Thoughts on why details are so important to Sim players

[Silmenume]

The need for detail in a Sim game is equivalent to someone constantly touching and touching some lost treasure that was lost and found.  The act of "touching", represented in Sim roleplay as the constant need for accurate detail, is "needed" in that it affirms and reaffirms the fictional reality of the SIS.  Since in roleplay there is no tangible element built in, the closest we have are the affirmations, via details, of the synthetic reality.  As was demonstrated in previous threads details do not a Sim game make.  The desire and or the preponderance of time spent on details in Sim games reflect something going on that IS important to the players.  Sim players do not desire lots of details as an end unto themselves, but rather the need for details represent a need for something that is expressed in the desire/acceptance/search for such details.  The presentation of these details can be done so in a manner that has its own aesthetic, and can be appreciated beyond the utilitarian needs satisfied, but they are present for a purpose that is important to the players beyond that aesthetic.

Which brings me to my point – the things we create in each agenda do have a yard stick by which to measure our efforts.

Gamism – Victory
Narrativism – Premise/Theme
Simulationism – Aesthetic

·   Thus in Gamism we determine the value of actions taken by the players as measured against the metric provided by the idea of victory.
·   In Narrativism we determine the value of actions taken by the players as measured against the metric provided by the premise.
·   In Simulationism we determine the value of actions taken by the players as measured against the metric provided by aesthetic theory.  This aesthetic is almost invariably not formalized and it is just this ambiguity that baffles so many people.

Conversely these metrics also (in 2 out of 3 cases) provide some guidance as to what to do in a game if one should be stymied...

·   In Gamism, when in doubt about what to do next, choose those actions that drive towards victory.
·   In Narrativism, when in doubt about what to do next, choose those actions that address or create premise.
·   In Simulationism, when in doubt about what to do next, the aesthetic metric does not provide much guidance so in its stead we lean on the elements of the Shared Imagined Space.  The more details, the richer the resource we have from which to mine new ideas.  Creation, at least on a mortal level, does not occur in a vacuum, thus the more fodder (details) we have the easier it becomes for us to create.

It is for these reasons that I see a strong connection between the need for internal causality in Sim as well as the desire for detail which is frequently seen in Sim play.  I do not believe that lots of details are merely a reflection of an aesthetic desire by players, but serve a vital purpose in supporting the players.  This is not to say there cannot be an aesthetic attached to the delivery of details, but that pure aesthetic is not the driving force behind the desire for relatively large amounts of details.  If we as players are going to "lean" on the "fictional world" then we need something that is not going to shift out from under us.  These numerous details and their consistency are the bedrock upon which we build our game experience edifice.  This to me, also explains to me why Sim games typically have so many rules attempting to model the "physical" aspects of the game.  It is an attempt to solidify or make consistent the very foundation upon which the players build their game efforts, especially since we have no (or extremely limited) external metagame tools available to help.

Just some thoughts.

Aure Entaluva,

Silmenume

[Ron Edwards]

There! There! There!

Jay, you nailed it.

The key secondary insight to consider is that "attention to detail" is not itself Simulationism, but rather a necessary reinforcer of the Right to Dream. I call attention to the "right" in the phrase: the key aesthetic is that it not be violated by another agenda.

Also, the detail of what varies greatly (motivation, for the so-called "system-less" crowd; physics, for the engineering-points crowd; etc).

I am currently seeing some amazing new Simulationist designs emerge from the Forge - ReCoil, Thugs & Thieves, and more, some of them quite wacky and some quite down-to-earth. The common feature seems to be a lot more responsibility on everyone involved to help one another enjoy their Right to Dream ... a common, shared Right, not a bunch of separated, solipsistic Dreams. I think many Simulationist-leaning designs in the past have left that sharing to pure Social Contract, or expected default-Gamist player attitudes to keep them involved in the GM's Dream. I really like what I'm seeing now, and finally experiencing enjoyment in my own Simulationist play.

Best,
Ron

[John Kim]

The act of "touching", represented in Sim roleplay as the constant need for accurate detail, is "needed" in that it affirms and reaffirms the fictional reality of the SIS.  Since in roleplay there is no tangible element built in, the closest we have are the affirmations, via details, of the synthetic reality.  
...
If we as players are going to "lean" on the "fictional world" then we need something that is not going to shift out from under us.  These numerous details and their consistency are the bedrock upon which we build our game experience edifice.  This to me, also explains to me why Sim games typically have so many rules attempting to model the "physical" aspects of the game.  It is an attempt to solidify or make consistent the very foundation upon which the players build their game efforts, especially since we have no (or extremely limited) external metagame tools available to help.  

