Rough Draft Essay on Threefold Simulationism

[Mike Holmes]

Critics of Champions are quick to point to these as flaws.  However, I don't think this is clear.  They mean that Champions does not strictly emulate comic books -- but that may mean that Champions works better for role-playing.

I completely agree. I think that folks who call attention to the "problem" are just citing their own preference issues. What Champions does well is to serve as a lab for "what would happen if" sorts of situations, in the simulation sense, not in the "what would happen if there was a story about" sense.

As a note, what John's describing here would seem to me to match to what in GNS might be termed "open sim", when the priority of the players isn't on creating theme. That's the part of the mode that wouldn't be covered by narrativism as Ron points out. Basically, it points out an axis that exists across these forms that deals with how the story gets created - is it by GM force, or player choice?

It brings up an interesting question - does "open sim" really exist? If not, then Threefold Sim is just narrativism, tending to the vanilla.

John, are there aspects that you'd like to look at besides the GNS comparisons?

Mike

[John Kim]

As a note, what John's describing here would seem to me to match to what in GNS might be termed "open sim", when the priority of the players isn't on creating theme. That's the part of the mode that wouldn't be covered by narrativism as Ron points out. Basically, it points out an axis that exists across these forms that deals with how the story gets created - is it by GM force, or player choice?  

It brings up an interesting question - does "open sim" really exist? If not, then Threefold Sim is just narrativism, tending to the vanilla.  

I would say sure.  If the group pick characters which they don't emotionally engage with, or choose to play out in detail actions which they don't emotionally engage with -- then the result is GNS Simulationist.  Naturally, play will tend to follow player interest.  If they are not interested in emotional engagement, then play won't feature it.  From rgfa, Warren Dew's games struck me in this way.  He and his players seemed really interested in impersonal world more than character.  Things like ecology, geography, predator ratios, and so forth seemed to feature strongly.  

Player focus is expressed in "scene framing" -- which in rgfa terms we would refer to more broadly as "level of abstraction".  From what I have seen, scene framing discussion tends to use a film analogy such that there is "on-screen" and there is "off-screen".  In Threefold Sim talk, we would talk about many different levels of abstraction.  For example, a conversation can be played out word-by-word, or it can be handled more abstractly, or it can be not mentioned and the group just assumes that it happened.  

The things which players are more interested in are handled in more detail, while the things they are less interested in are usually abstracted.  

John, are there aspects that you'd like to look at besides the GNS comparisons?  

Well, I think the essay is in good shape modulo a few touch-ups.  But if you or anyone think some parts need more work or couldn't understand parts, then that would be relevant.  One question: maybe I should add some of the above stuff about levels of abstraction?

[ADGBoss]

John.  

I certianly admire the thought and effort you put into this essay.  Defining things like this can be a pretty daunting taks and I Appreciate you sharing your ideas.

Howver, I have some serious qualms with some of the notions and points laid out in the Essay and I felt I should address them.  Of course this is one man's opinion so take it as such.

A central feature of Simulationism is that it rejects closely identifying role-playing with either fiction writing or other types of games. This is important, because role-playing is often viewed and judged by external standards. For example, an RPG might be judged poor if the events it produces would not make a good book or movie of that type. Conversely, an RPG might be judged poor if it isn't fairly balance like a board game or card game.
        Rejecting this identification is important to finding out what is interesting about RPGs uniquely. Thus Simulationism calls for throwing out preconceptions about what the game should be like, and instead requiring people to form their opinion about how they like play as itself. Simulationism allows that individual techniques might be borrowed from other activities -- like mechanics from card games, or inspiration from novels. However, that doesn't mean that role-playing is any of those other activities, or that the essence of role-playing is the same as them.

This introduction intrigues me a bit.  RPG's will be judged poorly if they do not make good books or movies? Do you mean if the game does not tell a good story? I think picking out specific entertainment devices can be a bit dangerous because don't movies accurately model decisions and choices and actions in their own world? Is it not similar for books?

" . Thus Simulationism calls for throwing out preconceptions about what the game should be like, and instead requiring people to form their opinion about how they like play as itself."

What if the people i.e. gamers or RPG'ers, conclude that how they like play is like in a book or movie?  Should we conclude for ourselves how we like play? I would think yes.  Thats true in any mode.  So how is  TFS (Three Fold Simulationism) different from the other modes in that regard.

However, the central tenet of Simulationism prevents this. When the GM prepares between sessions, any invented background should be based solely on what should reasonably be there in the world. It may be extrapolation, random, or arbitrarily imagined -- but it cannot be deliberately constructed for narrative purpose. This rejects melodramatic hooks or other prepared dramatic structure

This seems a bit conflicting.  How do you judge unreasonable? WHO judges it? In a Super Hero World if I as GM introduce A Galactus planet eater, is that unreasonable?  Simulating possibility and probability would be an arduous task I think, even for the best of us.  So reasonability is decided when? Should the players call "bogus" if the GM steps out of line?  I think I am having some trouble with the concept that the GM is a judge of the World Physics but has no input or only as much input as the Players do?  Assuming a traditional GM-Player mix of course.

In Simulationist play, the onus is more on the players to drive play. Without contrived situations to force the PCs into action, the PCs need to be more pro-active. They need to be rebellious, in the sense that faced with a stable status quo, they will take risks to upset that status quo. In GM-driven adventures, there is an unusual event (a melodramatic hook) which spurs the PCs to action. But in Simulationism, there will not usually be such unusual events. Without such hooks, the PCs need to seek out conflict.

How do we define contrived? If the GM says all green guys hate all blue guys and your blue, then when you meet greens, you will likely be hated.  Is that contrived? Or would the act of a green befriending sai dblue PC be contrived?

