Systems of group meaning negotiation.

[Ian Charvill]

I suspect a few people have bought too deeply into Ron's phrase "drifting dream".  It's eminently feasible to conduct sim play in the mode, if we are going to use the word dream, then in the mode of a lucid dream - very deliberate and directed.  Creativity is one of the lynchpins of simulationism, but a lot of sim play has a default form of: game designer does most creating, GM does some creating and players do little creating.  That's a way of playing sim sure, but it's not sim any more than player vs. player is gamism.  

Could you be more specific here?  For example, I definitely have rgfa Simulationist leanings -- where the player is completely in charge of her PC, but that background and NPCs are handled by the GM.  However, I also feel that games are primarily about character rather than background.  In other words, if the characters attack a bunch of monsters, the meaning comes from what the characters think and feel -- not from the shape of the room or what the monsters are.  This means the bulk of creating is actually with the players.

Hi John

I think I may be being a little lax with how I'm using the term creation.  Here I mean specifically bringing new imaginary elements into play, rather than doing new things with exisiting imaginary elements.  So the pattern would fall - game designer creates the world and major NPCs; GMs creates locations and minor NPCs; players create PCs.

In terms of meaning, in the sense of the imaginary elements that carry the most emotional weight for the participants (another way of saying the most aesthetic ooomph), I think it's correct to say that the players get to create the most meaningful imaginary elements (i.e. the PCs).  The caveat is then that not every GM plays as if that's the case - a lot of heavy metaplot/setting NPC games run as if the inverse were true.

[Ian Charvill]

Alan, forgive me if I'm snipping quite heavily.  If I'm distorting your meaning anywhere, or ignoring your main points, feel free to slap me.

First a quibble

Simulationism may reward techniques of portrayal in the same way gamism may reward techniques of competition (D+D 3rd ed rewards character creation as a technique of competition more than tactics, frex).

I don't think D&D3 is a good example of simulationist design.  It's a mixed bag, so I think you can find mixed examples.  I seem to recall that D&D3.5 was recently cited as having shifted focus back toward gamism.

I would tend to see 3rd edition D+D as primarily supporting gamist play, which was how it stood in my example.  Sorry if that wasn't clear.

I still assert that coherent gamism will reward a qualitatively different category of meaning creation - that which involves player power to affect (and hence contribute to) the shared fantasy.  While coherent simulationism will ignore or discourage the creation of player power within the Lumpley system.  Like gamism, narrativism rewards meaning creation at an abstract level.

[...]

I agree that the sim mode is no more limited than the other two creative agendas.  I do think that where it focuses interpretation, evaluation, and rewards is at a different level of abstraction than for the other two.

It's true that meaning in both gamism and narrativism take place at a metagame level and so may be best rewarded by metagame mechanics.

I don't believe it's true that there's anything about sim that discourages player empowerment.  That would only hold if one believed that people will innately tend towards either narrativism or gamism and only end up playing simulationist if they're forced to.  It is my experience that player power in a group of people prioritising sim will simply be used to support the sim.

Another brainstorm: the rpgfa "simulationism" that John is discussing involves an ironic juxtaposition of "realism-seeking" with a body of fantasy "facts."  Some role play traditions value integrity, verisimilitude, and other value judgements (meaning interpretations) - these are all things we might call measures of realism - but they are being applied to a fantasy.  Is this characteristic of Ron's simulationism too, a subset, or not required in his version?

Replace "realism seeking" with valuing internal consistency and I think that's something Ron has repeatedly emphasized w/r/t sim.

[Alan]

I don't believe it's true that there's anything about sim that discourages player empowerment.  That would only hold if one believed that people will innately tend towards either narrativism or gamism and only end up playing simulationist if they're forced to.

I know _I_ tend towards either narrativism or gamism and only end up playing simulationist if I'm forced to, so my bias may be showing.  However, for emipiric argument I will allow that the simulationist-prefering beast may indeed exist.

My experience in sim play is that I'm subject to social sanctions against attempts to contribute to the shared fantasy at a meta-game level.  Hence part of my power as a player is stiffled.  Usually it involves being whacked down by GM fiat or interpretation of rules or, occasionally, cries of protest.  These are all ways of channelling my interpretation of the meaning of the shared fantasy and the actions of other players - to keep my focus on the process of performing, portraying, or illustrating.  

