The Limiting Action of Sim is Character

[Silmenume]

In an earlier thread, Player action/reaction to Situation key to CA, I had discussed that CA can only be measured and seen in operation in the address of Situation; everything else is a red herring.  Addressing Situation is the pinnacle of our efforts as roleplayers, it is the pitch or the snap of the ball.  All the other elements of Exploration (with the possible exception of Color) are the foundation upon which addressing Situation is made possible.

That being said, the question is, what is an observer looking for in the actions of the players when they are addressing (either directly or indirectly) Situation?  Addressing Situation can be approached from three basic directions.  By consistently choosing which direction one approaches the address of Situation, a player is in effect limiting their actions to certain realms.  This consistent self-limitation of address of Situation has been labeled Creative Agenda.  It is within these limitations of approach that our creativity is put to the test in a fashion that is intriguing to us as players.

Gamism limits the actions of the player to that of addressing the Challenge contained in Situation.  Narrativism limits the actions of player to that of addressing the Premise contained in Situation.  In both the CA's something about character can be sacrificed to maintain the CA should the two come into conflict.  Sim, by it's demand for internal consistency, is really focusing on the consistency of character exploration, though no one has really understood that.  As we have seen in all the other CA's, internal causality is important, but in Sim it is, as an ideal, inviolable.

The limiting action of Sim is character.  In other words what we can or cannot do is limited by character, both physical and especially personality.  In this case we are willing to sacrifice other things, challenge or premise, to address situation via the limits of character.  This is the constraining factor of Sim.  In Sim, all Situation must be addressed in a manner that is constrained by the persona of the character and does not violate internal causality.  While this can appear in Gamism and Narrativism, their own priorities, which by definition states only one thing can be prioritized – challenge or premise – means that internal causality can sacrificed when addressing situation directly (some sort of currency spent to alter the situation in a way that a character can not) or character personality consistency can be sacrificed.  In Sim addressing Situation cannot be separated from addressing Character; that means Sim is about, for the players, addressing character via the address of Situation and the DM creating Situation so the players may address Character.

In Gamism the players must be addressing Challenge contained within Situation or they are not exhibiting Gamist behaviors.  The result of addressing Challenge is victory or loss, but that may not always be what the players were grooving on.  The players may enjoy the creativity involved in the address of challenge, but not be overly concerned with the actual winning or losing.  However, it is inevitable that in addressing Challenge victory or loss will occur.  The extreme form of the focus on victory of loss is called Hardcore.  In the pursuit of the Hardcore the process of addressing Challenge is not an enjoyable end unto itself, but a tool merely employed in the effort to achieve the ultimate goal of victory.  This result victory can only come after Challenge has been addressed and the players reflect back upon the process and make that determination.  In most cases of play victory is a welcome by product of the enjoyable process of addressing challenge.  For some victory is the only reason for addressing challenge.

I think there is a parallel in Narrativism.  I believe most players who play Narrativism enjoy the process of addressing Premise contained within Situation as an end unto itself.  However the extreme version of this style of play would be only interested in the created theme as a result of said play with little interest in the process itself other than a means.  Like Gamism, the result theme can only come after Premise has been addressed and the players reflect back upon the process and make that determination.  In most cases of play theme is a welcome byproduct of the enjoyable process of addressing Premise.

Sim is different in that there is no extreme of addressing Situation via character limitations that sacrifices something of the exploration process or the elements of Exploration.  However, I do believe that like Gamism and Narrativism, most players enjoy, and are thus more motivated by the process of addressing Situation more than they are specifically of the results of said addressing action.  In other words, it's not common that players are more interested in the results than they are the process. In Gamism the players are into the Challenge, in Narrativism the players are into the Premise, and in Simulationism the players are into the Situation and their Character's.  Simulationism puts a premium on Character that Gamism and Narrativism do not.  Narrativism can, and frequently does have lots of Character exploration as a result of address of Premise, but that is a byproduct of the process, not a CA goal.  In Simulationism, we are simulating the life of a Character, and as we are roleplaying (exploring – reacting to situation) that means facing, making decisions about, and acting upon situations that such a character might typically encounter.  Frex – a character playing a firefighter needs to face, make similar kinds of decisions and act upon situations that a firefighter is likely to encounter.