The thing is, this seems the same reason why many novels and movies are filled with detail.  This was discussed some in the recent thread http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=9197">Writing Style, Detail, and Simulationism.  There are stories which don't try for detailed synthetic reality, like Expressionist Drama, say.  However, much of fiction has this quality.  

The question in my mind is: why is this considered more characteristic of Simulationism than Narrativism?  

Now, I have some idea of why this is true for Fabulist games.  Meta-game story-writing methods can be hampered by extra detail.  The detail can seem like a straightjacket to the spontaneous creation that Fabulism finds important.   i.e. So if you have a detailed street map, that can contradict one player's attempt to say that he goes across the street to the park.  Thus, I think Fabulism tends towards the magical and mythical which need not be restricted to realistic detail -- like Amber, Nobilis, Over the Edge, and Everway.  It tends away from detailed realism like the examples from the writing style thread such as Melville and Patrick O'Brian.

[MachMoth]

For two and a half sessions, I have been running a group through a hack job system I made for them, so they can explore other areas of RPG.  The codename became Nar D20 Modern.  I really never classified it under GNS, until Lxndr brought it up to me.  I described it, and he filed it under 'very sim.'  Now, I should point out, the Nar was never intended to stand for Narrative, but Narration.  Simply put, it has a very Donjon inspired rule set, usually used to produce extensive explosions, and make the characters look cool, as apposed to the more gamist style of Donjon itself.  I took a bit of convincing, due to this very paradigm.  ND20M's big theme was don't sweat the small stuff.  Details fell through the cracks, in typical B Action style.  All of this in search of awesome stunts, big explosions, and convoluted plots.  It followed my typical style of trying to create an atmosphere and story.  It couldn't be sim, because we don't care about the details.  But, it was just that.  We were passing over such things in favor of creating that authenticity.  We ignored distractions in favor of the atmosphere and action.  It wasn't about winning, and it wasn't about any dilemma.  At it's roots, it was about blowing crap up, flying high, and being the baddest badass you could be.  The very lack of details was what made it the most sim game I've ever played in my life.  Now if only I can find another base to stand my own mechanics on, we can ditch that D20 all together.  ;p  

(P.S.  Don't tell me about Wushu or Fung Shei.  I'm working on it, honest.  These fanboys are touch nuts to crack.)

[M. J. Young]

I've got a quibble with Jay, an answer for John, and an amen for MacMoth.

· In Simulationism, when in doubt about what to do next, the aesthetic metric does not provide much guidance so in its stead we lean on the elements of the Shared Imagined Space. The more details, the richer the resource we have from which to mine new ideas. Creation, at least on a mortal level, does not occur in a vacuum, thus the more fodder (details) we have the easier it becomes for us to create.

I think you missed it by that much. The fact is, the aesthetic metric does provide the guidance here. It tells us, dig deeper into exploring what is here, so you will know what to do with it.

Just as gamism says push toward winning, narrativism says address premise, so simulationism says explore everything. It isn't that we go to the detail because we don't know what to do; we go to the detail because that's what we do.

"Detail" here is being used loosely, though; it's not necessarily that we're going to explore the world, or the character, or any one particular thing, but rather that we're exploring whatever is here to explore.

The question in my mind is: why is this considered more characteristic of Simulationism than Narrativism?

The answer in my mind is, it isn't.

That is, the difference is that in narrativism we're going for the detail (in whatever way we do) because it's going to provide support for the premise, while in simulationism it's to experience it for its own sake, to learn about it as itself.

For a bad analogy, you could read Agatha Christie mysteries for the historical and cultural insights you can glean about early to mid twentieth century America, or you can read them to try to solve the mystery. In the latter case, the details are part of figuring out whodunit; in the former, the details are the end in themselves, and whodunit is only one of those details.

The very lack of details was what made it the most sim game I've ever played in my life.

Yes! Simulationism can mean lots of detail and lots of mechanics, but that's not the way it's defined--only the way it's so often done. You can do simulationism with a blank sheet of paper and a freeform system, and create the world through player interaction to whatever depth and breadth you desire.

I've done lots of simulationist worlds in which I had no clue what was there before the players acted. The trick is to make it seem like it was always there waiting to be discovered, no matter how deep they dig.