Ok so what if the PC's do not seek out conflict?  Conflict should not come to them? I would think that in most worlds, trouble usually finds you no matter how hard you try and avoid it, but in Simulationism the GM would not be able to put forth Plot that might intrigue the players?

Also, how is it handled when the GM tries to make things a little more interesting.  Lets say our conflict seekers go looking for a Goblin lair.  GM knows Goblins are easy pickings so he adds a Troll ally.  When PCs meet the Troll do they call foul? "Sorry as previously decided in world Trolls and goblins hate each other." IS the GM allowed to spice up the world on the fly?

Action resolution differs from adventure design, because it is less about GM preparation prior to the session, and more about use of rules and dice during a game session. However, it still follows the same Simulationist principle of following internal cause.
        Many drama-oriented systems advise the GM to overlook or modify die rolls or rules. In particular, they suggest that cool-sounding or inspirational PC actions be allowed to succeed. There is also the alternate concept that the challenge should be fair -- meaning that if the players act intelligently, the PCs should succeed. Simulationism rejects both of these. Results are not fudged for story, so when faced with difficult odds the PCs may well fail. Alternatively, they may get lucky and breeze past the opposition. There is no bias that the PCs will be facing difficult but beatable odds.

Principle of Internal Cause.  Following the decided upon Physics of the world. That I feel is a principle that could fit into many definitions of Simulationism.  Ok.  However, while system and mechanics DO matter and can adjust the feel or mode of game, a mechanic which alters probability could be argued to add to the Exploration factor.  Altering probability is real: its called cheating so the mechanics allow the Player to cheat for his or her character.  What if that IS internally consistent with the world view?  What makes the action of only letting the dice and player decisions based on background, more or less Simulationism?

The vital lesson to be learned from this is letting go of what you want the story to be. Often RPGs can turn into a meta-game power struggle between players and GM, or among players. The GM wants the story to go one way, and the players want it to go a different way. Simulationism encourages letting go of expectations of how you want things to turn out, and instead concentrate on enriching what does happen.

I am not sure how you can divorce Player expectation of story from the game?  If the players desire to be Goblin slayers, they want to play a game about Goblin slayers and their story will be about Goblin slayers.  The Simulationism vs. whatever alternative would come about as regard of the mechanics but the "story" would be the same.  Wouldn't it? Its at this point that I might suggest redfining the internal bits of Simulationism, John.  You say its not like a movie or book and yet you use Story and Plot to explain what is going on.  That would suggest a structure at least a kissing cousin away from book or movie.

Another vital lesson is to reduce the stigma of failure[/quote[ Totally agree.  Indeed I think this could and should be considered in multiple modes of play.

Simulationism rejects this as a method. Without an external agenda of goals which they are supposed to pursue, the characters should pursue goals which are personally important to them. The players must learn to create characters whose actions are interesting to play. The foremost among these is willingness to take risks. Play will then center on extrapolating the consequences of their actions. If a PC takes risks for his ambitions, then he may succeed or he may fail. Either way is interesting.
        Further, these become goals relevant to the players, because character creation is a deeply personal process. Given choice and scope to make a complex character, players will invest a piece of themselves. This often represents wish fulfillment: characters who can and will do things that the player cannot. This is not a meta-game agenda separate from the character itself. Rather, the fiction character in its definition reflects the interests and wishes of the player. Extrapolating the results of these efforts inherently produces meaning relevant to the player. Rather than the GM guessing what will be meaningful to the player, it is up to the player to create a character whose actions are meaningful.

I agree.  That's a good thing to try and get the Players to do in ANY RPG.  How is it unique to Simulationism or if not unique then more necessary for the heart of Simulationism?

Simulationist role-playing is concerned about accurately reflecting other personalities, cultures, and philosophies from your own

Is the difference here "accurate reflection"?  Honestly again any mode might be about the above with the possible exception of  "accurate reflection".  

The emotional power of Simulationism usually stems from the consequences of player choice. For similar reasons, Simulationists tended to favor point-based character creation rather than random-roll.

I am not sure how accurate this is but it seems counter-intuitive.  If they would be interested in exploring the world as it presents itself, then would not the randomness of birth be more Simulationist then point buy?

Threefold Simulationism is based on method and observation rather than a theoretical goal which it strives for. The tool is simulation: projecting what should happen based on the game-world as it has been imagined. Put aside what you think the story should be based on books and movies, and instead think about the game-world as an alternate reality

Movies and books are not Alternate Realities?  

Whew ok.  Let me see if I can articulate what I get from this.  Simulationism as a mode of Play differs from other (unnamed in this essay) modes of play because it relies on Background inspired Character motives to push along the game or story as opposed to Game Master initiated hooks. It also uses mechanics and background to maintain internal consistency. Am I close? If so then I really am not sure how Simulationism is different then any other mode of play.  That is to say, many of the ideas that are described in this essay could and do reflect Play in other modes.  Also what are the Other or Counter Modes to Three Fold Simulationism? A compare and Contrast could be helpful and not necessarily vs. GNS.  I mean in its own Universe, what are the other modes of play associated with Three Fold Simulationism?

Ok so there it is.

Sean

[clehrich]

I'm going to run through much of Sean's post point-by-point.  This is not intended as one of those vicious "you got everything wrong" things, although I am critical.  But Sean has built up a series of objections, and I think it makes the most sense to clarify or respond in order.

Please also note that I'm not particularly defending the Threefold Model here, just seeking clarification.

A central feature of Simulationism is that it rejects closely identifying role-playing with either fiction writing or other types of games. This is important, because role-playing is often viewed and judged by external standards. For example, an RPG might be judged poor if the events it produces would not make a good book or movie of that type.

