Trying to define S, like G/N, by its relationsip to conflict

[Silmenume]

A look at what constitutes a Creative Agenda as defined.

Looking at the models of Gamism and Narrativism we see they are described as processes.  Gamism is described as the game play where address of Challenge is prioritized.  The end result of that address of Challenge is that there is a victor and a loser.  Several things should be noted though.  The model says that Gamism isn't necessarily motivated by a desire for Victory or Loss but the process of attempting.  The model is defined by that dynamic (the act of addressing the Challenge), not the metric (Victory or Loss).  Does this imply that players don't care about Victory or Loss? Not at all.  Does this mean that Victory and Loss are irrelevant to the dynamic or the model?  No.  Victory and Loss can either be metrics, the stakes, or just an artifice that justifies the process of addressing Challenge in the first place (like the penny in penny ante poker – it legitimizes the betting process).  However all that boils down to is players addressing Challenge for their own reasons, to their own degrees, in their own ways, with different levels of focus/emphasis on the other elements of Exploration, but doing so nonetheless.

By way of analogy I now turn to Simulationism.  This would imply that knowledge or sensoria accumulation is to Sim what Victory is to Gamism and Theme is to Narrativism.  But I do not believe that Discovery can be addressed.  Why?  Because Discovery is neither rooted in Situational conflict like Challenge and Premise are nor does it direct our efforts at dealing with Situational conflicts.

Here is where every conversation about Sim falls apart.  Every time someone goes about trying to figure out how to define the Sim Creative Agenda, which as the model currently stands means how a player approaches Situational conflict i.e., Premise or Challenge or X (which I posit is Character specific, not necessarily driven, Situational conflict – but that is an extraordinarily controversial theory), not why they play Gamist or Narrativist or Simulationist nor what they get out of the process, all the Sim defenders go bananas saying, "I don't play for that reason!"  I am as guilty as anyone of conflating how, why, and what so I would like to help clear the air.

This thread is about the how to define the Sim CA.  There are 3 things to consider when discussing CA, one of which is being hashed out in the Social model thread.

There is the self-limiting approach to Situational conflict – Challenge, Premise, X (Sim).
There is the inherent created product, which can be used as a metric, which helps to legitimize the process, but does not have to act in the role of player motivator – Victory, Theme, X (Sim).
Finally there is the Player Goal, that which motivates the player to Explore from the point of view of a particular CA - what the player wants to get out of the game process and why that CA is best suited to satisfying that desire.

Apparently why a player Explores using a certain CA does not map one to one to why said player Explores at all in the first place.  This is the trap I keep falling into.

But the thing I want to focus on is that I believe that the Sim CA is defined by how players address Situation just as much as Gamism is defined by how players address Situation/Challenge and as Narrativism is defined by how players address Situation/Premise.

Why is Simulationism different from Gamism and Narrativism in its definitional elements?  If the definition of the Gamist CA is rooted in Situation as the Narrativist CA is rooted in Situation why isn't Simulationism's CA rooted in Situation as well?

There is much less confusion about Gamism and Narrativism because they have been clearly defined and one could say they are both about conflict - certain types/forms of conflict.  And we also understand as part of this process that additional player interests shape how that conflict is addressed.  Is this particular game with these particular players focusing on victory itself or the process of addressing Challenge?  Is it focusing on the Gamble or the Crunch?  Is it about trying to win as the French at Waterloo or just experimenting with new tactics at Waterloo? Etc.  The same can be applied to Narrativism as well.  Is this particular game with these particular players focusing on the theme as a goal or the address of Premise itself?  Are the players focusing more on the creation and manipulation of the Premise or on the resolution of story events?  Are the players more focused on Character, Setting, or Situation based Premise?

I am sure I am going to get lots of reasons why not, but lets stretch a bit and find reason why it could.  I believe that many definitional problems that still surround Sim, such as "Sim is Exploration Squared" would go away if we can solidly demonstrate that the Sim CA is as rooted in Situation as Gamism and Narrativism are.  This would also explain away issues that keep coming up like Sim is about details or Sim is Exploration.

How can this be done?  By trying to define what that self-limiting and self-directing "address" of Situation might be.  I have my own thoughts, but I think that framing the question is better than thrashing around blindly for solutions.

I look forward to any responses.

Aure Entaluva,

Silmenume.

[Eero Tuovinen]

I yapped about this a couple of days ago in some thread, if memory serves. Let's see what I come up this time. Never know, you know.

As far as I'm concerned there's no use in trying to define CAs as different emphasis on Situation. Situation is situation, and that's it. What the CAs are, is motivation as psychological mechanic.