--M. J. Young

[Gordon C. Landis]

[EDIT: change "Nar essay" to "Gamism essay"  Silly typo coulda ruined everything . . . . ]

I like the analysis, though "victory" as a word gets me worried about the "competition" issues alluded to in the Gamism essay.  But to run with it for a bit and cover the usual tricky areas, how about this: if the Sim-aesthetic has a close realtionship with seeking victory or involving theme, we are left with the question - is it victory/theme as aesthetic that we are looking at (Sim), or do we actually measure against the victory/theme itself(Game/Nar)?  And if (to use a non-Nar example as the counter-example here) a Game-focus is very concerned about some aesthetic values (proper application and understanding of firearms terminolgy, balistics, and etc.), does that aesthetic concern become a more significant measure than the victory?  If so, we'd call play overall Sim.  If not, and the victory-measure remains pre-eminent, play overall remains Gamist.

I assume most folks understand that, but I thought it might be useful to put it explicitly into this terminology,

Gordon

[Silmenume]

It is my belief that all three metrics are employed, in essence, to spur the players to "create" with greater effectiveness.

the aesthetic metric...It tells us, dig deeper into exploring what is here, so you will know what to do with it
...
Just as gamism says push toward winning, narrativism says address premise, so simulationism says explore everything. It isn't that we go to the detail because we don't know what to do; we go to the detail because that's what we do.

Gamism would then say create conditions/events that will result in (the best) victory (possible) to reap the most rewards
Narrativism would then say create premises and create responses to premises in a way that will create the best story possible to reap the most rewards.
Simulationism would say create things that will result in the best aesthetic possible to reap the most rewards.  At this point I don't know how to label or quantify those things.  

Rewards, do not have to be game functional, however they always function on a social level.

Therefore I do not believe that the aesthetic metric says, dig deeper into detail, but rather, "create" something that has an aesthetic value more effectively.  It is not a matter of us to go about searching for aesthetic things, but rather we seek inspiration, typically from those things that "are" ("we go to the detail").  In our need to create more effectively we mine those resources that are readily available to us, the details provided in game are the most convenient, but we can also draw upon those things that have not been run through the LP as well.  A Sim game light in detail might make it more difficult for the player to create effectively, but his creative actions will not automatically be less aesthetically pleasing than a creative action made in a game rich in detail.  It means the player in the light in detail game must search elsewhere for inspiration.

Roleplay at its heart is not finding what is, but creating something that isn't "yet."  Which brings up back to the problem that using aesthetics as a metric does not provide us with a clear direction in which to create.  What kind of aesthetic thing are we supposed or are attempting to create?

I think the nagging question will be what is meant by an aesthetic.  Just as a starting point I will posit that by aesthetic we I am referring to the Theory of Aesthetics as applied to art/creativity.  I am not that familiar with are theory or criticism, but from what I have gleaned there are 3 basic/major theories of aesthetics –

Imitationalsim - This theory focuses on realistic presentation. Mimetic theories (Plato, Aristotle) Representation (imitation, realism, mimesis).  The essence of art is to picture or portray reality. Good art is an accurate mirror on the world, imitating nature or some ideal form. (Plato, Aristotle)

Emotionalism - This theory requires a strong communication of feelings, mood, or ideas, from the work to the viewer. Expression theories (Tolstoy, Collingwood) Art is expression.  Expressionism (emotionalism)  The essence of art is expression of the inner emotions, feelings, moods, and mental states of the artist. Good art effectively and sincerely brings these inner states to an external objectification. (R.J. Collingwood).  The expressive quality is most important, a strong feeling for the mood and idea the artist wants the viewer to see.

Formalism - This theory places emphasis on the arrangement of the elements of art using the principles of design. Formalist theories (Bell) Art is significant form. Formalism: The essence of art is "significant form" - lines, shapes, colors, and other formal properties of the work; representation, expression, and other subject matter are irrelevant. Good art uses formal elements to trigger an "aesthetic emotion" in sensitive observers. (Clive Bell, Clement Greenberg)

- The above are all lifted quotes, but to my great dismay I did not save the URL or the author's name when I saved them during my research.  My apologies.

This last aesthetic, Formalism I don't believe applies to RPG's all.  I could be wrong, but I just don't see it.

At any rate the idea I keep coming across in my limited research is that aesthetic is usually referenced to feeling.

