I have a question

[Silmenume]

OK - so everyone must be getting tired about me going on and on about conflict/situation - but here we go again.

Basically put, the way in which a Gamist approaches conflict is different from the way a Narrativist approaches conflict and this lies at the root of that incoherence, yes?

A Gamist may be said to be looking to defeat the conflict while a Narrativist may be seeking to stoke up conflict to see where it leads, yes?

Here's my real question - Do you think that play that seeks to defuse conflict (and enjoys the process), is incoherent with play that is conflict indifferent?

Would those be two distinct Agendas?  Would the players be trying to do things that are so distinct as to be frustrating to each other?

Thanks for your thoughts in advance!

Aure Entaluva,

Silmenume

[Alan]

Do you think that play that seeks to defuse conflict (and enjoys the process), is incoherent with play that is conflict indifferent?

Hi Silmenume,

I think your question needs more specifics.  Can you give examples of how these phenomena might show up in play?  What does it mean to seek to defuse conflict in actual play?  What does it mean to be conflict indifferent in actual play?

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

Basically put, the way in which a Gamist approaches conflict is different from the way a Narrativist approaches conflict and this lies at the root of that incoherence, yes?

I dunno what you mean, beyond the (to me) obvious analogy that if one person wants to wash clothes, and another wants to make pasta, they will not be happy with one another's use of the only available boiling water.

For Gamist and Narrativst play specifically, my take is that conflict between Gamist and Narrativist play are rarely a source of incoherence. The two agendas are so distinct that I've experienced it a bit, but usually the situation doesn't last long because the two individuals avoid one another in play - either during play itself or after, when setting up another game.

A Gamist may be said to be looking to defeat the conflict while a Narrativist may be seeking to stoke up conflict to see where it leads, yes?

Um, maybe. But much Gamist play is about strategizing (i.e. at a larger scale) as well as tactics (putting it down), so some "stoking" can be said to occur there. And plenty of Narrativist play is certainly "defeat it" oriented from the character's point of view (although I realize you're not talking about that).

So if you're looking for G vs. N distinctions, I just go to the definitional difference between Step On Up and Story Now (or Address Premise, if you like) and be done.

Here's my real question - Do you think that play that seeks to defuse conflict (and enjoys the process), is incoherent with play that is conflict indifferent?

Please give me specific examples from actual play, preferably with the rules-sets and a basic idea of the people involved.

Best,
Ron

P.S. I know I owe you a reply in your other recent thread; dealin' with exams.[/quote]

[MarktheAnimator]

Hello,
I've been reading all this theory about "Gamist, Narrativist, Simulationist" stuff and I think we are all getting away from the central point of Role Playing Games:

Telling a Story.

The players don't care what style (GNS) they are using.  
They just want to feel like they are really there in the setting and participating in a story, with lots of drama, action, combat or whatever.

I think that the use of these terms doesn't apply to the nature of conflict.

Every story must have conflict.
There are many kinds of conflict, from combat to a simple arguement.

To say that a gamist is trying to defeat the conflict and a narrativist is seeking to stoke up conflict isn't correct.

Everyone in the story wants to get rid of conflict.
However, every story (and in fact every scene) must have conflict.

Otherwise there is no story.

Go watch any movie.  
Every single scene will have some sort of conflict.  
Heros get introduced, but do they get along?  No.  They argue about something stupid.  

Stories revolve around conflict.

For instance:
Boy meets girl, they fall in love, get married and live happily ever after.

Is this a story?  Well, it may be a list of events, but it is a bad story.

For a story to be interesting, there must be conflict.

For intance:
Boy meets girl.  They hate each other.  Events force them together and they learn that they really love each other.  
They get married, but one of them has an affair and the other one tries to kill the other.  
They eventually resolve their misunderstandings and stay together.

This story is more interesting.

While the characters may want no conflict, they must experience it for a story to be interesting.
Unhappiness creates a need for confrontation of some sort.