This introduction intrigues me a bit.  RPG's will be judged poorly if they do not make good books or movies? Do you mean if the game does not tell a good story?

Here is, I think, the central misunderstanding.  The rejection stated here is that one should not do game-structuring so as to generate a product that parallels that of another medium.  That is, if one were to film the game as it actually ran, you might well end up with a terrible film, or even a good one.  Either way, it's irrelevant.  The point is not that RPGs should be judged poor if they do or don't make good movies or novels; the point is that they should not be judged in this way at all.

The contrast here, I think, is the Threefold's version of Dramatism, in which producing a story-like, novel-like, film-like product is precisely paramount, and used as a judgment tool.  This is not particularly the case with GNS Narrativism, although it sometimes creeps in, but it is profoundly rejected in Threefold Simulationism.

What if the people i.e. gamers or RPG'ers, conclude that how they like play is like in a book or movie?  Should we conclude for ourselves how we like play? I would think yes.  Thats true in any mode.  So how is  TFS (Three Fold Simulationism) different from the other modes in that regard.

Then your preference is not particularly Simulationism.  That is precisely the difference.  Of course you can make whatever choice you like, but if your choice is to play games that are like books and movies, then you have chosen not to do Simulationism.

It may be extrapolation, random, or arbitrarily imagined -- but it cannot be deliberately constructed for narrative purpose. This rejects melodramatic hooks or other prepared dramatic structure

...How do you judge unreasonable? WHO judges it? In a Super Hero World if I as GM introduce A Galactus planet eater, is that unreasonable?  Simulating possibility and probability would be an arduous task I think, even for the best of us.  So reasonability is decided when? Should the players call "bogus" if the GM steps out of line?

This is of course an aesthetic judgment within the gaming group.  Let's take a more "straight" Sim example, in which we have a modern urban setting.  Suppose that two characters are having a romance ongoing at the moment.  If you want to create a classic dramatic scenario, you introduce conflict and tension into the romance: For example, you engineer the situation so that John thinks Mary is sleeping with Edward, when she isn't.  Again, you might have John hit by a car and in a coma so that Mary will rush to his side and have a nice teary scene.  This is what John means, I think, by melodramatic plot hooks.

Now in TFSim, such things can of course happen, but the GM should not plan them on a dramatic basis.  That is, neither the GM nor anyone else can play a "dramatic tension card" or something and cause the conflict.  In other words, whatever melodrama arises must happen of its own accord, or randomly, and not from deliberate choice.  It's simply a question of whether or not the group guides events to seem story-like; in Sim, you can't do this.

In Simulationist play, the onus is more on the players to drive play. Without contrived situations to force the PCs into action, the PCs need to be more pro-active. They need to be rebellious, in the sense that faced with a stable status quo, they will take risks to upset that status quo. In GM-driven adventures, there is an unusual event (a melodramatic hook) which spurs the PCs to action. But in Simulationism, there will not usually be such unusual events. Without such hooks, the PCs need to seek out conflict.

....Ok so what if the PC's do not seek out conflict?  Conflict should not come to them? I would think that in most worlds, trouble usually finds you no matter how hard you try and avoid it, but in Simulationism the GM would not be able to put forth Plot that might intrigue the players?

This is exactly the classic difficulty in Sim play, in my experience.  The GM creates an intricate and internally consistent world, then lets the PC's loose in it.  He certainly drops the odd hint about what's going on, but it's up to the PC's to get involved.  If they choose not to, waiting for events to come to them, generally nothing happens at all.  

In classic Sim play, however, there is a pre-constructed "drive" in the PC's that makes them cause trouble.  For example, they may want to get money or power.  Just sitting around won't get them these things, so they formulate plans to get it actively.  Then the world reacts, because these people are shaking up the status quo.

Also, how is it handled when the GM tries to make things a little more interesting.  Lets say our conflict seekers go looking for a Goblin lair.  GM knows Goblins are easy pickings so he adds a Troll ally.  When PCs meet the Troll do they call foul? "Sorry as previously decided in world Trolls and goblins hate each other." IS the GM allowed to spice up the world on the fly?

Yes, this is a "foul," although I think players crying "foul" is a marker of dysfunction.  The GM cannot create something to make things "more interesting" that violates the internal continuity of the world.  The GM can, however, create a difficult problem by having a troll who has been ensorcelled by a goblin shaman or something.  Then the PC's can just whomp their way through, or they can break the spell and get the troll on their side, or possibly just ignore the troll and walk around.  But the GM cannot decide, "things are getting boring, let's throw in a troll."

Results are not fudged for story, so when faced with difficult odds the PCs may well fail. Alternatively, they may get lucky and breeze past the opposition. There is no bias that the PCs will be facing difficult but beatable odds.

....[W]hile system and mechanics DO matter and can adjust the feel or mode of game, a mechanic which alters probability could be argued to add to the Exploration factor.  Altering probability is real: its called cheating so the mechanics allow the Player to cheat for his or her character.  What if that IS internally consistent with the world view?

An interesting, if rather unusual, situation.  Yes, if the structure of the universe is such that the PC's can bend its rules, then such bending needs to be simulated in the rules.  But it can only go in one direction: the PC's must have a mechanism by which to bend the universe; the players cannot change the die-rolls mechanically, then back-calculate how the PC's accomplished it.

The vital lesson to be learned from this is letting go of what you want the story to be. .... Simulationism encourages letting go of expectations of how you want things to turn out, and instead concentrate on enriching what does happen.

I am not sure how you can divorce Player expectation of story from the game?  If the players desire to be Goblin slayers, they want to play a game about Goblin slayers and their story will be about Goblin slayers.

