Why simulationism?

[Le Joueur]

How much does any of this have to do with tabletop role playing games in particular? The short answer is, I don't know. But I suspect that some of the same principles apply,

I hate to say it, but the tilt of sales in the last few years pretty much says that it's not setting (you pick the game), story (is White Wolf dominant?), or anything you've mentioned.

All of these are subordinate, or supportive, to one over-arching thing in the biggest selling role-playing game product I've ever seen....

rules.

That's right folks, Magic: the Gathering kicked everyone's butt.  It's a game about rules.  It has a thinly-applied setting, a passing glance at characterization, little in the way of consistent causality, and its sales kicked everyones' butts.  They even put the 300-pound gorilla out of business, only to turn around and buy it for pocket change.

There you have it.  Poetry is subordinate to the music on the radio.  Story is subordinate to setting on the console game.  Visuals are subordinate to narrative at the theatre.

...And setting, narrative, and everything else is subordinate to the rules in a role-playing game.

I mean, what do we discuss here?  System matters.  Do we argue about settings?  Not really, more how the rules treat and 'support' them.  Do we talk about characterization?  No, mostly about how rules facilitate and represent it.  Do we talk about enacting narratives?  No, only about how rules form and reward it.  What appears in all these?

...Rules.

Face it, Magic: the Gathering sells.  It's about players and rules, rules over everything.

What about our 'hot, new star?'  Do we talk about setting with The Riddle of Steel?  Or the 'immersion' (any definition of it) in the game?  No, we talk about the cool combat rules.

I'm sure as heck glad Scattershot has a card game built into it.

Fang Langford

p. s. Don't take this as a real opinion, I'm playing devil's advocate here.  I'm also having a little fun doing 'the drama queen' thing.  Forgive me for hamming it up, but I'm really not this cynical.

Or am I?

[contracycle]

MTG works becuase the rules are empowering, players are effective.  And it has trhe colour we know and loves, elves and goblins and whatnot.

[Paganini]

To Everyone:

Given that Ron seems to agree more or less explicitly with the original post in this thread, a question arises in my mind. What the original poster seems to be describing (and what Mike and Clinton were calling Imersion - I think) seems to boil down to extensive (possibly exclusive) Actor stance. I understand what they're talking about - I've seen scads of people touting the Great Important Thing (not to be confused with The Great Impossible Thing ;), whioch is: STAY IN CHARACTER.

All right, so this is cool. Simulationism with Exploration of Character. But that's not *all* there is to Simulationism. The Big Friggin Game is most definately a sim game, but perish the thought if people tried to Stay In Character (TM). It's Simulationism with Exploration of Setting (or possibly Genre, but Ron doesn't like that term... :)

So, please, please don't say that the original post is a good description of "what Simulationists do." It might be a good description of what *some* Simulationists do - those who have a specific focus on consistent (what Ron calls causal) characters.

To Walt:

I'm going to have to completely, utterly disagree with your comments about computer games. Obviously you have to take this in the context of myself, my friends, and the games we're familiar with, but believe me, we do spend a *lot* of time playing and talking about CGs. One of my friends is working on a degree in software engineering, and his more-than-passing interest in computer games rubs off on all of us. :)

To address your specific points:

The single best predictor for the popular success of a genre of computer games (with the exception of pure abstract puzzle games, like solitaire or Tetris), or of any single game, is how effectively it places the player in a virtual world. Game play and story are both secondary to that. (The true fecklessness of the incessant debate in computer game circles over which is more important, game play or story, thus becomes apparent.)

I'm afraid this just isn't true. The trend is not "imersive games sell well" but "games that are fun to play sell well." Two examples: Possibly the most effective game ever in "world imersion" terms was Battlecruiser 3000 AD. It failed. Utterly. There was Daggerfall. It failed. OTOH, you have games like Unreal Tournament and Everquest, which are wildly popular, in spite of a cursory glance at world imersion.

