Clarifying Simulationism

[Walt Freitag]

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).

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.

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.

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

[Gordon C. Landis]

There'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

[M. J. Young]

What'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.

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.)

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