced, or something those people would have done anytime, I have no idea.

What's important, and difficult to see, is that while all that stuff was going on, it was being "validated" into the Shared Imaginary Space without contention.  IOW all these actions were seen as valid and important enough that many players engaged in this physical acts without outside prompting – i.e., mechanics or meta-game talk being involved.  This may not seem like much, but in fact is the Lumpley Principle in constant action.  People are seeing these things happen are judging them to be supportive of the Dream!  Frex - no one said, "He you can't do that!  Pulling a chair out for a lady is meat-headed male chauvinism!"  Well actually, in the Victorian era and setting, that was a commonly observed social convention, one that was supported and reinforced by the choice of the players acting on their aesthetic priorities (Creative Agenda).

I guess what I meant was that because the subject matter referred to a specific era (Victorian), and a very specific place (a bathysphere under the ocean), all of the players recognized natural limits on their characters.

Fascinating!  The thing is that there really aren't "natural" limits on the Characters.  Those "limits" are ones that are agreed upon by the Players.  The key here is that those "limits" were derived from the Setting elements.  This is something that is not much understood or recognized as a vital central point to Sim play.  You see, those "limits" aren't necessary inviolate but are subject to modification (but not outright contradiction) "through play" (Exploration) over time.  These limits certainly feel "natural" and that is the primary reason they are heeded without much note or question.  However observing these limitations (and "commenting" on them) is a mindful act, and a vital one with regards to Sim.  Yes physics based limitations are inviolate in Sim (typically) but they are not self same as physical limitations – like being in a bathysphere – which are mutable.

Hey Bill!

This is something I wonder about from time to time. Do character goals support Sim? I don't know. I do know that I prefer play with characters that are trying to do something. I think for Sim, a character's drive is a platform.

Not only do Character goals support Sim, they are absolutely vital to its functioning.  If the Character has no goals whatsoever, up to and including survival, then the Character has no reason to interact with the Setting (or perhaps better said – no effective means with which to interact with the Setting) – there is no dialectic if one of the elements is essentially inert.

There were several plot lines involved, but there was absolutely no control or force from above; all the action was driven by the characters themselves and their interaction as they tried to work out their goals.

This is interesting. In your description, control is like a bridle; an agent that is foreign to a system that is busy relating to its own parts. Goals are catalysts for interactions. It sounds like you trade to lose pacing, though. That goes along with the criticism you've received for taking a long time to do anything.

I don't know if you've read the definition of Force in the glossary. (Which, BTW, I recognize that you meant "force" with a little "f," above.) Big "F" Force pertains to having thematically-relevant choices made for you. But it doesn't sound like you're actually deciding anything if by the end of play you're not sure what the story was even about. Then again, maybe things are being .. "settled," I guess you could say. This really piques my interest: Assuming Force is native to Sim, and therefore, likely at work in the play Hans describes, how is it that the experience is distinguished by an absence of control?

Let's start with the glossed definition of "Force."  Since the publishing of the Glossary, in a comment M.J. Young brought up at a later time, and Ron, if memory serves, agreed with, that Force is better described as – "The Technique of control over characters' Creative Agenda relevant-significant decisions by anyone who is not the character's player."  Thus Force in Nar is removing/altering player input over Thematically important decisions.  In Gamism it would be removing/altering player Effectiveness regarding Challenge relevant decisions.  In Sim it would be the rendering of the impact of player input on the SIS as "null."

Given the above "surrendering control" is a sticky statement.  It implies that GM input must invalidate player input in order to have control over pacing.  That is, if the GM doesn't exercise a modicum of control over the Characters at some point or another then there is a sizable risk that the "game pacing will slow down."  However that does beg the question of what "pacing" means.  I will hazard a provisional definition – pacing is the rate at which players have the opportunity to make CA relevant decisions.  Thus if Sim is the dialectic between Character and Setting, and this dialectic is driven or informed by Player/Character goals, then all the GM has to do keep pacing up in Sim is to introduce new obstacles to the Player/Character goals via Setting.  Force in this case would be the GM invalidating, to a greater or lesser degree, the player's ability to address those obstacles to his goals.  No Force is necessary to have a ripsnortin white-knuckle voice blown out full body sweat Sim game.  None.  Just keep the relevant obstacles a comin'!!!