What this means is that it's in the end only blurring the issue to refer to gamism as "addressing Challenge". That's a complex way to think about it. What gamism is, though, is significance humans place on conflict. In the same way there's no problem in defining simulationism - it's simply curiousity, a psychological mechanism that's satisfied by simmy actions, the same as gamism is predicated on challenge as personality-defining tool, and is thus satisfied by challenge.

Simulationism is not "exploration squared" (Whatever that even means? Is it some more intense exploration or what?) or lack of motivation or whatever. It's just a central part of being human. It's an imperative of survival and intelligence to be curious about matters, and that curiousity finds a great outlet in roleplaying games. This is different from how gamism and narrativism use exploration - the former needs exploration elements for and arena for challenge, while the latter needs them to hook thematic elements. The simulationist needs exploration for it's own sake, to satisfy his own curiousity about the matter explored.

Your question: how to define simulationism the same way gamism and narrativism are defined, through it's relation to Situation? My answer is that you need a new word to go along with Challenge and Premise. This word would define as noun the thing done in simulationism, which by the above is satisfying curiousity by exploration. Let's call this thing the Query, for now. I claim that simulationist motivation is predicated on the players devising a Query and answering it through play. The Query itself is the subject matter of interest, and can usually be spelled out as a question. "What happens when this character goes out against a dragon?" is a classical example.

Now, usually the Queries are not spelled out so clearly, and they tend to get dished out and answered relatively quickly in some situations (plot twists and other such), and really slow in some others (themes and such). The fascination with process sometimes evidenced by the simulationist is a natural feature of the Query: in many cases the player does not really want to know what happens, but why.

I still think that it's clearer to consider CAs as psychological mechanisms, but if it helps you to clothe them in Exploration terms, the above should do the trick. Simulationism is defined by the player addressing Situation as Query.

[talysman]

Your question: how to define simulationism the same way gamism and narrativism are defined, through it's relation to Situation? My answer is that you need a new word to go along with Challenge and Premise. This word would define as noun the thing done in simulationism, which by the above is satisfying curiousity by exploration.

if you were going to go this route -- and I'm not saying you should -- then the "what" that is addressed by Situation is "The Dream", exactly as Ron's essay describes it.

however, I do not think you need to define Sim in the same way as the other two. Gamism and Narrativism are said to be more similar to each other than either is to Sim -- that's a given, and that explains why they are both defined in terms of Situation, while Sim isn't. for Sim, System plays the same role that  Situation plays in Gam/Nar.

[*]Gamism addresses Challenge through Situation;
[*]Narrativism addresses Premise through Situation;
[*]Simulationism addresses The Dream through System.
[/list:u]

this is why people here sometimes say that Sim emphasizes in-game causality: in Sim games where causality is important, causality is built into the System.

[M. J. Young]

I want to thank Jay for raising the question, and Eero for that excellent answer. I really like the notion of the query.

When I was reading the question, my thought was this: in simulationism, curiosity (thanks to Ian for that) drives investigation toward discover. In this construct, investigation is the way conflict is faced and overcome. Conflict is that which blocks discovery, and investigation is that which overcomes conflict.

Now, can I work query into this? Query is that which identifies what is investigated. So curiosity focuses in a query, and investigation springs from the query driven by curiosity toward discovery.

I think that takes care of your interests in conflict and situation, yes?

I'm almost afraid to ask, but what were your thoughts?

--M. J. Young

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

I think a couple of things should be made very clear, if possible.

1. John (talysman) nailed it: "the Dream" is the term you're looking for, Jay. Similarly, your fairly odd focus on Challenge regarding Gamism, as opposed to Step On Up, may represent a parallel mental stumbling block.

2. Simulationist play does differ from Gamist and Narrativist play in that the necessary focus on Situation for the latter two does not have to hold, and even when it is the Explorative focus, the payoff is still in terms of "let's imagine," first and foremost.

So, can you have, for instance, Simulationist play in which the Exploration of Character never includes a dynamic decision for that character? Yup. Or in which the Exploration of Setting never yields a serious conflict of interest which piques the application of player guts and strategy? Yup. Or conversely, can you have Simulationist play in which the Exploration of Situation is the key, in which case Situation does "get there" consistently? Yup.

Whereas no matter what else gets Explored in an instance of Gamist or Narrativist play, Situation gets hit now or later, at whatever pace or with whatever pauses, but yes it gets hit.