Their lives will certainly be about trying to go out and slay goblins.  But if they take on too much for them, they will be dead goons, not goblin-slayers.  If they can't find any goblins, they will be wannabes, not goblin-slayers.  The divorce that needs to happen, I think, is between what the players want and what the PC's want.  If the PC's want to be goblin-slayers, that's one thing; if the players want a story about goblin-slayers, that's another.  The former is fine Sim; the latter is not.

Its at this point that I might suggest redfining the internal bits of Simulationism, John.  You say its not like a movie or book and yet you use Story and Plot to explain what is going on.  That would suggest a structure at least a kissing cousin away from book or movie.

On this I'd like clarification.  I don't quite get your point, Sean, but it sounds complex.

Simulationist role-playing is concerned about accurately reflecting other personalities, cultures, and philosophies from your own

Is the difference here "accurate reflection"?  Honestly again any mode might be about the above with the possible exception of  "accurate reflection".  

Think of historical reconstruction-type games.  In the sort of Sim John's talking about, it might matter tremendously whether Vikings are accurately represented as really like they actually were in their own time.  In more Dramatic sorts of games, it doesn't matter all that much so long as it makes a great story.  

Let's suppose the PC's wander into a Viking village and start talking to some big, burly guy.  They also notice that he has a really hot-looking daughter.  Now one way to get a great story going is to have a PC hit on the daughter.  Lots of tension, lots of drama, lots of potential.   Now let's suppose a PC actually does this because his character is very into women; she, being a pretty lusty lass herself, responds.  Now when the big guy finds out, he starts shouting and causing a ruckus, and everyone gathers around to see the fun.  The PC gets up and says, "Your mother was a hamster, and your father smelt of elderberries."  So far, these games are equivalent.  

Now in the more Dramatic-type game, what happens now is probably a big challenge, duel, whatever; if the big guy is obviously much stronger than the PC, the gang will engineer some way to make it semi-fair and have a good scene.  In the more Sim game, however, the GM knows that such an insult is a special type in Icelandic law, because it asserts something that could not be true (as opposed to a claim of cowardice), and that it means the big guy is allowed to kill the PC with impunity (this was actually true, incidentally -- it's called ragr, if I remember correctly).  So everyone standing around goes, "Oh well, Bjorn, just wallop him and come have a beer."  Bjorn now draws his sword and simply tries to kill the PC -- no duel, no challenge, no messing around.  It may be a good story if they fight for a while and so forth, but this guy is now in a death-rage and the PC is dead meat.  End of nice story, end of PC.  "But," you say, "the player didn't know that!  And the PC didn't know that!"  Tough.  Life sucks, then you die.

Put aside what you think the story should be based on books and movies, and instead think about the game-world as an alternate reality

Movies and books are not Alternate Realities?  

And so we come full circle.  No, they aren't.  Movies and books are specific artistic and entertainment products with fairly specific types of narrative and story and so forth.  RPG's may, of course, try to generate similar narratives and stories, but they don't have to.  Simulationism demands that we set aside even the concept of striving for such story and just follow the internal logic of the world.  Our actual lives would make rather dull movies, but they can be exciting to live.  Just so, Simulationism wants to have exciting lives that may be boring movies.

I think that about covers it.  The big confusion is about product and the push for story.  TFSim is against this as a goal.

Chris Lehrich

[Umberhulk]

Well, I see I am not the only one.  Sean seems to have a similar view point to me.  Rewind back to address a comment from the first page:

Well, what is the point of simulating something for another thing's sake? I mean, suppose your game is "true" to comics books -- or suppose your game addresses a Premise. Who cares? That just begs the question of why should you do the other thing. What is the point of reading comic books, or watching sports, or dancing, or stamp collecting? What tangible reward does your role-playing accomplish that Simulationist "pointless" role-playing doesn't? It's not like it's going to put clothes on your back or food in your mouth.

The point is that the people simulating are learning or experiencing the other something in a way that they can't in the other mediums.  Back to the comics analogy, say maybe Mr. Fantastic never fought Mrs. Fantastic in the comic books.  You and your friends want to see how that fight would play out even though there is no source system reference.  You run an experiment with the data that you do have and interpolate what could happen. Why?  Because you and your friends like and enjoy the subject matter.  

If the subject matter of the simulation is predominately undefined, the process of running experiments will add clarity by creating a "pseudo world" that is a possible look at the subject area.  The players may then accept or reject that pseudo world as the actual subject area.

Which brings me to the realization that the Threefold Simulation is just another experiment.  Its just that the subject area for the simulation is mostly undefined, but the sim model is global and consistent.  The experiment does take inputs of background and setting information, races, technologies, etc.  These are all story related elements to me.  The characters all begin somewhere and there is likely a geography, or probabilities modelled that define what they could find if they explore.  Its just that the experiment's run time is long and the players do not wish to model NPCs very deeply.  At the end of the experiment the Threefold Simulationist has brought greater clarity to this undefined subject area.  Perhaps they end up with a new continent discovered and explored and their character ends up ownsing several castles.  The point is that they have brought clarity to the subject area.

I think it is possible to look at the kinds of experiments created (which inputs are used), the simulated duration of the experiments, how the results of those experiments are used as feedback to the game rules and as feedback for subject area (pseudo world) clarity, and the sequence of experiments in order to examine different styles of play.

[John Kim]

Sean -

Some your comments seem to be addressed as if Simulationism is a way that you are supposed to play.  It's not.  It is distinct from how many people play, but I'm definitely not saying it's superior to others in general.  

What if the people i.e. gamers or RPG'ers, conclude that how they like play is like in a book or movie?  Should we conclude for ourselves how we like play? I would think yes.  Thats true in any mode.  So how is  TFS (Three Fold Simulationism) different from the other modes in that regard.  

