Water-Uphill-World: Virtuality Examined

[Ben Lehman]

John, Virtuality isn't binary, is it? That is it's not either on or off during play, but sometimes more on than at others?

BL>  I'm not named John, but...

When I first wrote about Virtuality, I pictured it as a thing that all the players strongly committed to -- the feeling that the world was real and existed outside of their direct experience.  Succeeding or failing at that might be possible during play but, ultimately, it's more of an on-off switch -- you care about virtuality or you don't.

yrs--
--Ben

[Mike Holmes]

Actually I was under the (apparently mistaken) impression that virtual in this context related to John's essay found here: http://www.darkshire.net/~jhkim/rpg/theory/narrative/paradigms.html

That said, the concepts seem to be very similar, and I don't think that anything that I've said fails to make sense in either context.

In any case, Ben, while the mode of play you're describing seems to indicate a "strong" committment, I think that's just one mode of many. That is, I think there are other modes that are just less committed to the idea of a virtual world. Not uncommitted at all, but just less committed. Moreover, I think that actual play striving for these modes fluctuates in it's achievment of the goal in question. Even if very committed, I think that sometimes things waver in play.

Yes, if playing with a 100% Virtualism agenda, I think that there's only room for Sim - Nar play can't occur. But in a realistic percentage of play there's plenty of room for narrativism. Again, see Beeg Horseshoe.

Mike

[John Kim]

I'm comfortable with your assessment of John's game too, except that it means that John's game doesn't shed much light on the virtuality vs. Narrativism question.  So it goes.

That's been my position since John published the essay originally. They're not entirely unrelated concepts, but there's certainly no one to one link between, say, Virtuality and Simulationism (ala GNS - I'm not sure about threefold).

What I do think this relates to, however, is my version of the Beeg Horseshoe. Essentially I think that Virutality is a quality of the "sim" axis, a precondition, if you will.

John, Virtuality isn't binary, is it? That is it's not either on or off during play, but sometimes more on than at others?

Well, I am using Virtuality as a synonym for rgfa Threefold Simulationism.   So, yes, there is a one-to-one correspondence of Virtuality and Threefold Sim.  And no, Threefold Simulationism isn't binary.  Quoting from my Threefold model FAQ:

2) Which one am I? Drama-, Game-, or Simulation-oriented?
Most likely, none of the above. Your individual style cannot be pidgeonholed into a single word. More to the point, you probably use a mix of different techniques, and work towards more than one goal. You may tend more towards one corner of the triangle, but you probably value a mix.

[Mike Holmes]

At the moment, then, I'm not seeing any unanswered questions. Is there still a problem with understanding something somewhere here, then?

Mike

[John Kim]

I think that there are a number of theory questions which have been opened up -- but they should be discussed under RPG Theory or GNS Model Discussion, I think.  I think we're close to wrapping up the actual play discussion.  Just a few clarifications here.  

In any case, Ben, while the mode of play you're describing seems to indicate a "strong" committment, I think that's just one mode of many. That is, I think there are other modes that are just less committed to the idea of a virtual world. Not uncommitted at all, but just less committed. Moreover, I think that actual play striving for these modes fluctuates in it's achievment of the goal in question. Even if very committed, I think that sometimes things waver in play.

Yes, if playing with a 100% Virtualism agenda, I think that there's only room for Sim - Nar play can't occur. But in a realistic percentage of play there's plenty of room for narrativism. Again, see Beeg Horseshoe.

Hmm.  Water-Uphill-World was intentionally designed as an experiment which tried for 100% Virtuality.  In practice, I think I came as close to 100% as any real game is -- though there were certainly some slips and shortcuts.  

Actually I was under the (apparently mistaken) impression that virtual in this context related to John's essay found here: http://www.darkshire.net/~jhkim/rpg/theory/narrative/paradigms.html

That said, the concepts seem to be very similar, and I don't think that anything that I've said fails to make sense in either context.

Well, the "Virtual Experience" paradigm is defined completely differently than rgfa Threefold Simulationism (aka Virtuality).  Sorry if the word "Virtual" intersects here, but I'm dealing with what has happened before.  (i.e. GNS appropriated the term Simulationism to mean something different).  It may be that the two are correlated, but they are pretty darn different as defined.  

The experiential paradigm is defined in terms of what is considered the discourse or product of play -- i.e. what is "real".  However, it says nothing about how situations are resolved.  So this may include, say, a LARP where various tricks are taken to try to encourage player emotional experience.  

Threefold Simulationism says nothing about what is considered the discourse or product.  It is only concerned about how in-game decisions are being made.

[Mike Holmes]

Hmm.  Water-Uphill-World was intentionally designed as an experiment which tried for 100% Virtuality.  In practice, I think I came as close to 100% as any real game is -- though there were certainly some slips and shortcuts.  