Why is this a difficult concept? Perhaps M.J.'s comments on query and discovery help, although to me, they merely add extra terms for stuff that's already accounted for. My take on the topic at the moment is that it needs paring down, not naming all the little sticky-outy parts, but others may differ.

Best,
Ron

[Rob Carriere]

Question: If you want a process-like description of The Dream, wouldn't that be something like: the players ask questions about the SIS and use the answers to create new questions?

In N or G, the answers serve the purpose of Story Now or Step On Up, in S, the answers are the way questions make new and better questions.

SR
--

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

Rob, that works pretty well, except that it's more suited to Exploration in general rather than to the Right to Dream specifically.

Few, if anyone, who post about this topic regularly seem to process that "right to" part of the catch-phrase. The Right to Dream - it means, "listen, this is what I want, the fascination and attention to the imagination qua imagination."

Best,
Ron

[Silmenume]

I believe that Sim builds towards something, much like Gamism and Narrativism.  Whether a particular game focuses on the process of building or that which is built is not the issue.  That which is built is the Dream.  I have no problems with that.

When we diagnose play and we say it is Gamist it is because Situation is addressed in fashion that precludes both Premise addressing and X addressing (Sim).  The same is true for Narrativism.  When play is diagnosed as Narrativist it is because Situation is address in fashion that precludes both Gamist addressing and X addressing (Sim).  How can I say this?  Because if an instance of addressing Situation appears to cover more than one CA, i.e., addressing Challenge and Premise and X (or just two of the three) then that particular act is said to be congruent.  IOW it is impossible to say which CA was in operation at that moment.  Only when the address of Situation clearly excludes both the other CA's is it possible to make a clear statement of diagnosis.  

Since there isn't an agreed upon approach-to-Situation that is said to be indicative of Sim it follows that Sim can be diagnosed in reference to Situation only in the absence of any data indicating Challenge or Premise addressing.  Given the above Simulationism can only be diagnosed precisely because we can't figure out how to interpret the significance of acts of the players during the addressing of Situation.  Diagnosis functions by exclusion.  IOW as the model stands we can only diagnose Sim when we can't figure what the hell is going on.  This brings us back to Sim by default.

Assuming this to be true, let me propose game play whereby it would be, for the sake of argument, impossible to diagnose.  A player comes to the table, is well mannered, agrees to the Social contract, and engages in Exploration effectively.  However, entirely within the Exploration process he wrecks everyone's night by purposely ruining everything they try and do.  His true motives are hate and anger and he uses the game, because he knows it emotionally significant to the players, to rain as much pain down upon the players as he can, via the SIS.  

Clearly this manner of addressing Situation is not any CA as described.  One could argue that he is playing a serial killer and thus the game is Sim.  Again for the sake of argument we propose that the Character he rolled up and is playing is a Paladin.  This manner of addressing Situation is so out of Character that it to becomes impossible to diagnose it as Sim.  However, under the current structure of the model the diagnosis would default to Sim because it is not-G-not-N.  The problem with that is that the player is clearly NOT pursuing The Dream, but attempting to destroy any all addressing efforts of the players.

What is the significance of this example?  That Sim too has some positive (non null/non default) defining approach to addressing Situation that separates it from yet another (Social?) agenda.

1. John (talysman) nailed it: "the Dream" is the term you're looking for, Jay. Similarly, your fairly odd focus on Challenge regarding Gamism, as opposed to Step On Up, may represent a parallel mental stumbling block.

I am fully aware of "the Dream" and "Step On Up" and "Story Now" and their implications.  I am not interested in those, WHY-players-play-in-a-manner-that-expresses-a-certain-CA answers.  I am not asking why players do what they do.  Why is not germane to this particular thread and I have NO interest in discussing it here.

This thread deals specifically with the criteria of HOW we diagnose such play with reference to the SIS.  So far the model says two CA's G/N can be positively differentiated from each other by observing how players approach Situation.  If approach to Situation (addressing Challenge/Premise) is the means by which G and N are identified then it follows that Sim play must also be identified by "testing/observing" the same referent, i.e. how players approach Situation.  There is a method to my madness here folks.

So, can you have, for instance, Simulationist play in which the Exploration of Character never includes a dynamic decision for that Character? Yup. Or in which the Exploration of Setting never yields a serious conflict of interest which piques the application of player guts and strategy? Yup. Or conversely, can you have Simulationist play in which the Exploration of Situation is the key, in which case Situation does "get there" consistently? Yup.