Action is all about happenings.
Drama makes a story interesting
Conflict creates drama.
Create an incident (event) to show drama.



So anyway, while it is interesting and perhpas useful at times to talk about the different styles of games (GNS), some elements should be present in every game, such as conflict.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Mark,

You'll have to do some more reading, I'm afraid. Your point about the necessity of conflict is already present in the model of role-playing that's mainly discussed at the Forge (the "Big Model"), of which GNS is a part.

I recommend that you take a look at the Forge glossary available in the articles section of the site. It opens with an explanation of the Big Model that may surprise you.

Furthermore, you are overlooking the straightforward observation that "telling a story" is (a) defined very differently by different people and (b) not actually a priority for many role-players.

And finally, what you're doing in this thread is not allowed - changing the topic. Jay (Silmenume) has raised an issue, and we are all discussing it. If you can't participate in that topic, then don't post in this thread. Start a new one.

Best,
Ron

[MarktheAnimator]

Hi Ron,
I wasn't intending to change the subject.  
Perhaps I do need to read more about the theory before I start going off.

thx for the info.... I'll have to look at the articles section.  

Since I'm new here, I missed it entriely!  :)

Mark :)

[Silmenume]

Hey Alan,

I am not just flatly ignoring your request more specifics, but right now I am trying to lay some theoretical ground work before I do offer them up.  Be patient please, I will offer them at a more appropriate moment but right now there is too much defensive thinking going on to do so right now.

Hey Ron,

You are correct with your water analogy.  I am not trying to "redefine" G vs N so much as to demonstrate where the source of their difference lies.  In an all-roads-lead-to-Rome sort of way, I am trying to demonstrate that the various manifestations of Gamism and Narrativism, and the way those Agendas are incompatible with each other stems from the root of how they approach conflict – that metaphorical boiling water you spoke of.  Both Agendas go to the same pot but for completely different reasons.  For all the various differences in mechanics and styles of play, all roads lead back to how the player approaches conflict.  

The reason why G and N can be said to have a certain symmetry is because both Agendas aggressively pursue and focus on Conflict as a means to drive the game.  Though both Agendas use conflict in very different ways, the desire and the effects are similar – conflict is exciting, unpredictable, engaging, dramatic, etc.  Thus the reason for the incompatibility lays less in mechanics than in conflict employment.  I do not think it would be too much of a leap to say that such players enjoy and seek conflict in their play.  The different approaches to conflict explain the differences in how both Agendas work.  That both Agendas thrive and are driven by conflict is the reason for their "symmetry," or structural similarities.

I am not attempting to say anything groundbreaking here; I am just trying to lay some groundwork.  

I agree with that the two Agendas are so different that they rarely ever meet in play, but that only serves my point.  What I am trying to drive at is that it is how conflict is approached and employed that is at the heart of why the two Agendas are incompatible.  It is this employment of conflict that is at the heart of the incompatibility of the two Agendas.  And in the articles this different views and employment of conflict are what split the two Agendas.  I know this seems overly obvious, as you had indicated earlier, but I think it important to identify clearly what lies at the root of the incompatibility of two Agendas.

In Gamism conflict is a dynamic (an uncertainty) that players ultimately try to wrestle to a specific goal - victory.  Whether that dynamic/uncertainty is real (the Gamble) or illusory (the Crunch) is not important in defining the play as Gamism, just that that the outcome appears or is uncertain.  While facing the conflict players create strategies to deal with the conflict.

In Narrativism conflict is a dynamic (an uncertainty) the players utilize to create a novel/heretofore unknown/new story.  In the process of dealing with the conflict new stories or themes are created.

The process of dealing with conflicts creates new and heretofore unknown things.  Not only is dealing with conflicts is an inherently creative process, dealing with conflicts spurs creativity.