When faced with situations where individuals have expected roles, said individuals quickly and deeply assume said roles without consciously attempting to do so.  Digging back almost 20 years to my college psychology class we read about an experiment conducted upon volunteers at a college whereby a group of students was broken into two groups with individuals in the roles of jailors and inmates.  The people running the experiment made it very clear that anyone could drop out at anytime.  If I recall correctly I think that the experiment had to be forcibly shut down after only a few days as the students involved had so deeply assumed/identified with their roles that when things did get physically violent they forgot that they could opt out.  This donning of roles happens virtually unconsciously all the time in real life.  The reason Simulationism seems so difficult when Gamism and Narrativism seem so easy to engage lies in the difficulty of an untrained DM to adequately create compelling settings and situations and to support player characters effectively.  Give the players a compelling situation and the players will have no problem assuming a role and reacting to the situation from within that role, and this does not require the training of the player.  People will react quite strongly to a strong situation.  The reason it has seemed difficult for the players is because they have not typically faced strong, emotionally compelling situations.  In order to be emotionally compelling the situation needs to feel real.  Some might argue that one could be running and experiment and not be particularly interested in the emotional aspect.  However, current research indicates that ALL decision making, no matter how logical or dry, has an emotional component to facilitate the decision process.  In these people who have extremely flattened affects due to injury or some other cause, they are incapable of making a decision even though the rest of their intellect is fully intact.  They can fully enumerate all the choices and the pro and cons, but they simply can't choose.

And this is where I believe Sim game design has been missing the mark since the beginning.  Sim game designers have focused on trying to create real via system, setting and color and have completely missed the most vital element of all – compelling (emotionally resonant or emotionally real) situation.  Sim has gotten lost in technique and never got around to its action – creating compelling situations that players can be involved with emotionally and intellectually.  Gamist and Narrativist CA's expressed by the players seem easier because they can be expressed without the need of partnership with anyone, but a Sim CA does require not only that partnership between player and DM, but that the DM do a good job of creating Situation.  People are not good creators of roles, just look at most movies and TV shows, however people are very adept, perhaps too adept, at falling into roles that are expected of them.

Some thoughts – hopefully they were cogent and worthy of reply.

Aure Entaluva,

Silmenume

[Caldis]

Gamism limits the actions of the player to that of addressing the Challenge contained in Situation.  Narrativism limits the actions of player to that of addressing the Premise contained in Situation.  In both the CA's something about character can be sacrificed to maintain the CA should the two come into conflict.  Sim, by it's demand for internal consistency, is really focusing on the consistency of character exploration, though no one has really understood that.  As we have seen in all the other CA's, internal causality is important, but in Sim it is, as an ideal, inviolable.

Fascinating article with lots to think on but I have to make a quick comment on the above section.   I have to dispute sacrifice of character as being acceptable in narrativism, in fact I think consistancy of character may be more desirable in narrativism than in simulationism.  To paraphrase Lajos Egri in "On Creative Writing"  the one truth about human nature is that we are inconstant, one day we're saints the next day we're sinners.   When you create a consistant character you are highlighting one aspect of human nature in order to make a statement about it.  That statement is the premise.  Now if you are sacrificing character consistency then you cant really be making a strong statement.  If "egotism leads to loss of friends" then you must remain egotistic.

Breadth of character may be sacrificed in narrativism because I dont need to know every aspect of the character to make my comment, but I do have to know the ones that my comments are based on.

[Silmenume]

Hey Caldis!

I appreciate your response and it did help clarify some things for me.  With your clarification taken into account your statement helped me sharpen my position a bit.  Something about Character is sacrificed when addressing Premise, that would be breadth of Character Exploration given up for the purposes of continual addressing of Premise, i.e. that a character must continue to act egotistical in order to address the premise of "does egotism leads to loss of friends".  I agree that my statement about consistency of character as you defined it was in error.

Thus, if it could be said that a player must play their character in such a way that a specific trait must be continually portrayed in order to address premise continually, then it could be said that Exploration of Character in Narrativism is typically more narrowly focused, not less intense or less interesting or less functional or less real, than Exploration of Character in Simulationism.

So one tell of Simulationism is greater latitude to Explore different aspects of Character than in Narrativism.  I think this is an extremely important distinction between Narrativism and Simulationism.

I also think I need to amend a portion of my initial post.  I said that Character integrity could be sacrificed in the pursuit of addressing Challenge.  In fact it is here that we see the Tells of abashed Gamist play.  That I still stand by.  I believe that my error lies in my assessment of Narrativism.  I believe that in Narrativism Situation integrity could be sacrificed in the pursuit of addressing Premise.  Addressing of Character remains true and solid, though focused, but Situation is something that can be changed in a way that violates internal causality.  This addressing of Situation is one of the Tells we see in abashed Narrativist play.

In Gamism Situation is sacrosanct.  