In a sense, because the fellow who prepped your LARP chose the goals that would drive a frenzy of player interactions, he employed Force. Not because he stood over you, checking his watch and said, "Ok! It's down to the wire. I direct you to reveal your love affair." It's Force because he chose that revealling the affair--as opposed to keeping it hidden or any other number of options--should catalyze exploration.

Wrong!  ;P  (I'm just being silly – I'm not trying to be an ass!)  That is scene framing, not Force!  That could be Force in a Narrativist game if the affair was Premise relevant, but unless the GM revealed the affair via the Player's Character without his consent – then that is just another piece of Setting that the Player/Character has the option to interact with or not.

[Bill Cook]

These last couple of posts should probably be split. I think we've exceeded Hans' purpose of sharing his joy in realizing his agenda of preference.

Jay:

I seem to remember discussing this before. Accepting your recast definition of Force, your points make sense to me. I like your Sim prescription for pacing; it's very accessible.

Two things concern me: story prescription and focus of interaction. I define the former as "the degree of prepared material" and the latter as "moderation of exploration." Most Sim play I see is highly prescribed and loosely focused. On the one hand, players experience terrific freedom of action and a rich depth of simulated reality; on the other, they're on a grid that has established junctions and exits from which they may not deviate. I think the main thing I'm learning from this thread is how Sim players equate unsupervised exploration (e.g. "I go snake hunting to add to the soup I'm making," "I look through the drawers on Yoda's desk," "I erect lamp stands from my equipment cart and create perimeter lighting for the camp.") with unprogrammed story development (e.g. "Bully on going to Dagoba; I'm staying with the fleet," "If you say so, master. I will stay here and learn to lift rocks with my mind while my friends are tortured to death," "Ok. I do join you. Let's rule the galaxy together!" ).

[Hans]

Having read, or actually scanned, the rules I can see why the mechanics would seem disruptive.  From what I could surmise the real world physical needs of employing the mechanics could directly come into conflict with the circumstances of that instant in which the resolution was being invoked to resolve.  IOW you need a surface to roll the dice on!  I can certainly see how that could necessitate the "breaking of the Dream" if you are in the middle of "role-play" and have to stop, fish out dice, move from your current location to find a suitable surface to roll on and then pull out your notebooks if necessary before you can come to a "speedy" resolution. 

It wasn't quite as bad as that.  For anyone planning on doing this kind of thing themselves, I highly recommend Dean Edgell's solution to this very problem.  Each player was handed a small transparent box with three dice in it at the beginning of the game.  These boxes had a magnifying glass lid on them, so that even though the 6 siders were quite small, they could be fairly easily read.  This completely removes the issue of finding a convenient table top.  Quite ingenious, I thought.

Funny you should put it that way.  See – in "mythic structure" Setting cannot be separated from Character; the two are so intimately intertwined and mutually supporting that one cannot be separated from the other without doing irreparable harm.  That is the whole of "Character and Setting" is more than the sum of the parts.  So its not that Setting is "masquerading" as Character background, but rather it is utterly impossible to have Character background without Setting elements – either explicit or implicit (in Sim that is)!

When put this way, I agree wholeheartedly.

I guess what I meant was that because the subject matter referred to a specific era (Victorian), and a very specific place (a bathysphere under the ocean), all of the players recognized natural limits on their characters.

Fascinating!  The thing is that there really aren't "natural" limits on the Characters.  Those "limits" are ones that are agreed upon by the Players.  The key here is that those "limits" were derived from the Setting elements.  This is something that is not much understood or recognized as a vital central point to Sim play.  You see, those "limits" aren't necessary inviolate but are subject to modification (but not outright contradiction) "through play" (Exploration) over time.  These limits certainly feel "natural" and that is the primary reason they are heeded without much note or question.  However observing these limitations (and "commenting" on them) is a mindful act, and a vital one with regards to Sim.  Yes physics based limitations are inviolate in Sim (typically) but they are not self same as physical limitations – like being in a bathysphere – which are mutable.