Again we have the problem, which is emblematic to the whole issue of figuring out Sim, is that people are answering a question that I haven't asked.  I am not asking which parts of play that players groove on, which implies the why question, but rather on WHAT criteria we use to diagnose play.

The Gamist and Narrativist CA's both build out of conflict.  Victory can only be built out of conflict.  Theme can only built out of conflict.  Why can't The Dream be built out of conflict?  We have already discussed and dismissed "adding detail" as being definitional of Sim so what does that leave?  Addressing conflict.

There are two issues -

One is that there appears to be a subset of play (or players) which is not interested in addressing Situation the idea of which can be heard echoing in the Zilchplay and Social Agenda threads.  

The other is that currently Sim is everything that cannot be diagnosed as Gamist or Narrativist.  So now we have the big problem of Sim is the Frankensteinian abomination that is the agglomeration of everything that isn't G or N, but which can also include play that is non-representative of any Agenda (Zilchplay and/or Social Agenda).

We have a tripartite of Agendas two of which are positively defined by their approach to Situation and another that is not defined or only defined in the negative.  We have a tripartite of Agendas two of which are diagnosed by their approach to Situation and another that is not diagnosed but only defaulted into.  Doesn't anyone else find that asymmetry troublesome?  We either have to come to grips with either that Simulationism doesn't really exist as a CA, i.e. its agendaless Exploration, or that we misidentified it.

Perhaps there should be a 4th Agenda that is defined in operation by other things besides Situation.  These could be the modelers, mechanics builders, investigators, world builders, etc. all those who enjoy Exploring but have no interest in Situation and its inherent product story.

Few, if anyone, who post about this topic regularly seem to process that "right to" part of the catch-phrase. The Right to Dream - it means, "listen, this is what I want, the fascination and attention to the imagination qua imagination."

Going by the definition provided in the glossary of Exploration, "The imagination of fictional events, established through communicating among one another..." then the above is just saying that someone is fascinated and wants to spend a lot of attention Exploring.  Once again we are back to Simulationism is Exploration, which I don't buy.

There is nothing definitional about the "Right to" that precludes it from being applied to all three CA's.  All the CA's are about the "Right to" Step on Up, the "Right to" Story Now, or "Right to" The Dream.

The reason why Query does not work as being definitional or restricted to Sim is that, "I wonder if this strategy will get me to 10th level first" is a query that is also Gamist.  Every action taken in respect to Situation is essentially a question.  Will this action succeed in X?  How does this action address Premise?

Aure Entaluva,

Silmenume

[talysman]

So far the model says two CA's G/N can be positively differentiated from each other by observing how players approach Situation.  If approach to Situation (addressing Challenge/Premise) is the means by which G and N are identified then it follows that Sim play must also be identified by "testing/observing" the same referent, i.e. how players approach Situation.  There is a method to my madness here folks.

[ ... ]

The Gamist and Narrativist CA's both build out of conflict.  Victory can only be built out of conflict.  Theme can only built out of conflict.  Why can't The Dream be built out of conflict?  We have already discussed and dismissed "adding detail" as being definitional of Sim so what does that leave?  Addressing conflict.

see, you're assuming that because G and N are distinguished from each other by how they address conflict/Situation (Challenge or Premise), they must therefore both be differentiated from S by how they address conflict as well.

but this is jumping to conclusions. there are two facts that contradict this approach:
[list=1]
[*]in play, G and N look a lot like each other and can use almost the same rules, changing only the reward system, whereas S feels distinctly different;
[*]while the possibility of hypothetical G/N hybrids is hotly debated, G/S and N/S hybrids are well-known; for example, The Riddle of Steel is considered an N/S hybrid. this is impossible to accomplish if the method of addressing conflict is the method of distinguishing N from S, and those who deny the possibility of G/N hybrids would say that there are no G/N hybrids because G is distinguished from N by how conflict is addressed and because it is difficult (or impossible) to address the same conflict in two mutually-exclusive ways simultaneously.
[/list:o]

what distinguishes S from G/N is not how conflict (Situation) is addressed, but how conflict is linked to conflict, how they flow into each other, and how the series of conflicts are embedded within the world. in other words, S is distinguished from G/N by System, both in the sense that there's often more elaboration of System in Simulationism and in the sense that System is tied more heavily to movement through time, most frequently by turning System into an expression of causality.

in pure G or N games, most of the mechanics relate to metagame concepts like strategy or dramatic need; progression from conflict to conflict is usually established as part of Gamist advancement (the next conflict needs to be more difficult than the last, to increase the challenge,) or through dramatic necessity (it's time to confront the father who abandoned you, &c).