What I find aesthetically displeasing about creating my own objects is that it is borderline cheating in my eyes. As a self-identified gamist, the idea that I might be able to introduce new pieces to the board, as it were, to which my opponent had not signed up, would be grossly abusive.
Immersive Story Essay

In Narrativism Character is sacrosanct.

In your example premise of "Does egotism lead to loss of friends," if a player does not play their Character as egotistical then they have ceased to address Premise.  Fiddling with Character in such a way as to get out of a tight spot by momentarily not playing egotistical so as to avoid the crisis (and the necessary decision) of the Premise is tantamount to "cheating."

In Simulationism both Character and Situation are sacrosanct.  Neither are to be altered in a way that violates the internal demands of the CA.

Aure Entaluva,

Silmenume

[RDU Neil]

Silmenume wrote:

In your example premise of "Does egotism lead to loss of friends," if a player does not play their Character as egotistical then they have ceased to address Premise.

To this I'd have to disagree.  Consciously reigning in outward displays of egotism can tell as much about "Does egotism lead to loss of friends" as open displays of egotism.  What effect the absence of a trait has can be just as informative to the premise as what effect the display of a trait can have.

[Vishanti]

Very nice essay.  Sounds pretty good to this Sim gamer.

I agree completely that many (most?) Sim games forget Situation.  They produce numerous volumes of intricate source material, but leave me wondering what to do with it.  How do I fit a character into this environment?  What would that character want to do?  What's happening in the setting?

(Transhuman Space springs to mind, as does it's pseudo-Gamist sibling, Jovian Chronicles.)

But then look at _Operation:  Rimfire_ for Mekton.  It's a horribly constructed rail-runner of an adventure that doesn't make any sense whatsoever and struggles through one of the patchiest settings I've ever seen.  But I can dream up bunches of characters, envision countless scenes, and generally have tons of fun without even playing!

Sim needs a balance -- things must make sense, but they must also lead somehere....

John Stepp

[M. J. Young]

The limiting action of Sim is character.  In other words what we can or cannot do is limited by character, both physical and especially personality.  In this case we are willing to sacrifice other things, challenge or premise, to address situation via the limits of character.  This is the constraining factor of Sim.  In Sim, all Situation must be addressed in a manner that is constrained by the persona of the character and does not violate internal causality.  While this can appear in Gamism and Narrativism, their own priorities, which by definition states only one thing can be prioritized ? challenge or premise ? means that internal causality can sacrificed when addressing situation directly (some sort of currency spent to alter the situation in a way that a character can not) or character personality consistency can be sacrificed.  In Sim addressing Situation cannot be separated from addressing Character; that means Sim is about, for the players, addressing character via the address of Situation and the DM creating Situation so the players may address Character.

As I just commented a moment ago in my response to your post http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=10483&start=30">on the third page of The Hard Question Extended, characters are tools, and simulationist characters are tools for pursuing discovery. If that discovery is character and situation, then you obviously need high levels of character integrity. If that discovery is setting or color, you could use random rolls to determine what to explore next without doing violence to the game.

That is to say, character integrity is one of the dials present in all forms of play. There is gamist play in which to succeed by violating character integrity is to fail; there is gamist play in which no one gives a tinker's cuss about character integrity. There is narrativist play in which character integrity is very much central to the address of premise, and narrativist play in which it is reduced to the limits plausibility. There is simulationist play in which character integrity is paramount to the methods of exploration (usually because character is the object of exploration), and simulationist play in which characters don't even have personalities, because that's not important to what's being explored.

Remember, there are five elements of exploration, and any creative agenda can address these in any combination. If you are exploring one of those five elements, you must maintain its integrity and its depth to make it worth exploring; if you are using it to explore the others, the degree to which integrity and depth matter are severely minimized, as they fall into the background. Character is only one of those five elements; it is often important as it is the tool through which we explore and through which the character players express their agenda. Situation, as important as it is to all agenda generally, is still only one of the five elements, and can be downplayed (particularly in simulationism, which can become exploration of setting to such a significant degree that the character becomes a wandering video camera through which the player sees the world). Setting, color, and system are all explorable by any agendum, and whatever elements are being explored must have the depth and integrity to be explorable. What doesn't matter to the exploration doesn't matter to the players, and won't have the same detail.

--M. J. Young

[Vishanti]

I do stand corrected.  I can see Transhuman Space and Jovian Chronicles as Sim-Setting.  And do humbly beg forgiveness for besmirching their good names.  Even if I still can't enjoy them.  :)

It seems odd to me that I feel closer to other creative agendas than I do to variations of my own preference.  But that's likely a different topic....

