Recognizable Patterns - Simulation

[MatrixGamer]

Simulationists want to completely immerce themselves in their characters role (did I get that right?) Kind of like method acting. You could call them Methodists but that names already been taken!

I can see how this term could cause confusion for any war gamers or academic gamers stubling into the forum because of the name similarity with "Simulation". In that world, gamist min maxing would be seen as closer to what they see as simulation.

Something is a simulation when create a recognizable pattern similar to the bigger world. Patterns of observable behavior/reaction (stimulus/responce) are seen in world events. The algorythms of games need to create similar patterns to be considered valid. If the rules mechnism show how different "causes" interact, the simulation might be valuable as a planning tool. Either way though, simulation in that game setting is detatched and hopefully objective.

Academic gamers on the other had are not confused by methodist at all - "Its a church!"

Chris Engle
Hamster Press

[This is a statement not a question. Please feel free to ignore it.]

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Chris,

I agree with you about the "pattern" notion, but I think you're reading the "actor" content of Simulationism play too narrowly.

As long as the same basic approach is taken, a group could focus on anything as the core topic for Simulationist play.

Therefore the wargamer-y approach qualifies as Sim if the point is to "get every last detail of the battle at Waterloo exactly right," and never mind the character/acting part of it.

I do agree with you that many wargamers would take more of a Gamist approach because to them, the strategy and winning (or more accurately, losing) are a big part of why they're there.

Best,
Ron

[MatrixGamer]

Therefore the wargamer-y approach qualifies as Sim if the point is to "get every last detail of the battle at Waterloo exactly right,"

What if the intent is to muddle through? I've run historical miniatures games at cons that were not about getting every detail right, all I wanted was an overall recognizable pattern (that people's minds would fill in the blanks on) that then produced a fun game. So the social contract of creating fun was more important than simulating anything.

I did a Battle of Leipsig game (Leipsig Lite) with 25mm figures. The fact that some were Napoleonic and others ranging up to Crimean was figures didn't bother me. They all had Shako hats! It didn't matter that the terrain was only loosely like the actual battle field (the French were backed up on a river - that was enough). It didn't matter that the Prussian Landwehr were made up of Castle Falkenstein angry villagers. It looked right and the game was fun.

Of course there were those players who fit your description of wanting all details right. ARRRRGH! THERE ARE 25MM FIGURES! YOU PAINT THAT MUCH LEAD!!! AAAaaargh... Napoleonic gamers bug me.

I gues what I'm wondering is there a gaming stance that doesn't care about the game at all but views it as a means to a here and now social end? Which is where I'd see therapy games falling in.

Chris Engle
Hamster Press

[MatrixGamer]

This gaming as a social tool stance is clearly where my wife falls. If the game gets in the way of the social context she has the power to wreck it. Never force her to play a game...scarry.

Chris Engle
Hamster Press

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Chris,

Regarding your Simulationist-oriented question, the answer is "Yes." However, please don't use wargaming as an example. I'm talking about role-playing. So, yes, if the agenda concerns "getting it right" when "it" is a given historical or fictional situation (like a battle), then yes, that would be Simulationist. It's the same basic aesthetic principle as "getting it right" when "it" is focused on a character, as in "display (or even feel) my character's feelings."

is there a gaming stance that doesn't care about the game at all but views it as a means to a here and now social end?

Two things.

1. We're going to have to be more careful about your terms use, or my head will explode. When you say "stance," you clearly mean something that I'm not using the word for in my model. Please try not to do that, because it gums up our mutual attempt to be clear to one another.

2. Check out the Big Model diagram in the introductory portion of the Glossary. To be absolutely clear: I consider all role-playing to be primarily concerned, at all times and in all ways, with "here and now social ends." Creative Agenda is involved whenever any significant part of these social ends includes making up stuff in a way the participants enjoy.

Therefore Social Contract always encompasses and includes Creative Agenda. When you talk about "playing to have fun" or anything similar, then you're talking about Social Contract. Such phrases do not replace Creative Agenda, they are bigger than Creative Agenda and include it.

Best,
Ron

[MatrixGamer]

This starts going off the topic of this thread (a comment on a difference between how some branches of gaming use the word simulation and simulationist) but here goes.

When I say stance I referred back to what was written in the glossery "The cognitive position of a person to a fictional character." A person who is using the game purely for a social end would be staying in the Social Contract part of the model (courtesy, food, communication, friendship) or at least trying to. to the extent they play it may only be half hearted or not directed at telling a story, meeting winning conditions in game terms or simulating a recognizable pattern. They may say "I knock down the door, pass me the chips." or "Oh is it may turn? Well, you know what I'm doing. Just roll some dice. So you were saying..."

I think we all can agree that this is bad role playing (wretched role playing in fact). They are only there because "My boyfriend insisted we play." "I'm at the con and was bored." Or some other reason than a desire to really engage in playing. This would be the hobby version of the involuntary therapy client. These people are out there, they can be very disruptive to play - without being gamist. They ae being psychologically gamey but that is another matter.

One way they might be described in the big model would be abortive gamers. Like in "Hero with a thousand names" they are the one who refused the quest. Or in this case refuses to really play. When they do this they negate all the rest of the model because they don't really go into it.

In a way I'm tying to hook these types of players with Matrix Games because the game does not require close attention so these players are not disruptive to play but instead are occasional participants. This may mean that Matrix Games are in fact not RPGs at all since this doesn't really work in D+D et al.

Sorry about delving into wargames. I've just been around them so long ans see how much role playing goes into them. Howard Whitehouse's game "Science versus Pluck: or too much for the Mahdi" is explicitly a role play miniatures game - so for me the two are blurred together.

Chris Engle
Hamster Press