Obviously you should determine for yourself how you want to play.  You could try it and decide that you don't like Simulationism, or simply decide that you're not interested enough to try it in the first place.  I'm not trying to tell you how you should play play -- I'm just trying to describe one way of playing that I have tried and liked.  

Also, how is it handled when the GM tries to make things a little more interesting.  Lets say our conflict seekers go looking for a Goblin lair.  GM knows Goblins are easy pickings so he adds a Troll ally.  When PCs meet the Troll do they call foul? "Sorry as previously decided in world Trolls and goblins hate each other."  IS the GM allowed to spice up the world on the fly?  

Well, no!!  That's the point.  The GM would be straying from Simulationism by doing so.  If the players want a pure Simulationist game, then they will give him feedback that they didn't like the feeling that he was trying to spice things up that way.  I understand that this seems strange, but that's the way it is.  As I said, there is the fear that nothing will happen -- that just playing through the consequences of character decisions will be boring.  But I find that after some adjustment, it can be very interesting to follow character decisions -- even ones like deciding to slaughter hapless goblins.  The interesting part doesn't come from how tough the fight is, but rather from what it means to the characters.  

I am not sure how you can divorce Player expectation of story from the game?  If the players desire to be Goblin slayers, they want to play a game about Goblin slayers and their story will be about Goblin slayers.  The Simulationism vs. whatever alternative would come about as regard of the mechanics but the bits of Simulationism, John.  You say its not like a movie or book and yet you use Story and Plot to explain what is going on.  That would suggest a structure at least a kissing cousin away from book or movie.  

I can use a story to describe what happened to me the other day, but that doesn't mean that real life is just like books and movies.  Whether they are kissing distance or spitting distance is a matter of perspective -- I don't think there is any way to resolve the judgement.  I can say that from my experience it is possible to let go of story expectations.  A game can go off in a genre and direction which none of the participants expected in the least, and yet everyone likes it.  I don't have any great revelations about how to encourage this, except to just ask everyone to try.  

Simulationism as a mode of Play differs from other (unnamed in this essay) modes of play because it relies on Background inspired Character motives to push along the game or story as opposed to Game Master initiated hooks. It also uses mechanics and background to maintain internal consistency. Am I close? If so then I really am not sure how Simulationism is different then any other mode of play. That is to say, many of the ideas that are described in this essay could and do reflect Play in other modes.  Also what are the Other or Counter Modes to Three Fold Simulationism? A compare and Contrast could be helpful and not necessarily vs. GNS.  I mean in its own Universe, what are the other modes of play associated with Three Fold Simulationism?  

Have you read the original Threefold Model FAQ(s)?  I have some info at http://www.darkshire.net/~jhkim/rpg/theory/threefold/    That's all I've got at the moment.  I suspect you're not really grasping the "no spicing up" aspect of Simulationism which is the core tenet.  In my experience, that is totally alien from how most GMs approach play.  The vast majority of GMs prepare for the session by meta-game thinking: i.e. "What will make for a cool adventure for my players?"

[ADGBoss]

John

Yes I have read the Three Fold FAQ and I see when you say Three FOld you are referring to the entire monkey.  From the way you presented your Essay I was under the impression that your Sim was a Three headed beast different from that.  However I am seeing the connection now.

I do understand the no GM Spicing idea.  My questions were aimed at pinning that down as a basic tenent.  It is an interesting Premise but I do find some fallacy with it.  I will say that if you could program a computer with all the variables of the world AND give it the ability to describe that to players, then I think this experiment could be well run.  I also agree with TFS idea of empowering the players to be more proactive in the game.  However, that is not Sim per se thats ANY game and indeed any activity.

I see two main issues with this theory though:

1) Trust as it relates to the Game Master or Judge
2) Creative World Design vs. Railroading

1) The last Player who spoke up and said "Your not doing it right" during a game I was GMing can breathe ok, as long as no one unplugs her :) No seriously, I am all for empowering everyone's voice at the table with regard to play and mechanics.  No GM is perfect and if I need to reminded that a sword does D6+1 well hey I appreciate their knowledge of the Rules/ Alternate Reality.  The problem comes in because the players have to be wary of everything the GM says and the GM needs to be mindful of internal consistency to an extraordinary degree.

Per example: Players go to a town the GM has only basic notes on.
"Ok we walk up to the Blacksmith in Exmore."
GM:"Ok. HEllo and well met travelers, I am Bob Blacksmith of Exmore."
"What are you making?"
GM: "Horse shoes. Do you all have horses?"
"No. Any dangers in this town?"
GM  "Nope. We are having a great time here."
"Well lets explore the town more and seek out conflict..."

What if there IS no conflict in this town? In True Sim if the town had been designed as peaceful then there would be none and the GM could not create one on the Fly.  Clearly though the Players want conflict IN THIS TOWN but they would not trust the GM enough to make it up as he or she goes.

True Sim has an in built level of paranoia and distrust which I do not feel makes for good gameplay.

2) So the GM creates the world or buys the supplement with the World in it.  By definition it is gong to have Plot Hooks that make it interesting.  So its ok to put in hooks and twists and spice BEFORE Play begins but not AFTER? The way you describe it any meddling after the groundwork has been set would deny the characters their right not to be railroaded.  I do not think its a fear that nothing will happen players find things to do, but they find them in the Conflicts that already exist within a world.  Although it is equally valid for them to start new conflicts that have some meaning to their characters but how is this True Sim or TFS?  

interesting part doesn't come from how tough the fight is, but rather from what it means to the characters.

Ok thats good but what if the point of slaying Goblins is for my character how tough they are to fight?