M.J. raises an implication I've never considered -- Sim has a level of prioritization all to itself.  WHAT are we exploring?  For instance, are we exploring setting in preference to character?

Should we be closely looking at the different Sim priorities to better understand the beast?  Has this already been thoroughly hashed out?  Is it just a matter of taste?  Silmenume and I seem to think the distinctions are important, but we might be blinded by prejudice.

Do the other two CAs have anything equivalent?  The aforementioned preference for process or product might qualify, though it doesn't seem quite analogous to me.

John Stepp

[M. J. Young]

I think that the relative importance of the five elements of exploration can vary from one game to another within any of the three agenda. It can perhaps vary most in simulationism, because that is the one in which situation and character can both be significantly de-emphasized.

That is, situation is of paramount importance to narrativist play and to gamist play most of the time; you generally address premise and face challenge in situation. In simulationist play, it doesn't have to matter. Narrativism frequently requires depth of character to address premise; Gamism usually requires emphasis on system to delineate challenge. Thus you have a great deal of situation/character exploration in narrativism and a lot of situation/system exploration in gamism. Simulationism historically has a lot of character exploration, but also has had a lot of system exploration and setting exploration, and even some color exploration (I've not played it, but I think Toon is largely exploration of color sim--don't hold me to the example).

So we've got more variation in the relative emphases on the elements in simulationism because there's less necessity for any one of them to be the focus to achieve the goal (the agendum). However, you do have this variation in emphasis on elements in the other two as well, as between pawn stance gamist play and heavy immersionist character-consistent gamist play for exploration of character--the difference between the knight who can win because he can effectively outfight everyone on the field, and the one who loses because it would violate his honor to strike without first issuing his challenge.

--M. J. Young

[Silmenume]

I've moved this post over from The Hard Question extended as a courtesy to M. J. Young.  My apologies for pulling your thread in a direction that did not reflect your interests.

...characters are tools, and simulationist characters are tools for pursuing discovery.

I'll start with taking issue with the idea that discovery is the motivating factor in Sim.  As I had indicated before, and had been personally reminded by other posters, and have had read in the various posts the act of addressing the specific CA's conflict – challenge/situation, premise/situation, or character/situation – is far and away the most common driving force for play.  (I'll address you qualms about the other elements of Exploration further in the post – patience please!) The reflective goals are much less of a driving goal, though they are always present – victory, theme, and discovery.  What I mean by reflective is that only after one has addressed challenge, premise, character/situation and one reflects or looks back upon what was the result of the addressing efforts can one then determine if a victory, a theme or a discovery has been made.  This is not to say discovery is not important, actually I believe that as a reflective process discovery is much more involved, and involving, than determining if a victory or a theme has been made.  However, during address of situation I don't believe, but I may be wrong, that players are that forward looking in time as to want to play the game primarily for the purpose of constantly looking over their proverbial shoulders to see what discoveries they might mine from their actions.  After a game that is a whole different manner.

I'll argue my point by analogy by expanding the above quote to other CA's - characters are tools, and gamist characters are tools for pursuing victory.  The implication here is that Gamist players are solely motivated by the desire for victory, if they should fail then they wasted their time as they got nothing out of the process of play.  I don't by that.  I would argue that most gamist players are motivated by the enjoyment gained from addressing challenge.  Yes they would like to win, but losing does not mean the player will fail to have enjoyed himself utterly.  Victory is the metric to measure the success of their efforts; it does not necessarily mean victory is the sole or even the major impetus for play.  To rephrase then – characters are tools, and gamist characters are tools for engaging challenge.

Does this negate your statement?  No.  However I do believe most players are more process oriented, address of Challenge, than goal driven, victory.  You argued quite effectively with me that a Gamist player could have no interest at all in victory while testing some ideas out in combat (addressing Challenge).  In Simulationism I believe that most players are more process oriented, address of Situation, than goal driven, discovery.  And was explained to me in a post I spent 2 hours looking for but failed, a poster explained to me as a Narrativist he was more interested in the address of Premise (process of Exploration) than in the theme (goal of Exploration).

If that discovery is setting or color, you could use random rolls to determine what to explore next without doing violence to the game.

Character integrity as I am using it is different from your usage here.  When I say Character integrity I am referring to the integrity of how a character responds to Situation, not what to Explore next.  We are not in conflict here, at least as I understand things.

There is simulationist play in which character integrity is paramount to the methods of exploration (usually because character is the object of exploration), and simulationist play in which characters don't even have personalities, because that's not important to what's being explored.

Emphasis mine.