How players use and employ conflict defines and shapes Creative Agendas.  It is the root of what delineates those two Agendas.  And it is those very incompatible uses that lead to strife at the table and thus the definitional distinctions between the two Agendas.  It is exactly the approaches to conflict that give the Agendas their names, Gamism and Narrativism.

Is it too much to assume that a style of play that is conflict indifferent is an Agenda unto its own?  The example I can offer you is the one Mr. Young offered earlier about his probes on a planet - "As player characters, our involvement is entirely in discovering the setting; Situation is extremely limited, and character is nearly non-existent."  Surely I don't believe anyone would have any problems saying that that game as described is clearly not Gamist, because there is no interest in conflict and thus by extension, Challenge.  A Gamist player at such a game seeking the right to express his Agenda desires would be either extremely disruptive to the other players play or be very unhappy himself.  By the same token I would just as easily argue that such a game as described is clearly not Narrativist, because there is no interest in conflict and thus by extension, Premise.  A Narrativist player at such a game seeking the right to express his Agenda desires would be either extremely disruptive to the other players play or be very unhappy himself.  So whatever this Agenda is, it is most certainly not Gamist nor Narrativist because it does not approach conflict the same way as they do.  No controversy so far, eh?

So theoretically if another approach to conflict existed, that was neither Challenge nor Premise oriented, but one where conflict was just as vital and necessary, would that Agenda be in conflict, irreconcilably so, with a conflict indifferent Agenda?  I am talking of a relationship to conflict that is enjoyed for the same reasons it is enjoyed in Gamism and Narrativism - it is exciting, unpredictable, engaging, dramatic, challenges (not Challenge as used in Gamism) us to think in new ways, etc.

In all of these approaches to conflict, the dynamic and the product are intimately linked.  On cannot have created a Victory without a Challenge.  One cannot have created a Theme without a Premise.  I know very clearly what this third is, but I do not wish to muddy the waters right now with phrasing that will cause knee-jerk responses.

I am just asking people to consider the possibility that such an approach to conflict; one that is distinct from Challenge, Premise, or indifference could be considered an Agenda unto itself.


Aure Entaluva,

Silmenume

[Alan]

I am not just flatly ignoring your request more specifics, but right now I am trying to lay some theoretical ground work before I do offer them up.  Be patient please, I will offer them at a more appropriate moment but right now there is too much defensive thinking going on to do so right now.

Hi Sil,

Forgive me, but first I wish to offer you some advice.  Holding back your point and leaving a great big blank for people to project onto is more likely to cause kneejerk reactions than clear and concise expression.

Your post above approaches a point - and says someinteresting things - but still is playing coy, implying you have some big controversial point.  

Please just make your point.

Perhaps you're about to reveal a fourth GNS mode.  If so, let me first say that I think that some forms of simulationist play are conflict indifferent.  I don't think you've found another mode.  On the other hand, if you can demonstrate good reason to believe that this is the primary distinction between S and G or N, then go for it.  I think it has promise.

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

I'll echo Alan. Point, please.

It also strikes me that

So theoretically if another approach to conflict existed, that was neither Challenge nor Premise oriented, but one where conflict was just as vital and necessary, would that Agenda be in conflict, irreconcilably so, with a conflict indifferent Agenda?

... is oriented toward splitting Sim into two parts, the "conflict indifferent" ones from the "conflict specific" ones. This is an old issue and I've been around it a few times. If this is where you're going, it's not going to challenge or derail or upset anyone.

Best,
Ron

[timfire]

"Conflict indifferent" reminds me of Zilchplay, a possible fourth type of play that doesn't priortize anything (if I understand Zilchplay correctly). If I remember correctly, the conclusion was drawn that it porobably doesn't exist, but then again maybe the issue was never resolved.

[M. J. Young]

What interests me is the illusion that has been set up by the use of the one word conflict to mean two different things. That which is conflict in gamism is not conflict in narrativism; that which is conflict in narrativism is not conflict in gamism. Further, neither narrativist conflict nor gamist conflict is conflict in simulationism; these are merely states.