The bottom line is that a game is successful if it offers gameplay that engages the target audience. Pretty simple idea. Pulling it off is another thing. :) More recent example: Tribes 2 had great hype and fantastic rendering, but it wasn't fun to play. I forget the exact numbers, but compare the average number of people on a Tribes 2 server to the number of people on a Counterstrike server sometime. Not even in the same ballpark.

This argument, with many more examples and much more analysis, could go on for pages (Myst, anyone?), but I'm going to jump ahead to my conclusion, which I call the "world-centric" view of interactive entertainment:

Myst is a great example. I can't *count* the number of games that are exactly like Myst. (And, regardless of popular conception, Myst was not the first of its kind.) So, why did Myst succeed? Because it was *fun to play.* Riven, the sequel, was ten times better than the original in terms of presenting an environment... but it was boring as heck. The market reaction reflects its lack.

[Matt Snyder]

The single best predictor for the popular success of a genre of computer games (with the exception of pure abstract puzzle games, like solitaire or Tetris), or of any single game, is how effectively it places the player in a virtual world. Game play and story are both secondary to that. (The true fecklessness of the incessant debate in computer game circles over which is more important, game play or story, thus becomes apparent.)

Really? What are you basing that on? You mention Myst, which was indeed one of the greatest all-time computer game sellers. What information supports your idea that people bought Myst because it "effectively places the player in a virtual world?"

Myst (and it's sequels) has a reasonably compelling story, and it has some fantastic game play in the form of interactive puzzles. Its virtual world is neato looking, certainly. But, if the game sells because of its virtual world, then why don't people play it over and over again? No one I know does this ...

Which brings me to my next point, one that Ron touched on already. We -- and I mean all of us -- are basing some huge considerations about gaming on "personal experience." By our very naure of being here at the Forge, our personal experience is worth nearly zilch in the grand scheme of RPG buyers/players, and it's worth DEFINTITELY zilch in terms of computer game players/buyers (and the hell of it is is that data on computer games probably exists within the research divisions at Microsoft Games or Sony or somewhere, but we ain't getting' it).

I really wish someone did have some real data to go on, some really worthwhile information regarding why people buy and play the games that they do, and how we might be able to change or to use that behavior. But, to the best of my knowledge, that information does not exist in any usable form.

The result is that we're pissing in the wind trying to guess why people do what they do in gaming. This means debate is nearly useless because our "personal experience" won't jive well with someone else's thoughts.

I say all of this because I disagree with a lot of what's been posted here, although there's much I agree with as well. Great. So what? I have no way to verify whethe any of it is the missing link or so much bull shit.

Now, of course, we can't do nothing, and we have to make decisions both as players and as game designers based on what we "suspect" or what "our experience" is.

So, what I'm saying is that blanket opinions about all those unwashed Simulationists aren't very useful. Well, they aren't useful to me, anyway! What I'm far more interested in, and what folks might actually be able to use here, are some more down-to-earth ideas about smaller chunks of the "gaming public." Will game X satify enough players to make it worth publishing? What about game Y would make people want to play it? Can game Z help traditionally simulationist players see and play games in a different light?

And, of course, I'd be FAR mre interested in all this if there was some research and data to back it up. There have been few surveys of the gaming public, none of which that I know of really help this discussion.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Nathan,

I think that Actor stance is one of several tools that are most often employed to generate the quality of play that we're talking about. However, Actor stance does not define that quality of play. Remember, stances are labile, which means they shift frequently. You might want to review my essay regarding how stances relate to GNS goals; there is no 1:1 relationship.

Also, I think that there is extensive scope for including overt Director-stance-enforcing rules into Simulationist-focused play.

Best,
Ron

[Mike Holmes]

Hi Nathan,

I think that Actor stance is one of several tools that are most often employed to generate the quality of play that we're talking about. However, Actor stance does not define that quality of play. Remember, stances are labile, which means they shift frequently. You might want to review my essay regarding how stances relate to GNS goals; there is no 1:1 relationship.

Also, I think that there is extensive scope for including overt Director-stance-enforcing rules into Simulationist-focused play.