"Intended." By yourself, right? Were the players informed of the intent? In the terms discussed here, or something approximate that would make them understand? It sounds to me like you're just talking about your own play as GM, which probably was completely sim. Which doesn't mean, however, that the players didn't ever do "narrativism-ish" things. And I'm not saying that you had a narrativism agenda, as a group, either, just that it was mixed, as I've said before.

Well, the "Virtual Experience" paradigm is defined completely differently than rgfa Threefold Simulationism (aka Virtuality).  Sorry if the word "Virtual" intersects here, but I'm dealing with what has happened before.  (i.e. GNS appropriated the term Simulationism to mean something different).  It may be that the two are correlated, but they are pretty darn different as defined.  

The experiential paradigm is defined in terms of what is considered the discourse or product of play -- i.e. what is "real".  However, it says nothing about how situations are resolved.  So this may include, say, a LARP where various tricks are taken to try to encourage player emotional experience.  

What I'm saying is that Virtualism as a subset of simulationism is play where decisions are made such that play is likely to produce the goal of Virtuality. That is, the Virtuality subset of simulationism produces that "Virtiual Experience" paradigm (when successful), no?

Mike

[John Kim]

"Intended." By yourself, right? Were the players informed of the intent? In the terms discussed here, or something approximate that would make them understand? It sounds to me like you're just talking about your own play as GM, which probably was completely sim. Which doesn't mean, however, that the players didn't ever do "narrativism-ish" things. And I'm not saying that you had a narrativism agenda, as a group, either, just that it was mixed, as I've said before.  

Well, of the players, two (Mike and Lisa) were pretty new to role-playing -- so I didn't lay much theory on them.  However, Josh (who played Noriko) understood pretty well my intention and was completely on board (I had met him through rgfa and we had discussed Simulationism at length).  Both Russell (who played Martin) and Liz (who played Kate) understood reasonably well, I think.  Liz I think wasn't completely on board with the concept of rgfa Simulationism.  She complained some about the flat pacing of the game, for example.  

I'm curious how you picture the game being mixed agenda and what effect this would have.  How do you think my game would have been different if I had had pure Virtuality players?  

What I'm saying is that Virtualism as a subset of simulationism is play where decisions are made such that play is likely to produce the goal of Virtuality. That is, the Virtuality subset of simulationism produces that "Virtiual Experience" paradigm (when successful), no?  

Well, I'm open to arguments why this should be so, but I don't see the connection.  

I'll try a hypothetical example.  RGFA Simulationism could be used as an approach in a simulation wargame-like manner such that it was the shared play that was considered the important product.  i.e. There are wargamers who will play out historical battles not to win but to see how the outcome is affected by some "what if" change.  A role-playing game might be used to see how some other event was changed by a "what if".  In this case, what draws the players is the external results of the game (i.e. the shared play), not the immersive experience inside the player's head.

[Mike Holmes]

Well, of the players, two (Mike and Lisa) were pretty new to role-playing -- so I didn't lay much theory on them.

Note that I fully support this. I think that talking theory with players in general is a bad idea. It's not a good way to get a group on the same sheet. If we can't decide here on the meaning of these terms, then how is Joe Average Player going to get what we mean?

However, Josh (who played Noriko) understood pretty well my intention and was completely on board (I had met him through rgfa and we had discussed Simulationism at length).  Both Russell (who played Martin) and Liz (who played Kate) understood reasonably well, I think.  Liz I think wasn't completely on board with the concept of rgfa Simulationism.  She complained some about the flat pacing of the game, for example.

This is about what I got from the previous descriptions of play.

I'm curious how you picture the game being mixed agenda and what effect this would have.  How do you think my game would have been different if I had had pure Virtuality players?

Little observable difference at all, likely. That's what I keep saying.

You give us examples that aren't differentiable in their observations. So we can only speculate about how people made their decisions. My guesses about play potentially having been narrativism at times are based on my personal observation that people throw in a bit of those sorts of criteria even when they are also playing as Virtually as possible. Put it this way - why wouldn't they make emotionally engaging decisions if those decisions did nothing to disrupt the virtuality at all?

Again, it's my opinion that everyone plays this way all of the time. Well, Gamism aside.

In this case, what draws the players is the external results of the game (i.e. the shared play), not the immersive experience inside the player's head.

That would make these players "What Ifers," then, not "Virtualists." We're talking a subset of Simulationism here, not something that defines it in totality, right? As such, you're just describing two different groups of simulationists. In fact, the "What Ifers," and I speak from experience because I've been that guy a lot, use a lot of OOC chatter that would disrupt a Virtualism game, because they often talk about alternate "what ifs." "Well, I should have moved that unit over here, because germans always used their artillery dynamically to create mobile defenses. But I was thinking that I could get a tactical advantage that they might have seen at the time that would void doctrine. What do you think?"

Mike