To simplify, there could be conflict in a gamist game in which the player is going to risk the life of the character by attempting to assault the adversary. In a narrativist game, that would not be the conflict; that would merely be the background for the conflict. Similarly, in a simulationist game, the life and death of the character does not matter so much (it is painful, perhaps, to lose a good tool for exploration, but this is not what is at risk). It is merely an answer to the question of what happens.

I suspect Jay is going to offer some idea of how simulationism responds to conflict that distinguishes it from gamism and narrativism; but that is already inherent in simulationism. It only needs to be seen what the definition of conflict is.

In narrativism, conflict is expressed in moral question and resolution is found in personal answer.

In gamism, conflict is expressed in tactical/strategic challenge and resolution is found in personal victory.

In simulationism, conflict is expressed in ignorance and resolution is found in discovery.

All three agenda inherently contain conflict and resolution. Conflict means something different to each, and so resolution has a different form.

But how, Jay will ask, does simulationism handle the kind of conflict that gamism and narrativism handle? It doesn't. That's not a problem, because gamism and narrativism don't handle the same kind of conflict. The word conflict is changing in subtle shades of meaning. It still means the same general sort of thing in all cases--that which resists and must be overcome to reach resolution--but because the agendum is different, "that which resists" changes.

And Jay, it's obvious that your post is trying to be the first point in an argument for a position. You know that that is not how we discuss things here. We present a position up front for discussion; we don't present a foundation as the starting point for an argument to come.

--M. J. Young

[Mark D. Eddy]

It seems to me that Zilchplay is not what he's talking about. The consensus on zilchplay (from what I could tell) was that it existed, but that it was probably not roleplaying in any meaningful sense.

What I'm seeing from this thread is a building process, not a coyness. The thrust seems to be towards a reconsideration of Creative Agenda and its divisions. If there is a legitimate division at the Creative Agenda Level between Conflict Intensive and Conflict Indifferent, and Conflict Intensive is what we are currently dividing into G,S, and N, then how does Conflict Indifferent play divide up?

I'd have to say that every game of House I've played was conflict indifferent, while every game of Cops and Robbers I've played was conflict intensive.

Didactic roleplaying (and its daughter, therapeutic roleplaying) would be a poster child for conflict indifferent roleplay, in my humble opinion. How does this style of roleplay, which is not represented in many games (DragonRaid's Christian didactic springs to mind...) fit into the GNS scheme? As far as I know, it doesn't.

Or else gets dismissed as incoherent.

I don't know. Has this aspect been discussed before? If it has, I missed it in my wanderings.

(edit: crosspost w/M.J. Young)

[Walt Freitag]

Re Zilchplay: Mark is correct. Zilchplay is characterized not by indifference to the outcome but by passivity and/or powerlessness regarding the outcome. That the latter does not imply the former is amply demonstrated in public political forums, by movie audiences cheering the hero's victory, and by countless other experiences in everyday life.

I'm not certain whether the notion that zilchplay is not role playing has achieved consensus here. Even it it has, that would mean little if there are thousands of zilchplayers out there who all think what they're doing is role playing.

Similarly, in a simulationist game, the life and death of the character does not matter so much (it is painful, perhaps, to lose a good tool for exploration, but this is not what is at risk). It is merely an answer to the question of what happens.
...
In simulationism, conflict is expressed in ignorance and resolution is found in discovery.

This alleged player indifference to their characters' fate is often suggested as characteristic of Simulationism, but I've never seen it, even in games like CoC and Paranoia where the character's fate is anticipated all along to be a bad one. So either Simulationism is rare (which some people have suggested all along, I know), or this assessment is missing something.