Similarly, I've realized lately how much Author stance has to go into certain types of Sim play. My best example is Cthulhu. To really simulate the color of a Cthulhu adventure properly, I always find myself making OOC decisions that lead to the appropriate level of agony for my characters. That's right. If there's a leatherbound tome found at the bottom of a chest you can be certain that I will be retroactively assigning my character with a motive to read that book. So that we can get to the horror that much quicker and effectively. Note that this might not brong me into the simulation much as I make the decision, but as I slip back into actor after assigning that motivation, it will. And possibly more importantly, it will increase the engagement for the other players who look on in horror as my character does something that seems entirely in character, but yet achieves the desired gruesome end.

People who play Cthulhu Gamist, or Simulationist and refuse to read the book based on the character "not being interested", are missing the point of play, IMO.

I think that what we see above in this thread is that all sorts of Simulationism are alive an well. Fang points out that players like Exploration of system. Nathan points out the touted importance of Exploration of character. Walt points out the power of exploration of setting. All are true. These are all powerful reasons why people play Simulationist. Which a player particularly goes for will be a personal preference, and I don't think that we're going to know for sure (as Matt points out) which is predominant. That said, I think that they're all viable if done well.

Mike

[Ron Edwards]

Mike,

Agreed in full. One of these days, I'd really like someone to write up examples of all three stances in action during very different GNS instances of play.

Stance is a technique (or practice, or behavior, whatever); GNS refers to larger-scale success or outcome of such things.

Best,
Ron

[Paganini]

Er, Ron, I think that's exactly what I was trying to say. :) To me the original post looked like: "Aha! Simulationism is about imersion, which equates to Actor stance!" To which I reply: "No! No! No! Some Smulationism may rely heavily on Actor stance, but such is not a requirement.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi there,

This post is specifically directed to Matt Snyder's post above.

Matt, one thing I have a hard time getting across to people is that GNS is not intended to match up to a marketing survey. The history of role-playing commerce is very, very heavily influenced by features of the three-tier system - to the extent that play preferences, historically, have not acted as a coherent or easily-recognized market force.

In other words, I think discussions of "what gamers want" in GNS terms, and trying to match that in any obvious way to historical or projected trends in how games have been designed or packaged, would not be very useful.

I have written an extensive manuscript all about the RPG as a commercial product, and most of it is guaranteed to get people screaming defensively and bursting into tears. One of the reasons I haven't completed/published it is to find some way of expressing the points with minimal shock value. If I can figure out how to do that, and once that essay is available, then I think we might get somewhere in terms GNS, marketing, and game design. Before that, I'll just stick with Coherence (as I define it) as a meaningful design goal and leave the market stuff out of it.

Best,
Ron

[Matt Snyder]

Hi there,

This post is specifically directed to Matt Snyder's post above.

Matt, one thing I have a hard time getting across to people is that GNS is not intended to match up to a marketing survey. The history of role-playing commerce is very, very heavily influenced by features of the three-tier system - to the extent that play preferences, historically, have not acted as a coherent or easily-recognized market force.

In other words, I think discussions of "what gamers want" in GNS terms, and trying to match that in any obvious way to historical or projected trends in how games have been designed or packaged, would not be very useful.

It's a fair point, Ron, because I do make references to "player/buyer." That said, I'm really not interested in marketing and buying in that post -- really just interested in trying to trim down on broad conjectures about what kind of players "Simulationists" are  or what makes computer games fun to play / engrossing / whatever!  My comments about buyers were generally regarding whether _computer games_ SELL because they have compelling settings/worlds. A point with which I strongly disagree, but have no real information to base that on ... so I'll shut up about it.

What I'm saying is that, like everyone else, I'd like to 1) have a better idea of what exactly Simulationism is in practice and 2) have REAL knowledge of what or how people are putting Sim. into play, so to speak. Let me add to that -- how real people are SATISFACTORILY (as in, they're having sufficient FUN)  putting Sim. into play. I don't really care about selling copies so much as I do creating cool games that people actually have lots of fun playing. My point is a defeatist one -- I don't see how anyone will ever collect such reliable information. Alas.