To sum up what I am saying is that yes, allowing Players to make meaningful choices may be a tenet of Simulationism but it is also a tenet of "Other" Modes.  I believe it woudl be more Accurate to say that Meaningful Play is allowing the Players to make meaningful choices.  That is in any mode of Play.  So to say its a part of Simulationism is correct but to say its not part of the others would not, in my opinion, be a correct statement.

Enjoyable read though and much food for thought.  I will be interested when the revision comes out that mentioned and see what I think then.

Sean

[John Kim]

I am all for empowering everyone's voice at the table with regard to play and mechanics.  No GM is perfect and if I need to reminded that a sword does D6+1 well hey I appreciate their knowledge of the Rules/ Alternate Reality.  The problem comes in because the players have to be wary of everything the GM says and the GM needs to be mindful of internal consistency to an extraordinary degree.  
...
True Sim has an in built level of paranoia and distrust which I do not feel makes for good gameplay.  

By this logic, Dramatist players need to constantly analyze the game's story to an extraordinary degree for the slightest flaw in pacing or theme -- and they can't trust their GM because she might make a choice which detracts from story, so they have to constantly watch the GM for any anti-story choices.  These sort of trust issues can arise in any game.  It is solved by honesty and open communication.  

You seem to have a similar issue that the simulation has to be perfect in computer-like detail.  This is no more true than that every story has to be Pulitzer-perfect.  Rough guesses are fine; mistakes happen; rules may be changed or fudged.  For example in my Vinland RuneQuest game (which isn't pure Simulationist, but has influences), I lacked a mass combat system.  Obviously it would be impossible to play out a 3-day battle with 700 combatants using the RQ individual combat rules.  For a given day I had each PC roll three attack and three defense rolls, and extrapolated from that how they did overall.  Then we had an overall roll for everyone else.  Did this break the simulation?  No, because simulation isn't defined as doing everything perfectly.  It is defined as not deciding based on metagame, which is what I did.  

Per example: Players go to a town the GM has only basic notes on.
"Ok we walk up to the Blacksmith in Exmore."
GM:"Ok. HEllo and well met travelers, I am Bob Blacksmith of Exmore."
"What are you making?"
GM: "Horse shoes. Do you all have horses?"
"No. Any dangers in this town?"
GM  "Nope. We are having a great time here."
"Well lets explore the town more and seek out conflict..."

What if there IS no conflict in this town? In True Sim if the town had been designed as peaceful then there would be none and the GM could not create one on the Fly.  Clearly though the Players want conflict IN THIS TOWN but they would not trust the GM enough to make it up as he or she goes.  

Well, since you assume that players want a conflict in this town, I have to agree with you.  If the players want to have their PCs wander into a random peaceful-looking town and find an adventure, then they don't want Simulationist play -- and yes they should trust the GM to make up a dramatic hook to start a conflict (or use a system where they can make it up themselves).  

This is why I emphasized that wandering adventurers and similar character types don't work so well in Simulationism.  For Simulationist play, you should look at the character motivations.  From what you say they seem to be seeking out danger.  If they really want to find danger, then they should go to a war zone or lawless region.  But the key is to ask: why are they seeking danger?  What are they trying to accomplish?  Following that is what leads to interesting Simulationist play.  

For example, in a HarnMaster campaign I was playing an Agrikan priest who was in the fairly peaceful village of Cuthren.  He was fairly devout and he secretly believed in a banned sect: the Order of Eight Demons.  So he was seeking power to help the order with, as well as trying to convert the lord of the village over to his cause.  It didn't matter if things were peaceful, he would break the peace as needed to get what he was after.  

Enjoyable read though and much food for thought.  I will be interested when the revision comes out that mentioned and see what I think then.  

Well, don't expect major new content with the revision.  The essay is what it is.  Changes will be mainly to clarify portions where my language wasn't clear, and add in some references to relevant works I had forgotten.  On the other hand, I might write another essay and I expect to discuss the issues more here.

[Silmenume]

Some things that struck me about the essay – as was said before, opinion not fact.

...what happens should be based on thinking only about what would happen in the game-world as a(n) alternate reality.

– There is an underlying assumption that only the players have a true handle of what would happen in an alternate reality.  This is implied in the suggestion that the players can and will call foul if they perceived that DM spiced up an event (and they can only perceive for they have no objective means to determine whether something was indeed "spiced up" by the DM or the in question event was merely the lucky happenstance of some randomizing factor) and it did not unfold based upon "thinking what would happen in the alternate reality."  The obverse of this situation, the DM crying foul on a PC action for violating the character "alternate reality" thinking credo is not addressed, but it is implied that such an editorial act would not be allowed.

Enriching what does happen

– "make fuller, more meaningful, or more rewarding"(dictionary.com) - implies stepping out of character, assessing what those meaningful elements are, and actively working on promoting those elements deemed worthy of enrichment and de-emphasizing those elements not deemed worthy of enrichment.  The act or desire for enrichment IS a dramatic choice or desire. By dramatic I mean something that engages the players.  Thus, is not choosing to enrich a form or subset of choosing to "spice" things up?

By removing the hooks, it forces the players to plumb their characters' drives

Actually it doesn't force the players to do anything.  All that you have done is remove the carrot, but there is no stick.  A player, out of frustration might plumb their character's drives, but he could just as well turn Gamist to make things interesting, or Narrativist to push things along, or start yacking it up at the table, or read a book or play a computer game or just leave the table.  There is nothing implied in the model that player behavior will be channeled into any desired direction.

Threefold Simulation is based on method and observation...  