in G/S or N/S hybrids, you see additional rules covering movement or passage of time, and in pure S, metagame needs are avoided as much as possible: the conflicts you face depend on where you are and what you have already done, and how NPCs would logically react to this.

now, you can attempt to create a different interpretation of the Creative Agendas based entirely on methods of addressing conflict, if you wish, although to do so you will probably need to redefine G and N as well as S. this is OK; on another forum, someone mentioned that the Big Theory is pretty solid even ignoring the GNS Creative Agendas; you could subsititute a different interpretation of CAs at that level and create your own variant of the Big Theory that may work just as effectively.

however, if you are seeking to understand Sim as it was presented in the theory as it now stands, I would suggest that you abandon the attempt to force Sim to be equal to Gamism and Narrativism. they aren't, not as they are currently described.

[Silmenume]

Hey John,

Thanks for taking the time to thoughtfully reply to my post!

...see, you're assuming that because G and N are distinguished from each other by how they address conflict/Situation (Challenge or Premise), they must therefore both be differentiated from S by how they address conflict as well.

Actually I'm not so much assuming as trying to prove.  IOW it's a thesis of mine that I am trying to work out or be shown conclusively is not valid.

Regarding your two disputations –

I don't know if "feel" is enough to discount my thesis.  I agree there can be a very different "feel" between G/N and S, but "feel" is far too nebulous a term, its not rigorous.

The existence of Hybrids is still controversial so again I'll have to dismiss.  Having read the TROS review the Sim was regarded to be made manifest in the grittiness (realism?) of the combat system.  Not too long ago realism/grittiness/verisimilitude was disproved to be a specific Sim attribute.  It was decided that all the CA's required a level of verisimilitude that was sufficient to the needs of the players and the specific game being played.  That being said, the combat mechanics grittiness is not specifically representative of Sim, but just gritty; a description of the affect of the combat mechanics.

Don't make the mistake that just because I am proposing that Sim also be defined by its relationship to Situation means that I am saying that all Sim games must focus on Situation.  That is not what I am saying.  Just as one can have a low intensity address of Challenge or Premise one can have a low intensity of address of Situation in Sim.

This brings me to your "feel" statement.  I believe most Sim games (as Sim is currently defined in the Big Model – not the definition I am working on) feel different because they don't focus on Situation.  The intensity of play that comes from addressing Situation in Gamism and Narrativism is missing in most Sim games precisely because they don't focus on Situation.  I am not saying this is good or bad, just that it is an observation.

Game mechanics, while they can support a CA, do not indicate nor can they enforce which CA is being expressed by the players, thus mechanics does not make for an effective argument.

I do believe that conflict has a fundamentally different role in S than in G/N.  In G/N making and resolving conflict/Situation is the point of play, while in Sim the point of conflict (not play) is in the defusing of conflict.  IOW the character has a goal and the conflict is what lies in the way of the attainment of that goal, so the Situation needs to be defused before the goal may be achieved.  However without a conflict there would be no point in playing out trying to achieve the goal as said goal would be immediately achievable without a conflict to make that achievement questionable.

I think I have finally answered my question.  A Sim CA can be seen to be in operation with reference to Situation when the Character works to defuse Situations so as to be able to attain an in-game goal as opposed to G/N which is driven to the creation and resolution of conflicts by the players.  

Or at least that's a glimmer of a testable idea.  It's late, so good night.

Aure Entaluva,

Silmenume

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

Jay, I'm gonna have to call you on something.

Going by the definition provided in the glossary of Exploration, "The imagination of fictional events, established through communicating among one another..." then the above is just saying that someone is fascinated and wants to spend a lot of attention Exploring. Once again we are back to Simulationism is Exploration, which I don't buy.

There is nothing definitional about the "Right to" that precludes it from being applied to all three CA's. All the CA's are about the "Right to" Step on Up, the "Right to" Story Now, or "Right to" The Dream.

All of the above is incorrect. Everything in the text you're referring to is about the social support of the Exploration, which mysteriously seems to disappear in all of your paraphrases. Exploration, in successful Simulationist play, is explicitly not internal - it's shared, supported, enthused about, and prioritized. (I wonder if anyone understands what that word is doing in the argument?)

In Gamist or Narrativist play, here are two points:

1. (when Sim is the minority) There is no "right" to Dream by itself in these modes of play, at least not for long or demonstrably not in support of an eventual G or N application. It's literally breaking contract to do so - lying down on the job. If you haven't seen a mainly-Gamist group rip into a Sim-ish participant like starving wolverines, for this very sin, then count yourself lucky.