Still, point taken; consider this a recognition (and I knew this going in) that GNS is NOT a business model or marketing tool. Rather, a means to assess motivations people have for an entertaining hobby (and this model assesses instants of decision making during play, which can vary among the three modes -- Edwardsian theory 101, right? heh).

Finally, based only on the very scant info I've read regarding your critique of the three tier system, I've got not beef! In fact, I'm guessing for a guy like me who's "stuck" in Iowa and for that reason alone likely never to "go pro" as, say, an art director, I'm all for it! I wanna read the thing, shock or no shock, because I'll probably be doing this from my backyard regardless and it may actually help me out. I'm anything but The Man in gaming, and I don't have anything to lose from a potentially radical shift in the three-tier system. At least not yet!

[amiel]

As to the original question:
I like different gaming styles (make different decisions in my gaming) at different times for a variety of reasons.
In the course of different simulationist games(imprecise term) I have:
(a) Had my character do something because "That's what he would have done." (char Exploration)
(b) Had my character do something because it would create a neat mental picture. (color Exploration)
(c) Had my char. do something because I wanted to see "what happened next." (situation Exploration)
(d) Had my character go somewhere because I wanted to know what was over the hill. (setting Exploration)
I play sim for a variety of reasons(when I do). All of these have tinges of Exploration when I make that choice.
(I have also been known to make char Exploration decisions in the midst of a Gamist style game. I'm working on that).

[Steve Dustin]

I still think my VR analogy was in some ways a bad one, since it's given everyone this idea that I'm championing simulationism as being either complete character-immersion or complete environment-immersion where everything melts away and you have this intense transcendant experience.

Nope.

I'm talking about five people hanging around a table, and four going "that was cool, what's around the corner?"

Personal example:

I ran GURPS for a long time, and I got the best results from my group when there was no story, and was no competitive gaming going on. In fact some of it was so disjointed it was surreal. One night in a fantasy game the players (who had characters like Willie Gilligan and an albino midget dwarf) went through a portal (by choice, they could have gone the opposite direction) and enter some dimension where an enormous line of people were pushing this wheel. When the PCs destroyed the wheel, the people elongated into the sky. They didn't gain anything. And there was really nothing that distinguished this as a story. It was just an encounter. And from there they moved to the next one.

Here's another example. I know you did this in junior high.

GM: So, you're walking through a cornfield and this hot elf chick saddles up next to you.
Player: Dude, I totally bang her!

It's not gamist behavior. In the context of the game, there's nothing to gain. It's not narritivist behavior. Maybe if this has consequences later on, but in my junior high games, the elf chick got banged and got forgotten.

It's sim-play. It's an interesting encounter (well it was in junior high), and your character is endowed with interesting abilities (ha ha) to pull it off. It's wish fulfillment.

I can think of different ways this encounter can be played out in different Stances, levels of immersion, etc etc. A player in Director's stance can say, "Dude, there's this totally hot elf chick in the cornfield." Or a completely immersed player would say, "I totally can feel the elf chick's nipples" (or whatever it is totally immersed players do).

Yet, until you either add a relevant competitive game element (go up a level by banging elf chick) or make the elf chick important in a piece of narrative story (story as in plot, character, theme--not what happened to me on the way through the cornfield)--it remains an example of Simulationist play.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Steve,

If you kinda skip over the immersion-tangent, then I think this thread demonstrates that your VR analogy is a good one. Everything you wrote in your recent post is absolutely on target. Not only does it correspond perfectly to my essay (Sim play prioritizes Exploration), it also provides a good touchpoint for people who need further explanation.

Best,
Ron

P.S. Clinton's discussion of immersion would be an excellent thread in its own right, if we can all remember that the term does not refer to "one thing." Check the older Transparency threads to see a good example of the kind of discussion that I would prefer to see about immersion.