(Illustrating!  There's the word I was looking for!)

What is the boundary?  What standard is used for evaluating my meta-gaming attempts?  I think it's, as you say, some aestehetic of internal consistency.  Perhaps that player contributions are only valid if they illustrate material consistent with the existing body of shared fantasy.

[Ian Charvill]

Alan

The whacking your getting for violating the social contract of those groups is pretty normal I would guess for a lot of sim play, but there's no need for sim to be like that.  Sim is perfectly admitting of metagame techniques - Inspiration points and Dramatic Editing in Adventure! for example, which serve genre emulation functions and hence are perfectly compatible with sim.

The boundary is, I'd guess, goal vs technique.  Metagame techniques are fine in sim as long as they enhance the elements that are being explored.  If they detract from the exploration, they detract from the sim goals.

As for the groups you played with, any level of metagame technique may have violated their sense of exploration.  It may simply have been that you're a player not a GM and players don't get to do that (i.e. hoary old RPG accepted wisdoms).

[John Kim]

I know _I_ tend towards either narrativism or gamism and only end up playing simulationist if I'm forced to, so my bias may be showing.  However, for emipiric argument I will allow that the simulationist-prefering beast may indeed exist.

My experience in sim play is that I'm subject to social sanctions against attempts to contribute to the shared fantasy at a meta-game level.  Hence part of my power as a player is stiffled.  Usually it involves being whacked down by GM fiat or interpretation of rules or, occasionally, cries of protest.  These are all ways of channelling my interpretation of the meaning of the shared fantasy and the actions of other players - to keep my focus on the process of performing, portraying, or illustrating.  

With the recent controversy over Simulationism, I'm wary of usage.  Could you describe more about some of the games?  How did you identify them as Sim?  What does that mean to you?  

My impression from what you wrote is that in your group, they preferred each player to be restricted to controlling their PC; and thus they didn't like spontaneous player creation of external stuff that you preferred.  Is that accurate, or is there more to it?  

I say this because as a player I tend towards that as a style -- i.e. I tend to act through my PC and not use meta-game abilities.  The games I GM tend to be similar.  But as a player, my focus is usually on authorship rather than illustration.  Illustration implies communicating something which is static.  By authorship, I mean that by acting as my character I am controlling the story and taking it in different directions, and especially deciding on change in my character.  My focus is on the dynamic story rather than on illustrating a fixed picture -- i.e. "What should I do?" rather than "How can I illustrate this?".

[Alan]

How did you identify them as Sim?

The players in those games evaluated player contributions on the basis of internal consistency of the shared fantasy.

My impression from what you wrote is that in your group, they preferred each player to be restricted to controlling their PC; and thus they didn't like spontaneous player creation of external stuff that you preferred.  Is that accurate, or is there more to it?

Right on the nose.  I think this is the only kind of simulationism I had played (as a character) up until last year.  It was also the illusionist/collaborationist style - where the players follow a pre-set path set by the GM.

Illustration implies communicating something which is static.

Yes, you're right that is the first meaning of the word.  Darn, I thought I had a good, colorful alternate word for Exploration.  My vision was that simulationist play would be a continual process of illustrating the blank parts of the canvas and filling in details, all within in the shared fantasy and evaluated by the aesthetics of internal conisistency.

By authorship, I mean that by acting as my character I am controlling the story and taking it in different directions, and especially deciding on change in my character.  My focus is on the dynamic story rather than on illustrating a fixed picture -- i.e. "What should I do?" rather than "How can I illustrate this?".

What you said about Adventure! having meta-mechanics to support sim play is really interesting, as is your statement about authoring.  Perhaps simulationism can include meta-game techniques.  The prime difference beween the creative agenas, then, appears to be the evaluation of what is a valud contribution - in other words, the system of values that produces meaning.

As an aside, I'm currently playing Burning Wheel (which is a system designed to support simulationist play) but so far I'm not sure if we're playing narrativist or simulationist.  I'm going to post that question to the thread and see what the other players think.  ( http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=9066" >[Burning Wheel] Fear and Loathing in Tarshish ).