2. (when Sim is the majority) If the other people in the group cannot seem to get into socially supporting one's Gamist or Narrativist agenda, then the person has to make a choice: stealth, subversion, or dismissal. There's no "right" at all - either everyone else is on board, or one is forced to internalize one's satisfaction, to start influencing others to change, or to leave.

But in Simulationist play, the Right is a big thing. We're playing Sim? Then by God and country, we are playing Sim, thank you very much. This is an active social effort to ensure (a) consistent and solid focus of the Exploration (by "focus" see the diversity of ways to parse the five components as listed in the essay) and (b) the absence of G or N gettin' in there.

In my view, quite a bit of historical play and text deals with (b), and I think that much more fun Sim play would be available given a stronger emphasis on (a).

So: is Sim play an "absence"? Socially and creatively, not at all, it's very much a presence; Step On Up and Story Now wise, yes, it's an absence. Understanding this is key to that entire Simulationist essay, and it is astounding to me that a whole slew of people are still spinning this hamster wheel.

Now, to bring a more positive contribution to this thread, I do agree with your points about Situation, in full, and if I'm not mistaken, I believe these points are explicit in my essays. I think this may be another situation of "say it for yourself."

Best,
Ron

[Silmenume]

Everything in the text you're referring to is about the social support of the Exploration, which mysteriously seems to disappear in all of your paraphrases. Exploration, in successful Simulationist play, is explicitly not internal - it's shared, supported, enthused about, and prioritized. (I wonder if anyone understands what that word is doing in the argument?)

Doh!  I hate being calling on things!  Just kidding!  I know humor doesn't always work, but I felt adventurous.

Actually the omissions are not an oversight, convenient or otherwise.  It is an overt and conscious act of my trying to root out what those events are which can be diagnosed Simulationist, especially when such actions are not socially supported.  The model is supposed to function in diagnosing not only group play, but an individual's play as well.  Implied in that is that the expression of CA can be seen in each player's actions whether or not they are socially supported.  Such social support only demonstrates the supporter's CA, not that of the individual who is actually Exploring at the moment.

I agree that Sim requires coherency or cooperation among the players to a higher degree than any of the other two CA's, but doesn't player satisfaction take a hit in either G/N when there is incoherency in the game?  If that is indeed the case, and that satisfaction of game play suffers from such incoherency, would that not imply that both those other two CA's G/N also seek the right to coherent/supported expression?

It did not occur to me that a Gamist player could be content playing in a Simulationist oriented and socially enforced game.  It was my assertion that such a player could only be happy in a game that was aligned with his CA, as long as it was Explored in a fashion that was suitable to his level of Step on Up and Challenge.  I had assumed that such a player would be unhappy or frustrated, but would still be seeking the right to Step on Up despite social pressures to the contrary.  Thus my assertion that all the players of all the CA's who were in games that were of mixed CA's would be actively seeking for the right to freely express his CA.  I also extend this to Narrativism as well.  You're point number 2 supports my assumptions.  Such a non-Sim player will still actively seek the right to express his CA either under the radar, by convincing others present to join him, or by leaving to find others who share his view about the right to express that particular CA.  Is not Exploration in successful Gamist/Narrativist play, explicitly not internal?  Is it not shared, supported, enthused about and prioritized?

Now, to bring a more positive contribution to this thread, I do agree with your points about Situation, in full, and if I'm not mistaken, I believe these points are explicit in my essays. I think this may be another situation of "say it for yourself."

You're missing my point.  I am not just restating that Gamism and Narrativism have a profound and focused relationship with Situation just to hear myself say it my way but to draw attention to the fact that the Simulationist essay says nothing about the role of Situation other that to say that some forms of play do focus on it.  My continual stating of the role of Situation in G/N is a rhetorical tool I am employing to contrast and compare that pivotal role with the fact that Sim, as it is currently defined in the model, says nothing about the role of Situation.  

If all roleplay floats on a sea of Exploration, and the expression of a CA is a focused and driven expression of Exploration, then it follows that address of Challenge/Premise is a form of Exploration.  Then we come to the statement that Sim is simply focused on Exploration.  So here we come to the conundrum.  Expressing a CA can only happen via Exploration, but one of the Ca's (Sim) is said to be focused on Exploration as if the expression the other CA's (Gam/Nar) is somehow not Exploring.  All games focus on Exploration or there isn't roleplay going on as the focus shifts away from Exploration to social matters.