Its interesting you should note the physical limitations were not inviolalbe, because there were several times when characters actually did exit the bathyscape, but almost always just one at a time for some specific reason associated with the ongoing and developing plot (I wasn't really invovled in this plotline, so I really don't have the slightest what was going on).  But since they were going out one at a time, the "game" essentially ended for them the minute they stepped out the door.  There was no "game" without the other players; just sitting on the couch waiting a reasonable length of time to simulate whatever activities your character was supposedly accomplishing in the briny deeps.  I actually walked past someone (on my way back from the bathroom) who was "outside", and we did not interact at all in a game way, because we both recognized we were not, at that moment, gaming with each other.

Not only do Character goals support Sim, they are absolutely vital to its functioning.  If the Character has no goals whatsoever, up to and including survival, then the Character has no reason to interact with the Setting (or perhaps better said – no effective means with which to interact with the Setting) – there is no dialectic if one of the elements is essentially inert.

While I don't think I have ever used the word dialectic in a sentence *grin*, I agree with this 100%.  In my own games (especially with players who have had little experience with simulationism), I do my best to structure the starting conditions of the game so at a minimum the characters at least have a reason to be there and a reason to move forward.  The hope is that the player will also identify with these reasons and "get into" the play.  If they don't, incoherence results, and nobody has much fun.

I don't know if you've read the definition of Force in the glossary. (Which, BTW, I recognize that you meant "force" with a little "f," above.) Big "F" Force pertains to having thematically-relevant choices made for you. But it doesn't sound like you're actually deciding anything if by the end of play you're not sure what the story was even about. Then again, maybe things are being .. "settled," I guess you could say. This really piques my interest: Assuming Force is native to Sim, and therefore, likely at work in the play Hans describes, how is it that the experience is distinguished by an absence of control?

...Thus Force in Nar is removing/altering player input over Thematically important decisions.  In Gamism it would be removing/altering player Effectiveness regarding Challenge relevant decisions.  In Sim it would be the rendering of the impact of player input on the SIS as "null."

Given the above "surrendering control" is a sticky statement.  It implies that GM input must invalidate player input in order to have control over pacing.  That is, if the GM doesn't exercise a modicum of control over the Characters at some point or another then there is a sizable risk that the "game pacing will slow down."  However that does beg the question of what "pacing" means.  I will hazard a provisional definition – pacing is the rate at which players have the opportunity to make CA relevant decisions.  Thus if Sim is the dialectic between Character and Setting, and this dialectic is driven or informed by Player/Character goals, then all the GM has to do keep pacing up in Sim is to introduce new obstacles to the Player/Character goals via Setting.  Force in this case would be the GM invalidating, to a greater or lesser degree, the player's ability to address those obstacles to his goals.  No Force is necessary to have a ripsnortin white-knuckle voice blown out full body sweat Sim game.  None.  Just keep the relevant obstacles a comin'!!!

I agree with the above, but would say it somewhat differently.  I would argue that the perhaps the only valid use of Force in any role-playing game is when the "CA relevant decisions" (as you put it above) of two players conflict.  I think I will break that off into another thread.  But in this particular game, the only reason the GM would need Force (as in Forcing one player to take some action they would not choose to take themselves) is if that players CA relevant decision (concentrate on chatting up the gorgeous Countess DeWinter, for example) was directly reducing the capability of other players to make CA relevant decisions (because a particular obstacle or goal of their charcters requires the first player to do something with his).

[Hans]

These last couple of posts should probably be split. I think we've exceeded Hans' purpose of sharing his joy in realizing his agenda of preference.

You are probably right Bill, as you are a far more experienced poster than I.

Two things concern me: story prescription and focus of interaction. I define the former as "the degree of prepared material" and the latter as "moderation of exploration." Most Sim play I see is highly prescribed and loosely focused. On the one hand, players experience terrific freedom of action and a rich depth of simulated reality; on the other, they're on a grid that has established junctions and exits from which they may not deviate. I think the main thing I'm learning from this thread is how Sim players equate unsupervised exploration (e.g. "I go snake hunting to add to the soup I'm making," "I look through the drawers on Yoda's desk," "I erect lamp stands from my equipment cart and create perimeter lighting for the camp.") with unprogrammed story development (e.g. "Bully on going to Dagoba; I'm staying with the fleet," "If you say so, master. I will stay here and learn to lift rocks with my mind while my friends are tortured to death," "Ok. I do join you. Let's rule the galaxy together!" ).