Art intensifies our feeling for life - [Kant].
Art: sensuous cognition vs. rational cognition. - [Kant].
Focus is ... on the effect of the work of art ... the aesthetic experience [Kantian].
"...the way in which an object of imagination can be expressive of feeling, and the consequences of this way of expression for the feeling so expressed" (58). – [Bernard Bosanquet]
"...when imagination is free, when the mind is operating, for instance, not in the service of theoretical truth, but in that of aesthetic feeling...– [Bernard Bosanquet]
What is beauty?  "...the peculiar quality which makes us distinguish an aesthetic experience, a pleasant feeling or a feeling of something pleasant..." – [Bernard Bosanquet]
Aesthetics is "the art of thinking beautifully" – [Baumgarten]

Ron – I would say that details are not only necessary reinforcers of the Right to Dream, but are the very building blocks of the life of whatever it is that one is Dreaming about.

Food for thought.

Aure Entaluva,

Silmenume

[contracycle]

Roleplay at its heart is not finding what is, but creating something that isn't "yet."

One question, which is, why do you say that?

Or at least, in the context of a disussion of simulationism, this seems to be a premise worth questioning.

I think there might be some fruit in considering the interaction between GNS modes and the particular way they support each other.  I don't have to much to say confidently on the matter, but I had a thought on the intereaction between gamism and simulationism which makes sense to me, those being the two modes I think I engage in most easily.  Narratavism is probably the most alien to me and so I have nothing to say on that point as yet.  However, I think that RPG as a whole is the particular ysynthesis of the three modes, and that CRPG's, as mentioned in another thread, exhibit only G and S in my opinion.  I think the reason this particular synthesis works in that medium as as follows: the sim element lends 'veracity', relevance, to the G challenge; the G dynamism alienates the game space from direct human posession for the S exploration.

I think that establishing the world as non-human, "objective", makes it "real", even in the most ludicrous of fictional settings.  The world is bigger than human desire or whim; the fact that the probability of being shot in a fight is a real mechanical externality to the humans at the table grants the experience legitimacy that otherwise would not exist.  Wandering monsters make the world an objectively dangerous place; like the real world, its own process may result harm, or the frustration of desire, or unexpected fortune.  The dynamism the game systems bring to an imagined space extends it dimensionally, as it were, and makes the act of its exploration more significant.

Addendum: so my offering here, specifically, is the idea of sim as alienated from the players, external to them.  The world should therefore operate on its own rules; many of which are pretty obvious.  If you pick up a rock, by and large there should be bugs under it.  Computers can do this easily in a way that is exactly analogous to wandering monster tables only millions of times faster; and it is because they can do this so easily that they can be Sim satisfying.

[Silmenume]

Roleplay at its heart is not finding what is, but creating something that isn't "yet."

One question, which is, why do you say that?

I apologize, but I am functioning on only 4 and a half hours sleep, so if I sound a little terse I beg some latitude.

The operational portion of the game, the employment of the Lumpley Principle, is a fact creation process.

We employ the LP as the game process to satisfy our creative agendas; thus we game to create meaning.

Everything we say, everything we do that ends up in the SIS is a created statement however profound or banal.  Whatever we take away, whatever meanings we create from the game experience were made as a result of the created actions by all the players that session.  If we were not creating then we would be spectating, like watching a movie or reading a book.

As far as the rest of your post, I am completely lost.  Either I am so sleep deprived that I can't put two and two together, or there is no connection between the quote you pulled and the balance of your post.  If you could either rephrase your point or if someone else could help me out, I would be most appreciative.  I'm off to bed!

Aure Entaluva,

Silmenume

[contracycle]

I'll agree that the activity is in some respect necessarily a creative process, but I'm not sure that cannot itself be boxed off and limited to, say, character creation and portrayal.

"meaning" is a term I am seldom able to parse usefully, and this is one of those times.  It seems adequate to me to say that we game to satisfy our creative agendas, I'm not sure what further meaning "meaning" brings to this activity.

Anyway, what I am suggesting is that the value of exploration to the sim is precisely discovery, which it seems to me is rendered valueless if the discovery is only self serving, is not external to us.  I don't think the spectator or book-reading analogies are far off base, in that I think the sim player does approach play like that to a large degree, does 'spectate' the SIS, and finds explict and overt creation of the SIS anathema.

Every single one of the game designs that starts with the players sitting down and negotiating what the game world is like, what the theme is, turns me right off.  I don't care about after I have created it; I already know it and there is little or nothing further to discover.  So, why would I bother playing further?  It is that externality, the alienation of the SIS from player control, that is in my mind the critical element of Sim as regards internal continuity and detail.

