Simulation: Exploration or Experience?

[PlotDevice]

OK... Just wanted to get this out of my head.

I am part the way through the articles on GNS, and some elements are like the electric recognition of an old friend newly seen after long, and other elments create an uncontrolled itching that I have to scratch... So thanks for the articulation of these concepts, let me say up front, and apologies, 'cause here comes the itching power.

I am wrestling with the three part model, and trying to make it gel with my experience and opinions of games. And my first perplexity comes when I look at Simulation.

I am arguing from personal experience. I want to pose this question: Is Simulationism not in fact coming from two separate places? One, the agenda to explore a systemic, accurate simulation of SiS, and by comparison, two, the agenda to experience simulation?

I think of this as Intellectual Exploration of system vs Emotive Experience of Immersion / Simulation.

OK: Example. In my GURPS game, I want to define my powers and be able to accurately portray how they interact with the world. Knowing that I can dodge with x effectiveness under y circumstances. I want to see what effect I can get out of these abilities, see what they can do in the game,an if the mechanics manage to sim my ideas of the abilities. But, then, in play, I encounter a situation where I am identified with the character in my mind, and experience empathy for my projected simulation.

I think this means that intellectual simulation and emotive simlation are different drives, and different agendas. I think that that in the GNS model I am left lumping two separate things under the one category. Now, the obvious argument against this that I can see is that a different aspect of the model applies to the latter case in the example. Perhaps the Narrative one. I have yet to read the details on that model, and I wanted to get this idea out of my head before I plunged in to reading that bit.

OK, my apologies for presenting the half baked and half informed idea. Thanks for tolerance. :)

Evan

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Evan,

Going 'way back to when Exploration was first posed as a term, by a fellow who only went by "the Scarlet Jester," and with all possible caveats that the following is only my understanding and interpretation of it ...

I think that Exploration as a jargon term refers specifically to your #2, the agenda to experience the simulation.

However, the nature of that experience can differ widely. Some folks take it as a very intellectual, analytical thing, and others take it as a emotional identification thing, and so on. In many cases, your #1 agenda is a necessary piece of getting the (primary) #2 right, so a whole lot of attention and effort gets put in that direction.

Best,
Ron

[PlotDevice]

Thanks, Ron.

In my mind #1 most often gets in the way of #2. In fact, I am struggling to find a situation where #1 has done anything but styme #2. I have found that I have to get around mechanics to empathize with the simulated character. Admittedly I come from a position of having played many high mechanics games, so maybe that is clouding my perspective.

Random thought: Game mechanics as training wheels... till you learn how to ride. OK, maybe I get it.

Leaving that aside, due to the fact that the two things I am presenting are seeking a different experience, and that they need different game mechanics to satisfy them, are they not in fact different agendas from a game designers perspective? Do you not have to design your games taking into account these, not under the one heading of Simulation, but under banners of (umm) Mechanist and Emotive or something?

Historically I have had to treat these objectives separately. Maybe I am looking at this from an Engineering rather than a Theory perspective.

Evan

[M. J. Young]

I'm going to slip in between Ron's caveats and offer a different perspective.

I would say that simulation is unified by the desire to discover, to learn more about that which is being explored. All three agenda are divided by aspects within them, and it is not surprising that this is true of simulationism.

One of the main divisions in simulationism involves the distinction between objective and subjective discovery. Subjective discovery is connected to your "immersive" play, being "inside" the character and seeing everything through his eyes. Objective discovery is more observational, and (if the character is not what is being explored) can even use pawn stance in exploration. (I elsewhere offered the example of playing a planetary probe, moving around on the surface of another world collecting data about an alien landscape. The "experience" of the probe is entirely objective, as it feels nothing and makes its decisions based on the best way to gain more information.)

RGFA/Threefold Simulationism was entirely about immersive play, "being there" subjectively, and in fact not at all about creative agenda; that and the fact that traditionally much of what is simulationism has been subjective/immersive play colors the understanding of simulationism still, but it's not truly definitive of it, I think.