Your last point is incredibly interesting.  As a final nail in the coffin of this thread, I will comment on it.  I disagree with you that sim players equate unsupervised exploration with unprogrammed story development.  I think this is the wrong way to frame the discussion.

Sim games are all about exploration for the players.  Include the GM in this: as a GM of sim games for most of life, most of my enjoyment comes from exploration through either creating and researching the elements of the game (setting, situation, character, etc.), and then the vicarious thrill of exploration as the players move through the elements, and the rosy glow of satisfication at their enjoyment of my creation.  However, there is always some level of tension between the players (GM included) as to exactly WHAT elements are being explored. 

In the most enjoyable games this tension is minimal.  All of the players are "grooving" on the same elements and so the game moves along in an "unsupervised" manner with essentially only sensual input from the GM.  By sensual, I mean that the only thing the GM does is essentially react to the actions of the players and provide to them the sensual input their characters are receiving (words spoken by NPC's, describing the environment, etc.).  In Sim play that is really humming along, the GM is a true "watchmaker" god; he has built the elements of setting, character, etc., and now "stands back" and allows the other players to explore, taking no action, at least from what a Narrativist perspective would be called action.  The elements could be very broad (an entire game world, like in the computer game Myst where you fall through a whole and there you are on an island, what do you do), or could be very specific (you are loyal members of the Secret Service, here is your detailed mission briefing showing you what you need to accomplish, what do you do?)  As an aside, I think that Myst was probably the first "Simulationist" computer role-playing game, because it did exactly what I am talking about above.  No levels, no real threats to overcome (none of the puzzles was so hard to beat that they posed a true challenge to a Gamist), minimal storyline, just exploring a complete world in all its detail.

However, this tension between players is also the primary bugbear of sim games, because when it is magnified, the game almost always becomes no fun.  This happens when there is a real difference of opinion among the players about what elements are most interesting to explore, and these opinions are mutually contradictory.  Player A wants to explore the setting of the Lost City of Ae, but Player B want to explore the interaction between his character and the Adventurer's Guild leaders.  Or, as you describe it above, everyone else wants to explore Dagoba, but one person still wants to stay with the fleet.  In these choices, either peer feedback or GM Force is almost always necessary to bring the (usually) one player along so that the game doesn't essentially devolve into to two simultaneous games.  For this player, their fun can often be ruined, and everyone's fun is tainted.  That is why most Sim GM's who are worth their salt will try every trick in the book to avoid this situation. 
The worst case, though, is when the GM is the odd player out in the exploration goals.  In this case, the GM wants to explore some aspect of the game, but none of the other players are interested.  The GM at this point either a) sucks it up and sacrifices his/her own enjoyment for the good of the group, in hopes that the players will eventually come back to something "interesting", b) folds up and ends the game, because its not worth their time, or c) uses copious amounts of Force to make the players do something interesting.  The last is the definition of "sim railroading".

All the above, I think, explains why the truly successful Simulationist games are games that have a very specifically defined set of allowable characters (like Secret Agent games), which mean that only those people at least marginally interested in the elements of the game even play in the first place.  It also explains why Sim play can be very difficult in any "big setting" world (Middle Earth, Traveller, Greyhawk) and these worlds tend to end up being enjoyed more by Gamists or Narrativists, except in the confines of well established small groups of friends who all are interested in the same things.  I recognize this may be a provocative statement, since all the games based on these worlds, especially Traveller and old MERP, were just about as simulationist as you could get.  However, in reading Ron's articles on the history of role-playing, it seems to me that while the rules for these games were simulationist, and drifted more so as the games developed, the actual play of these games was almost always gamist (in Traveller summarized by the old Striker and High Guard rules), illusionism (in Traveller, by the GM creating storylines and then the players accepting and enjoying that they were prisoners of the story), or in small, insular gaming groups of close friends who just had their own thing going.  It was a rare GM who would start a game of Traveller with a complete group of strangers, who had made their own characters, and say "You are standing in the starport lobby in the biggest city on Gram, capital of the Sword Worlds in the Spindward Marches.  What do you do?"  That would be SIMULATIONISM!

If anyone wants to reply to the above, we should take it elsewhere.  Thanks to everyone who responded to my first post!