– This is a contradictory statement.  Observation is a passive process at least as far as the thing observed is concerned.  Method defines prescriptions upon implied actions.  Actions violate the passive process of Observation, thus altering that which is being observed – overtly, not just in the quantum sense.  I am not trying to be a grammar butthead, goodness knows mine is terrible, but a method implies a goal.  A method is a shaping mechanism, which does imply a goal on one level or another.  So to say that TFS model is based on observation and is not goal driven is contradictory, as method implies goal.

Another vital lesson is to reduce the stigma of failure. Systems which reward players with character success also necessarily stigmatize the players of PCs who fail. In these systems, if your PC fails, it is because the GM didn't think your playing was good enough to be granted a success. This makes the game judgmental, and focuses the players on performance (either as game-players or as actors). If the group agrees to stick to the Simulationist results, then the focus shifts. Players still try to have their PCs succeed, but it is more acceptable for a PC to fail because it does not imply failure on the part of the player. There is more focus on detailing what happened -- both externally and internally to the characters.

This needs to be broken down into several parts.
False assumptions –
·   A player who fails in a conflict situation that has GM intervention must be the result of GM judgment/action and does not reflect player skill or bad luck.
·   Rewarding an aspect of play implies bias on the part of the GM.
·   Systems stigmatize a player.
·   Failure at something automatically invites stigma.
·   The way TFS is currently described judgmental play is not permitted.
·   Players won't judge a player if the GM isn't involved.
·   Players won't focus on the outcome of the conflict if the GM isn't involved.

A GM could be aiding a player through a conflict situation but the player still makes decisions so poorly that the GM cannot overcome the efforts of the player.  The same could hold true regarding luck.  Finally just because a GM is involved in a conflict situation that a player is involved in does not mean the GM is "taking sides," he could just be adding color to the event without any desire to push the conflict in or out of favor of the player.

Rewarding play efforts does not mean the DM thinks the player should succeed, it just means that particular act was found to be worthy of encouragement.  The GM is rewarding instances of play, not funneling results.

Systems cannot stigmatize a player, even ones that "punish" failure.  Stigmatizing is a purely human/social process.

Failure does not mean stigma will automatically follow, that's a choice the players make, not something that is inherent to failure.

TFS model implies a great deal of judgmental play on the part of the players in their constant vigilance on the inscrutable motives of the GM.

As long as the player has some input to the conflict there will ALWAYS be judgment about said player's actions.  The key is that these judgments should not be voiced or acted upon.  Point in fact, as the GM becomes less involved in the outcome of the said conflict, the more of the onus of the outcome of the conflict lies on that player, not less.  Other than GNS Gamist play, this is something that is to be encouraged in all modes of play.

To the best of my understanding one of the preeminent goals of TFS play is the unadulterated flow of events.  Yet, there is also great importance given to the idea of "enriching what does happen."  These two goals seem to be at odds with one another.  I suppose they can be reconciled if there are qualifiers inserted into them.  In other words we are not really looking to achieve a true unadulterated flow of events, but rather a flow events that has not been altered by the DM, but can be influenced by character choice.  The problem is that it is impossible to remove DM influence and it is impossible to remove the player from the character.  It seems to me to be the impossible thing before breakfast.  You need humans to play and run the game, but their influences are not desired.  The DM is not allowed (or strongly discouraged) to influence the flow of events, and the players are not allowed (or strongly discouraged) to influence the decisions of their characters, as player desires are irrelevant.  This I find particularly confusing, as it was player desire that drove the player to engage in roleplay in the first place.

To continue along this impossible to enforce goal of nearly Kantian disinterests in the game, the TFS model rejects the use of an internal state, which is IMPOSSIBLE to effectively enforce, as it is impossible to measure any internal state.  By this I refer to the rejection of a DM's narrative based motives for creating an event.  Why does it matter, or how does it adversely affect the play experience if the DM creates an event for a dramatic purpose if the players can't tell?  Conversely if the players decry a DM created event as "dramatically motivated" (which I can only guess to mean something that violates internal causality), but the DM was totally true to the alternate reality, or to be even more objective, responding directly to a randomized event (random encounter table), what purpose does this serve as the players were mistaken their guessing of the intent of the DM?  Why a DM prepares anything for the world is irrelevant as long as the players see it as consistent with their aesthetic of internal cause.

Also the term "Internal Cause" needs to be defined.  Do you mean "Internal Causality" as in the physics staying consistent with the established alternate reality?  Or do you mean "Internal Cause" with reference to game events springing forth only from the actions of the characters.  Specifically events can only arise (be caused by) as result of actions that were generated within (internal) the character space of the game as opposed to events that happened with the characters involvement (external to the character space)?  Do you mean both?  Neither?  And if internal cause does mean arising from actions that the characters took why is this a desired form of play? Also does that not represent a type of agenda regarding the flow of events of the alternate reality?  Say a person is murdered.  That happens in real life.  I can assure you the victim did not seek out to be murdered, yet it happened nonetheless and it is a dramatic (emotionally profound) event.  I can assure you that the murderer was motivated by his own desired, yet it happened nonetheless and it is dramatic The TFS model would reject all these events as contrived, because the DM placed them into play (if his impossible to determine motives were dramatically inclined), or that they are, by some subjective yardstick are measured to be too inherently dramatic and thus do not accurately reflect the alternate reality.

It seems to me that TFS places great stress on internal states precisely because of its operational rejection of internal states as a goal of play.

There is an assumption that dramatic and internally or "naturally" caused are somehow mutually exclusive.

There seems to be a conflating of ideas regarding the act of mimicry and the act of drawing inspiration from existing dramatic works.

Every player has an agenda when they sit at the table even if it is something as mundane as "having a good time roleplaying."