People's reactions to passive media suggest that emotional investment by the audience in a character's well-being is a pretty robust phenomenon. Test audiences will notoriously often pick a happy ending over a more plausible one or a more literary Premise-answering one. Such emotional investment clearly doesn't require Step On Up or personal agency in Story Now in order to exist outside of role playing. On what theoretical basis would we expect it to require one of those agendas in order to exist in role playing? What evidence is there that it doesn't exist in most Simulationist play?

I can't deny that Simulationist "resolution is found in discovery" but by the same token, Gamist resolution is found in either victory or defeat -- and the Gamist player is by definition not indifferent to which one it is. Simulationist players by definition must likewise care about what is discovered, not just that discovery occurs.

- Walt

[Silmenume]

Roleplay is a synthesizing process.  Conflict is needed in order for synthesis to occur.  The player may or may not be in direct conflict with any person at the table, however in game (SIS) conflict is absolutely necessary in order to synthesize the out of game goal(s) of the player.

Why absolutely necessary?  Because Exploration requires all five elements be employed in order for the activity to be considered roleplay.  Take away System and you are engaged in Improv Theater, take away Character and you are board gaming, take away conflict/Situation and you have description but no metamorphosizing synthesis.

Roleplay isn't just creating from scratch; roleplay is the act of synthesizing a goal from elements in play.  A Gamist can't just declare Victory; he must synthesize Victory from the elements at hand.  A Narrativist doesn't just declare a Theme and be done with it, he must synthesize Theme from the elements at hand.  In either case the product can ONLY be synthesized via the transformative agency of conflict.  I am not asserting that the reason players play is to create a Victory or Theme, just that they are engaged in the process of attempting to synthesize them.  They can be quite happy engaging in the process without particular interest in synthesizing the products, but a process does need to make something in order to design the process.  Point in fact Gamism is described as the process of getting one's Step on Up going and Narrativism is described as the process of creating Story Now.

A few definitions I will be employing.

For this purposes of this essay the point of view of all statements is from a player's point of view.  To me a DM is a facilitator to the players.

Character – the player entity which is under said player's control for that moment.

Setting – any and all physical (meta or otherwise) elements of the fictional world which are not under said player's control.  In this definition Setting does not mean just inanimate objects.  As far as any specific player is concerned this would include other player Characters.  

Goal – any desire of the Character, which can include anything from attaining true enlightenment to remaining whole and breathing.  Goals, like forces of nature, are dynamic not static i.e., we are constantly being accelerated by gravity downward which is constantly being resisted by the upward pressure of the earth.

Conflict – any element of Setting which negatively impacts/impedes Character goal(s).

The existence of any form of Conflict is highly dynamic and ephemeral thing.  The variety of forms of Conflict is nearly infinite; which ones a player attends to is limited both by time and interest and this is where Creative Agenda comes in.  Creative Agenda with its built in focus on process leading to product spurs a demand for conflict while limiting which conflicts to address.  You can't synthesize the product without conflict; only certain types of conflicts will lead to the synthesis of the product that is demanded/necessitated in a given CA.

The basic unit of this CA synthesis process I will for this essay call an Event.

An Event is that circumstance where the Character goal comes into contact with an Antithetical Force thus creating a conflict.  The Character resolution of that conflict hopefully helps the player to synthesize their goal.

Event:

(Player Goal/CA) ֹ ֹ ֹ ֹ ֹ ֹ ֹ ֹ ֹ ֹ ֹ ֹ ֹ ֹ ֹ (GM Role/CA)
ֹ ֹ ֹ ֹ ֹ ֹ ֹ |ֹ ֹ ֹ ֹ ֹ ֹ ֹ ֹ ֹ ֹ ֹ ֹ ֹ ֹ ֹ ֹ ֹ ֹ ֹ ֹ ֹ ֹ ֹ ֹ ֹ ֹ ֹ ֹ ↓
Character Goal -----→ conflict ←-----Antithetical Force (Setting)
ֹ ֹ ֹ ֹ ֹ ֹ ֹ ֹ ֹ ֹ ֹ ֹ ֹ ֹ ֹ ֹ ֹ ֹ ֹ ֹ ֹ ֹ  |
ֹ ֹ ֹ ֹ ֹ ֹ ֹ ֹ ֹ ֹ ֹ ֹ ֹ ֹ ֹ ֹ ֹ ֹ ֹ ֹ ֹ ֹ  ↓
ֹ ֹ ֹ ֹ ֹ ֹ ֹ ֹ ֹ ֹ ֹ ֹ ֹ ֹ ֹ ֹ ֹ Resolution (effects on Character and Setting)
ֹ ֹ ֹ ֹ ֹ ֹ ֹ ֹ ֹ ֹ ֹ ֹ ֹ ֹ ֹ ֹ ֹ ֹ ֹ ֹ ֹ ֹ  ↓
ֹ ֹ ֹ ֹ ֹ ֹ ֹ ֹ ֹ ֹ ֹ ֹ ֹ ֹ ֹ ֹ ֹ Synthesis (effects on Player Goal/CA)

(The dots are place holders and the mark under Player is supposed to be a downward arrow – but the system would not accept any special character there – arrrrrrg!)

What conflicts players steer their Characters into or away from and/or what Antithetical Forces they create reflect CA in operation.

The success of the conflict operates on two levels.
1.   The success of the Character to impose his will/goal.
2.   The success of the Player in their attempt to synthesize their goal.

The most vital of the two is the second.  A player can succeed in the imposition of the Character's will, but if that success does not reflect a goal that the player is interested in then it will have been wasted and possibly frustrating effort leading to dysfunctional play.  The goal of the player can be either the synthesized product, Victory/Theme or the process of resolution itself as long as they involve the kinds of conflicts that the player is interested in addressing.  The hope is that by carefully choosing which elements to put into conflict the process of resolution will further/satisfy the player's goals.

We now come back to what elements constitute a CA.  Because all Exploration must include at some point or another conflict all CA's must include conflict.  All CA's are processes which lead to the creation of a product.  Because Exploration must have conflict at some point, and because all CA's are processes (that work towards product) then all CA's are processes that lead to products which can only be realized through the synthesizing agency of conflict.  If play doesn't employ conflict then its not Exploration.  If its not Exploration then its not roleplay.

Gamism is the expression of Step on Up which is made manifest via Challenge which is a process that leads to the creation of a Victor.  Addressing Challenge does not mean that player is driven by the idea of Victory but it does mean that the process he's engaged in – addressing Challenge is a process that aims toward Victory whether he is successful or interested in it or not.  The same holds true for Narrativism.  CA's are processes that lead to products.

That play which does not employ conflict to an end, i.e., is conflict indifferent, is Zilchplay.  There is no transformative process (conflict employment) where anything is synthesized.

That being said we come back to Simulationism which as described in the model fails to acknowledge/harness that transformative process.  The Simulation as described does not promote or employ or acknowledge Events.  However it is Events that are the strongest most direct expression of Creative Agenda.  Simulation too must have a goal and a conflict powered process to be a functional Creative Agenda or its either not an Agenda (product-less/process-less) or not Exploration (conflict-less).  Its not that Simulation doesn't exist as a mode of play, rather its that model fails to create a viable definition of an Agenda (no product/no process – Theme/Premise addressing – Victory/Challenge addressing) that has been labeled Simulationism.  There is no definition of how one synthesizes the Dream.  As explained in the model the Dream is only described, not made.  

Basically as defined Simulationism is nothing more than an interactive descriptive/modeling process.  The article says that certain designs of games use conflict/Situation but never does the article anywhere discuss how conflict is used to synthesize or create the product of the Dream.  The Gamism definition clearly discusses how conflict/Situation is at the heart of that agenda, but how it is employed.  The same is true of the Narrativist article.  As it stands in the model Gamism and Narrativism are the Right to Do, while Simulationism is described as the Right to Be.  The article talks about conflict resolution, but says nothing about which conflicts to employ nor about that conflicts are to be used to help synthesize the product.  Synthesizing is doing, not being.