Character integrity and personality are not the same thing.  Personality is more or less an affectation; it is Color.  Character integrity is in reference specifically to the actions a Character makes in reference to Situation.  Thus one could very easily have Character integrity without much or any exhibited personality.  A laconic character would exhibit few if any personality traits yet still be active in the addressing of situation and thus still be rich in character and by extension exploration of character. Or the two could even been in conflict making for a very interesting and complex character – a foul tempered man (personality) who has a compassionate spot in his heart for orphans (character revealed through action).  I do agree that one may not be particularly interested in exploring character (or personality), however as the player explores Situation, Character is automatically revealed and thus Explored nevertheless even if personality is not.

Remember, there are five elements of exploration, and any creative agenda can address these in any combination...

Actually this is incorrect.  Creative Agenda employs 4 of the 5 elements of Exploration (Character, System, Setting and Color), Creative Agenda addresses only Situation.  The other 4 elements of Exploration shape the experience and nature of the exploration of Situation, but unless a player is addressing situation there is no measurable CA in operation.  Actions that don't address Situation directly are difficult if not impossible to diagnose until their relationship to Situation is established or identified.

This does not mean that the same as players necessarily groove on addressing situation, but that would just mean that they don't need to aggressively pursue their creative agenda i.e., the dial is set to low.  Players can and do enjoy exploring the other elements of exploration, but the exploration of these other elements is not directly CA indicative until their relationship to situation is established.  If play is focused on the other non-situation elements exclusively then no CA is in operation because situation is the only place where CA is manifest.  All CA's employ the other 4 elements and can focus on them identically, the one and only place where a CA is exhibited to the exclusion of the others is in Situation.  All three CA can have games where players groove on employment of system, for example, but what determines which CA in operation is how Situation is handled.  If the players limited their address of Situation to Challenge then they are exhibiting Gamist behavior.  If players limited their address of Situation via Character then they are exhibiting Simulationist behavior.  The same holds for Narrativism.

Exploring System or Setting or Color is not a CA specific action.  One can follow the arrow of CA to Exploration of System, Setting, or Color, but one cannot follow the arrow back.  Only in Exploration of Situation (and thus by extension Exploration of Character) can the arrow be traced back to a specific CA.  Thus one can Explore Setting, but we can not draw any conclusions about which CA is in operation.  If one Explores Setting alone, or at least without addressing Situation, then no CA is operation.

If character integrity (not personality as it is essentially Color) is reduced to what appears to be random acts (not just an instance or two) one would either have to look to see if another CA is in operation or if the player is involved in the game in any meaningful way at all i.e., if any CA is in operation).  How a Character is employed to addresses Situation is CA in operation.

Sim has a level of prioritization all to itself.  WHAT are we exploring?  For instance, are we exploring setting in preference to character?

All three CA's have different prioritizations.  A Creative Agenda is made manifest and put into operation in addressing Situation.  The other elements of Exploration are influenced and employed to put the CA into effect, but that boils down to the other 4 elements of Exploration being employed to support and shape the Exploration of Situation.  The other 4 elements of Exploration can aid or hinder CA prioritization realization, but they do not define it.  One could have a Narrativist game rules system, a character designed to support Narrativist play, have a premise rich Setting, employ Color for Narrativist ends, but if the players address Situation in a Gamist fashion the players are playing Gamist.

What are exploring? Any of the 5 elements of Exploration.  What are we prioritizing?  Address of Situation.  How?  Via Character.  Does this mean everyone who plays Sim is motivated to Explore by the prospects of Exploring Character?  No.  But it is the means by which Situation is addressed.  Players can spend lots of time on Setting, System, or Color and groove on that a lot, but that is not a Sim specific activity.  It is much the same as players not paying much attention to Situation/Challenge in Gamism but really grooving on Setting, System, or Color.  

In the model when we refer to prioritizing it is in reference to whether we are prioritizing the address of Challenge, Premise, or Situation.  In Sim we are prioritizing the Exploration of Situation via the lens of Character over Exploration of Situation via the lens of Challenge or Exploration of Situation via the lens of Premise.  This does not mean we are prioritizing our game time Exploring a certain element of Exploration.  In Gamism it is completely allowable to have a low Step on Up and low Challenge leaving lots of room for the Exploration of the other Elements and still be Gamist.  By analogy the same goes for Sim.

Should we be closely looking at the different Sim priorities to better understand the beast?

There are no other priorities, as the word is defined and used in the model, in Sim.  There are trends and tendencies in the use of Techniques that settle around each CA, but they are not diagnostic or indicative as far as the model goes.

I hope this provides some food for thought.

Aure Entaluva,

Silmenume.