To me, the intensity of focus on Exploration does not indicate Sim as much as it does an intensity of focus on the action of Roleplaying in general.  Hardcore Gamist play is still Exploration; a very intensely focused version of it.  Just as Hardcore Narrativist play would focus extremely intensely on address of Premise/Situation, so much so that Character too (like Gamism) would become merely a tool of CA expression, it too is still Exploration.  Is not the process of Challenge or Premise addressing focusing the players on Exploration?  Because G/N focus on Challenge or Premise do we then say that because Simulationism focuses on the other elements of Exploration that is an unfocused focus on Exploration?  

Doesn't this bother anyone?  Isn't that a little strange?  Two whole CA's are firmly rooted and driven by conflict/Situation.  These two CA's are clearly defined, "intuitive" and "easy to pick up" by players, which is to say that the players are intuitively seeking conflict and addressing it.  Then there is a third agenda which for some strange reason is very much unsettled, ill defined, negatively diagnosed, non intuitive - and has no defined relationship with conflict.  

Yet I would argue that Situation is as important to Sim as it is in Gam/Nar.  The only difference is that typically Sim requires the DM to create the Situation, not the players (Universalis being the one exception that I can cite).  This would then leave a forth agenda that is Situation indifferent.  This agenda would focus on modeling (mechanics), describing/investigating (setting), personal expression (color), or socializing (no particular interest in Exploring per say, only doing so because everyone else is).

I believe that there needs to be a fundamental rethink about how to define the Sim CA, which I do fervently believe is a CA that is distinct and socially supported, but not as it is currently defined in the model.  Right now I believe that the cart is before the horse.  The Sim CA is not about simulating a world; it is about simulating the lives of Characters in a simulated world.  The world is there to support the Exploration of the Characters which are revealed during address of Situation.  Gamism creates stories about the real people in conflict.  Narrativism creates stories about human issues that are hashed out in conflict.  Simulation creates stories via Characters pursuing goals, encountering conflicts, and their efforts to surmount/defuse them.  Three of the CA's now have a common reference point, Situational conflict that at some point must be hashed through via a fictional Character.  To define Sim as being as strongly tied to conflict as Gam/Nar now puts all three Agendas into a framework where they can be clearly defined, diagnosed, and make more "intuitive" sense to the players.

There is no particular reason why Sim should be conflated with conflict indifferent agendas other that historical accident, especially considering all the problems that continue to crop up surrounding Sim as it is currently defined.

Aure Entaluva,

Silmenume

[tiago.rodrigues]

Greetings, all.

I want to say I side with Silmenume in this discussion.  I also believe that the Simulationist definition is the greatest flaw in G/N/S theory and that following this line of questioning is the biggest step we can take towards refining that theory, even if Ron thinks it's a non-issue.  Allow me to assert the following in defense of my point:

1. A theory is only as useful inasmuch we can draw useful conclusions from it.  If a theory tells us nothing useful about the system which it models, it is discarded.

2. We can draw several useful conclusions from G/N/S theory when we apply it to Game design, Player profiling, Story creation, and many other activities.  However, when we approach Simulationist mode, the theory breaks down somewhat.  We can no longer draw as many useful conclusions when we are, say, designing system features to encourage Simulationist mode; most people say that pinpointing particular overtly Simulationist methods is "difficult", and say generalities about "encouraging Exploration".

3. Simulationist mode is not fundamentally different from Gamist or Narrativist modes to such an extent that they cannot be compared meaningfully.

What this boils down to is that, as it stands, G/N/S theory is broken.  Now, it doesn't mean it isn't useful for anything (in fact, it's extraordinarily useful for Gamist and Narrativist modes, and still somewhat useful for Simulationist mode).  However, the model to explain the differences between the modes such that we may unequivocally characterize them is, how can I say it, hodge-podge.  Simulationism does seem like the odd man out, which is why others have put its existence in question in the past.

In light of that, it's important that we define a methodology that we can apply to characterize all three modes pointing to the same object, be it Situation, Exploration as a whole, or whatnot.   Regardless, here is my own hypothesis on the matter:

First off, it seems we have a discrepancy in the definition of what exactly is the Situation in each of the Modes.  In both N and G, the Situation is a concern which is put to the players directly: a Premise or a Challenge is given to the players, not their characters.  On the other hand, in Simulationism, the Situation is something that is defined within the Exploration, such as defeating the Galactic Empire or cracking the murder.

That isn't to say that in N and G the Premise or Challenge isn't presented to the characters, but it is in a different way than it is presented to the players themselves.  Therefore, we have two Premises, two Challenges: the one presented to the players and the one presented to the characters.  The two Premises and the two Challenges are closely intertwined, but differ in respect to context: within and without the game (Exploration and Social Contract, respectively?).