--M. J. Young

[PlotDevice]

RGFA/Threefold Simulationism was entirely about immersive play, "being there" subjectively, and in fact not at all about creative agenda; that and the fact that traditionally much of what is simulationism has been subjective/immersive play colors the understanding of simulationism still, but it's not truly definitive of it, I think.

--M. J. Young

Thanks M.J.

Absorbing that.

I guess I am struggling with how useful these concepts are going to be for me in my designing games. I want to be able to account for play styles and agendas, and I was hoping that this system would give a nicely defined set of categories to assist in that process. I am resisting the suspicion that this is more an abstract theory than an applicable one. I should read more before judging...

Thanks again
Evan

[ADGBoss]

Evan

I myself struggle with the idea that G/N/S IS a Game Design Theory and not just a helper that you can bounce questions off of when designing a game.

G/N/S is not, in my opine, a Schematic or Blueprint for designing good role playing games. What I believe it is, whether it was meant this way or not I do not know, is a sort of RPG Design AI, that asks you the question "What are you doing, Dave?" It helps you diagnose Play, and you can choose the PAthof your game, you can take the building blocks of thought contributed by Ron and others (both those who agree and those who disagree) to make a game that makes sense and induces the kinds of Play and emotions that you intended.

Now G/N/S is just one such way.  Many people question it and have their own ideas. I know i personally use it as that evil AI always questioning every design I make to ensure good stuff.  Does it work? Who knows.

If nothing else, G/N/S and indeed much of the thinking that goes on here at the Forge will make you take another look at long held ideas and hopefully be a positive influence on yoru game design.

Apologies for getting of topic a bit, but I see quite a few people ask the same question, just like I did when I came here and decided to speak up.


Sean

[PlotDevice]

Thanks Sean.

That AI in was in my head a very long time ago, but the only question it ever asked me was "Would YOU enjoy this if you were playing it?". Occasionally over time I have managed to teach it to say "Well, what about someone more competative than you, or what about someone more into acting than you, or what about someone more into game mechanics than you? Would THEY enjoy this if they were playing it?"

What I think I am looking for in this theory, which may or may not be there, I haven't decided, is to teach that AI to speak articulately. I am afraid of teaching it a language that won't help me make better games. I am concerned that the model this theory presents classifies gamers and game objectives in adherance to an abstract set of principles that, while based in experience of a large number of gamers (from what I see) do not nessisarily match my own experience, or, to be more precise, do not address the fundamental motivational drives that make people want to play and enjoy play, in a useful format.

OK I think I have drawn out, strangled and beaten than analogy enough... more reading for me.

Warm regards,
Evan

[M. J. Young]

Evan--

Obviously since I wrote http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/23/">Applied Theory, I must think that the theory can be used to help game design.

One thing I'd suggest it does is make that AI that's currently asking you

"Well, what about someone more competative than you, or what about someone more into acting than you, or what about someone more into game mechanics than you? Would THEY enjoy this if they were playing it?"

ask whether you can make a game that would be equally enjoyed by all those different people at once.

I'm not saying it can't be done. I'd dare say that Multiverser does appeal to the three groups you've mentioned, and to quite a few others (not, regretably, to everyone--but that may be impossible). I didn't have the theory to help when I was working on the design; however, looking at through the eyes of the theory I can see that it does manage to combine the various styles of play because of some peculiar features it sports, most notably that the players don't have to play together to play at the same time and place.

It also makes you think more deeply about exactly what it is that is motivating the play of the more competitive guy, the actor, the mechanics fiend, and how you can better facilitate and reward the play they enjoy. As a quick example, if it's really true that what motivates a gamist to overcome challenge is the social reward of showing off to his friends (that's a bit of a simplification--read http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/21/">Step On Up for a better explanation), then can you design the game in such a way that it enhances the ability of the players to reward each other for their successes?

I think that the model has done an excellent job of identifying why different people play, in the sense of what it is they enjoy from the games they do enjoy, and how they use different techniques to do so. There's a lot more work to do in the techniques department, but a lot has been determined already.

I hope this helps.

--M. J. Young