To be a functional description as a Creative Agenda in the model Simulation must shed those styles of play which have be conflated with it – those conflict indifferent modes of play.  The reason for this conflation, as I see it, is that procedurally Player-conflict-defusing-play (Sim) and Player-conflict-indifferent-play are very similar via the historical emphasis on mechanics.  However, just as Gamism and Narrativism are similar procedurally, conflict-defusing-play (Sim) is as different from and incompatible with conflict-indifferent-play (Zilchplay) as actual Gamist play is from Narrativism play.

The model fails to adequately define Simulationism because it fails to identify procedure/product IOW it fails to define a dynamic striving goal/agenda.  A Gamist is looking to get his Step on UP – engage in conflict.  A Narrativist is looking to get his Story Now – engage in conflict.  Without defining its goal/process Simulationism can't be described as anything definitive because the players aren't described as doing anything, i.e., striving towards any goal.

Conflict indifferent descriptive/modeling play is not the same as conflict defusing synthesizing play.  This conflation makes no sense and has caused and continues to cause all sorts of confusion.  No one has offered any cogent reason why what is essentially Zilchplay (conflict indifferent play) is considered the same as synthesizing/conflict intensive play.  What is especially distressing is that no one is willing to discuss the possibility as a theory, and instead keep throwing up the hoary old – it ain't cuz it ain't.  Exploration requires conflict.  If whatever it is you're doing doesn't use conflict then you're not Exploring.  Yet Sim theory discussions are notoriously quiet about conflict.  Not just quiet – but many conversations quickly attempt to stifle any effort to explore the idea of conflict as important and vital to Sim.

The results of resolution of conflict synthesize new things.  Conflict is a part of Exploration.  Simulationism is a form of Exploration.  Creative Agendas are about directing/harnessing that synthesizing process manifest in Exploration.  Simulationism, as a model definition, must include a description of the synthesizing process which then also implies what is being synthesized.  That which does not synthesize is not Exploration.

My thesis.  Ick.

Aure Entaluva,

Silmenume

[Ron Edwards]

Hiya,

I don't see much to disagree with in any of that, Jay. You may have to live with the general response, "MM, good," and no controversy. Although I can't speak for the reactions of anyone else, I don't really anticipate much to discuss.

I decided lonnnnngg ago that Sim play was not merely an absence. I did think of it that way for a while, and I do think that there is a crucial distinction between the "dynamic motor" of Sim play and those of Gamist or Narrativist play, as a pair. That Sim does have such a dynamic motor, I agree.

If I didn't think so, then I wouldn't have written an essay about it, as it wouldn't exist. (That is Jared Sorensen's original thesis regarding the Beeg Horseshoe, by the way. It also represents my way of thinking 'round about the time we started the Forge forums, as various individuals will never stop reminding us.)

Now, does the current Sim essay really nail that dynamism? Not too well. John Kim likes to point out that the essay lacks a "dysfunctional Sim" section, which would play a big role in people undertanding what I mean by functional Sim play. He's right. He's wrong that it indicates any belief of mine that there isn't any dysfunctional Sim (or whatever of that sort), but the essay stands as its own historical self, warts and all. I'm happy to have others fill in the gaps, and I think the raft of Sim threads over the last year have done so very adequately. I think this one is a keeper for sure.

I completely and thoroughly consider the casual statement that there are "problems with Sim" as part of the model to be mistaken in full.

You'll also discover, I think, that your presentation of conflict is already well-integrated into many game designs here at the Forge. Again, I urge you to post about actual play - it really would help any and all points that you want to investigate in this forum.

Best,
Ron

P.S. If any structuralists out there think they've found a clue to my "evil Ron bias" because I generally don't write out the word Simulationist in full, but do so for the other two, then fuck off. It's just one syllable too long to type, that's all.