S, on the other hand, only seems to have one Situation, within the Exploration context.  What Situation are the players themselves faced with?  I hypothesize that the task of Immersion into the Exploration is the Situation that the players must address.  The characters, on their part, are also faced with a task of Immersion into their own world: to react according to their own Character characteristics to their Setting, using Rules as a medium and generating Color.  Like in N and G, these are two subtly-different and very much intertwined Situations presented to the Players and the Characters.

But what about destroying the Galactic Empire?  Well, maybe some might feel as a cop-out, but I believe that what we today refer to as Situation in a Sim game is actually a subset of Setting: we have a world where there is a wrong to be righted, and that is why it's not necessary that it become a focal point to the story.  The players may ignore the overarching conflict in a Sim game and have very enjoyable time, just as they may ignore the existence of combat and have a good time, as well.  It's all Setting.  The Situation is Immersion, instead.

As I said in the beginning, a theory must be able to let us draw plausible conclusions about the system it models.  One might say that the last conclusion I reached is useful, though I cannot vouch for that.  Regardless, I eagerly await your peer review to help corroborate or discard my hypothesis.

         -T

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Tiago,

That was a great post.

Except ... well, I can't see how anything in it disagrees with anything in my essays. Your conclusions seem to me to re-state, in full, all of my points about why "one of these three is not like the others."

Sometimes, people seem to require some sort of necessary parallelism among the three Creative Agendas. If G and N have certain features and levels, they ask, then where the hell are those levels in S? It just doesn't seem to satisfy them to say, "S is not like the others."

So far I don't see a problem with that answer. There's no reason to expect any of the three modes to be internally consistent with the others, and the fact that G and N do show those consistencies is what's interesting to me, not that S doesn't.

Best,
Ron

[M. J. Young]

I think a number of things should be noted.

One is that although G and N have some common features, each of them also has features in which they are at odds with each other but in common with S.  For example, Gamism and Simulationism tend to require reliability in mechanics, which Narrativism does not need. Narrativism and Simulationism tend to require strong characterization of character, which is much less necessary in Gamism.

Ron says, "One of these things is not like the other," but the fact is that each of these things is discrete, different from each of the others in various ways. Yet they are similar in various ways as well, all together and in pairs.

I think we can draw conclusions when designing features for simulationist play; my http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/23/">Applied Theory article made it clear that I believed such design features were identifiable and useful. As a recent posting on another thread observed, though, there is no single feature which of itself fits a single mode. It is the combination of features and the specific application in play that supports an agendum. It is no more difficult to answer the question of how to design a simulationist game than it is to answer the same question for narrativist and gamist games. Of course, if you ask people who design primarily for one agendum, they're not going to be as able to answer how to design for another. Sports cars and pickup trucks have a lot of common features, but someone who always designs one isn't going to have a lot of familiarity with the best ways to design the other.

The distinction between the situation as posed to the player and that as posed to the character already exists recognizably in simulationism. For the player, the objective is to discover. That indeed may be immersive discovery, trying to experience what it would be like to be a certain kind of person in a certain kind of situation. It may however as easily be objective discovery, trying to observe how things happen and what the consequences are. Ralph Mazza has spoken of the excitement that springs from having characters jump off incredible cliffs because the system says they will survive that kind of fall, and it's neat to watch it happen--simulationist exploration of system, no immersion in the character at all, but the discovery of what the world would really be like if those were the rules. The situation posed to the player is how do I use the tools given to me in this game (whether just the character or including more empowering techniques) to learn more? The character need not have any interest in learning more. The desire to learn is the metagame; it is what the player wants.

In all three modes, the player objectives and the character objectives may be closer together or further apart. You can have a gamist situation in which the character wants to beat the dragon and the player wants to beat the dragon. You can have one in which the character just wants to put all this behind him and go home to his wife, but the player just wants to win the war. So, too, you can have simulationist play in which player and character are both out to discover the same thing, but you can also have such play in which the character isn't particularly interested in what the player wants to know, but reveals it incidentally as he moves through the world.

I think of the video game Maniac Mansion. Anytime I've seen it played, the players use the characters to wander around the house trying things, and get really excited if they melt down the nuclear reactor and kill everyone. Those can hardly be said to be the objectives of the characters. They're essentially pawns in the game--yet the exploration for the sake of discovering how the place works is clearly a simulationist pursuit.

--M. J. Young