Finally it seems to me that TFS adheres to the Formalism aesthetic with its strict adherence to form over content –

List of conventions or forms required for TFS play

·   GM must be passive in play even to the point to the detriment of player enjoyment.
·   Events can only arise out of the character space – if the players do nothing then nothing happens as the GM is prohibited from "spicing things up".
·   Limitations on Character personalities – "They need to be rebellious"
·   There must be (or the greatest chance of successfully running a TFS game needs) a stable status quo in the world – a dynamic world runs the risk of being too contrived as the GM must not be proactive and it is impossible to separate out that which is consistent with the alternate reality of its own accord and that which is consistent with the alternate reality but is dramatically motivated.
·   Rejection of story creation as goal.
·   Rejection of dramatic story telling techniques as part of gaming process – one cannot highlight or make more dramatic the unfolding of an event even if those highlights do not alter the outcome.
·   Players must adopt their style of play to fit TFS forms – "The players MUST learn to create characters whose actions are interesting to play."
·   Character integrity is more important than player engagement. "...The interesting part doesn't come from how tough the fight is (a player perspective), but rather from what it means to the characters."
·   World integrity is more important than player engagement.
·   Players determine what world integrity is, but are restricted in what passes for character integrity.

TFS seems more interested in keeping its form true than being interesting to the players.  Is that the case?  I'm not saying whether that is a good thing or not, I am curious because depending on the answer a lot of issues clear themselves up.

I admire your efforts to put forth such a work and the guts to put it up for review.  Kudos!

Just some thoughts,

Aure Entaluva.

Silmenume

[clehrich]

I think a lot of this is going around in circles, and I think I spot one of the possibly larger number of reasons for it.

The act or desire for enrichment IS a dramatic choice or desire. By dramatic I mean something that engages the players.

Again,

There is an assumption that dramatic and internally or "naturally" caused are somehow mutually exclusive.

There seems to be a conflating of ideas regarding the act of mimicry and the act of drawing inspiration from existing dramatic works.

Every player has an agenda when they sit at the table even if it is something as mundane as "having a good time roleplaying."

The basic difficulty here is that Silmenume defines "dramatic" this way.  Because this is so, every game necessarily either has a dramatic purpose or disregards player interest.

TFS does not define drama this way.  There, drama refers specifically to a limited set of aesthetic forms associated with a limited number of media in a limited number of cultures.  "Engaging interest" has nothing whatever to do with this.  Because this is so, according to TFS a game can be very interested in player interest and nevertheless entirely set aside dramatic concerns.

TFS also assumes a kind of "open" method; that is, it assumes that all the players (including GM) know what's going on in terms of what I believe is called Creative Agenda -- i.e. TFS.  Therefore a player who

out of frustration might plumb their character's drives, but he could just as well turn Gamist to make things interesting, or Narrativist to push things along, or start yacking it up at the table, or read a book or play a computer game or just leave the table

is one who refuses to abide by the conventions of TFS and the social contract.  This is not TFS's fault; people ought to choose games they like.

This now takes us to the issue of shared purpose and goals, which gets right back to the drama/purpose issue:

A GM could be aiding a player through a conflict situation but the player still makes decisions so poorly that the GM cannot overcome the efforts of the player.

This is simply not the case.  There is nothing whatever that says that a GM (or other player) cannot, in some games, drastically alter probability and anything else to ensure player/character success.  In some more GNS-Narrativist-oriented games, in fact, no character ever needs to fail unless the player chooses for this to happen.  In TFS, however, the opposite extreme holds true: there will be times when a GM cannot protect a player's character from the painful winds of events.

In the end, what we have here is a conflict of goal.  A number of folks here seem to feel that the TFS approach leads to poor gaming.  John does not agree.  But we're supposed to be discussing an analytical model, not making judgments about play, and such more or less implicit judgments are leading us into confusion:

As long as the player has some input to the conflict there will ALWAYS be judgment about said player's actions.  The key is that these judgments should not be voiced or acted upon.  Point in fact, as the GM becomes less involved in the outcome of the said conflict, the more of the onus of the outcome of the conflict lies on that player, not less.  Other than GNS Gamist play, this is something that is to be encouraged in all modes of play.

I think that the TFS approach is one in which these aesthetic choices, here taken as givens, are discarded.

If I understand John correctly, he's proposing a description of a form of play that actually exists, and trying to formulate that mode as a coherent, comprehensible approach to play.  It seems to me that our tasks as readers are (1) to ensure that this description is clearly stated, and (2) to ensure that the clear description describes something that actually happens.  I'm sure that the second is true, personally, but it would appear that there are some confusions about #1.

Chris Lehrich

[John Kim]

OK, I'm not going to go point-by-point with Jay's opinions, since I think the general point is key:

TFS seems more interested in keeping its form true than being interesting to the players.  Is that the case?  I'm not saying whether that is a good thing or not, I am curious because depending on the answer a lot of issues clear themselves up.  

Jay, I don't understand what your point is.  This is fundamentally true -- it is possible to have players who don't enjoy Simulationist play, and thus Simulationism ignores their interests and instead concentrates on being true to form.  However, the same thing can be said about any distinct style of play.  For example, GNS Gamism demands stepping up.  But suppose the players aren't interested in stepping up.  Following your logic, GNS Gamism is also a style which puts being true to its form over the enjoyment of the players.  

Luckily, this is solved by simply realizing that no one is forcing you to play in any style.  

To pick a particular point, you characterize Simulationism as saying "GM must be passive in play even to the point to the detriment of player enjoyment".  This I find intriguing because this aspect is extremely similar to Ron's suggestion of http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=4988">Playing Bass for Narrativism.  I think some anxiety about GM passivity is very common, and indeed some players don't like it.  So it might be to the detriment of player enjoyment (whether Narrativist or not), but it can also be very much for player enjoyment.