[Walt Freitag]

Roleplay at its heart is not finding what is, but creating something that isn't "yet."

Anyway, what I am suggesting is that the value of exploration to the sim is precisely discovery, which it seems to me is rendered valueless if the discovery is only self serving, is not external to us. I don't think the spectator or book-reading analogies are far off base, in that I think the sim player does approach play like that to a large degree, does 'spectate' the SIS, and finds explict and overt creation of the SIS anathema.

I see synecdoche on both sides here. Simulationist play and "the sim player" can fit either description. In GNS terms, Exploration fully encompasses participant discovery through play of imagined elements already created (e.g. by the gamemaster, game designer, or setting/module writer) and invention through play of imagined elements.

I believe, and I've argued in the past, that Simulationism focused on shared invention should be treated as a distinct creative agenda from Simulationism focused on shared discovery, in part because of such disagreements as this. Different and sometimes mutually exclusive player preferences, and differences in the relative appropriateness and effectiveness of various specific techniques, seem to apply. But the issue becomes tangled when the five imagined Elements are considered individually. Many of the sim players for whom explicit overt creation of new facts about setting is anathema would not find explicit and overt creation through play of new facts about their own characters, which are equally part of the SIS, to be so. And this group might be further subdivided, more or less equally, between those who expect Situation to unfold in a pre-planned way (for them to discover), and those who expect their own decisions about their characters' choices to strongly impact the development of Situation, thus participating in Situation's creation on the fly.

Thus, there's good reason why Agenda/GNS theory does not try to pin down "the heart of role playing" any closer than pointing out the universality of Exploration, which deliberately is not exclusive of either "invention" or "discovery." And "the Sim player" is a phantom; if there were really only one such individual, we could just ask him or her what Sim is all about, but there's not, and we can't.

- Walt

[M. J. Young]

Let me see if I can land on the middle ground here.

I'm very much with Gareth (Contracycle), in championing the heart of simulationism as discovery; that does seem to be what its about. However, I think that Jay (Silumene) is pointing at part of what play is that has to be considered.

Jay is right in this: everything that happens in the shared imaginary space is contributed by participant (i.e., player, including referee) statements. That means the shared imaginary space is created by the participants, and in that sense role playing is always a creative process.

When I as a player says, "My character is going to enter this room," I have not created the room; presumably the referee or the module materials have that, and they will now be injected into the shared imaginary space by the referee. However, I have created the fact that my character entered the room, and in so doing I also created the opportunity for the contents and appearance of the room to enter the shared imaginary space.

At the same time, there is a sense in which the contents and appearance of the room already exist in the prepared materials; and in one sense they already exist in the shared imaginary space (the sense discussed in another thread, of everyone consenting to the existence within the shared imaginary space of information of which they are individually unaware but which is known to at least one person involved, the so-called secret information). In another sense, speaking them into the group understanding creates these within the shared imaginary space, and for the first time the description of the room takes form in the minds of all the participants. It is thus immediately a creative process, even though the information pre-existed my knowledge of it and I had already implicitly agreed that those details unknown to me existed as part of the shared imaginary space. The very act of discovery is in that sense a creative act, because as the information is revealed to me and the others at the table, we create the image within our shared imaginary space, and thence act within it.

I think Walt's notion that the creative versus the discovery aspects of simulationism should be divorced misses this aspect: all simulationism is creative discovery; it is not an either/or but a continuum between two essential aspects, in which the social contract dictates how much each individual may create (remember, that includes character actions) and how much they may only discover.

Maybe that resolves it?

--M. J. Young

[Silmenume]

Mr. Young,

You have done me a great service by making very clear what I had originally intended to say.

I will quibble with the idea that pre-existing DM information is part of the SIS when it has not been introduced into the SIS, but I will do so in another thread as an effort to maintain forum decorum.

contracycle - by meaning creation I refer to the fact we do things in game with intention.  Because we acted with the desire that some result happen (intention) we are then interested in the results of said acts.  So we attend to those results and attempt to interpret the results of those actions.  Interpreting means assigning meaning to those acts.  What did the results of said action mean to me?  We purposefully created that act not as an end unto itself, but because we wanted to accomplish something that means something to us as players.  Our creative action is thus an attempt to create a result that has (an important) meaning to us.  At any rate I would be happy to discuss this further, but I think that in the interest of maintaining forum etiquette we should take this to another thread.

Aure Entaluva,

Silmenume