The Forge Archives

I've been trying to work out what I think about Sim by reading and responding to a lot of the threads in this forum.  To clarify things a bit, I would like those who have a better grasp of Sim to give a few examples of each of the following:

Exploration of System
Exploration of Situation
Exploration of Setting
Exploration of Character
Exploration of Color

I remember reading that each one of these can be explored, but perhaps that is just my faulty memory.  Please help.

Cheers,
Jonathan

I'm not sure how looking at each element is going to help? Why are the elements important to you here?

But as an example, Sim Exploration of System might be looking at mechanics for how much a farmer can harvest with farming skill. As opposed to Gamism Exploration of System, which might be considering which weapon does more damage.

Note, that each of these examples could be the other as well. What really matters, as always, is what's encouraged, or what's exciting the player. If they really get excited about growing more than the average amount by player manipulation of the system, then it might be gamism instead. While a player can get equally excited about how realisitc the weapon damages are in terms of character selection.

Do you really want an example of each?

Mike

Mike,
I have two goals:

As I understand it, even though these are all elements of Exploration, I have difficulty understanding how one can be explored in the same manner as another.  I would like to compare and understand this a little better.

I would also like to learn which methods are "more typical" in a particular CA historically, though I wasn't going to ask that question on this thread.   However, I suspected that it might come up.

Frankly, I suspect that exploring some elements has less pertinence than exploring others, but I wanted some hard examples so that I could mull this over.  If, instead, I receive definitive theoretical discussion that makes this issue clearer, I will be just as happy.

Cheers,
Jonathan

First of all the "of" in your "Exploration of" statements will mislead you a little.  All 5 elements are always present and always a part of all roleplaying (as we understand it today).

Think of the 5 elements as being dials that you might crank up higher or lower by preference.

Since its based on preference, examples can be a bit hard to come by, because unless your preference in a particular game mirrors my own, my examples might not match your expectations, but I'll give it a shot.


When I play Pendragon, for example, I'm mostly interested in the underlying "Arthur-ness" of the setting.  I like to crank the setting dial way up.  When my character meets Arthur in 516 I want Arthur to be doing whatever it is Arthur is supposed to be doing in 516.  This is not to say that it is the actions of major NPCs that determines setting...by no means.  But in Pendragon specifically...yes...it is largely the actions of Arthur and those characters and events in orbit around him that determine the setting.

When I play Pendragon I want to go to the places that are a part of the legend and participate in those legends largely as they are supposed to occur.  Who my character is in Pendragon is less important to me as long as it is a suitable vehicle for me to engage in the overall setting of Arthurian legend.


Someone dialing Character higher than Setting is likely going to be more fascinated by their knight's traits and passions and virtues and vices as they exist on the character sheet and interested in engaging in the setting largely only to the extent that the setting has a meaningful impact on who their character is.


Someone dialing Color higher than Setting or Character is going to primarily concerned with the game "feeling like Arthurian legend" whatever that means to them, regardless of how authentic the actual events or setting is.  Someone who's primary interest in Arthur is the color might well enjoy just as much any of the inumerable transplants where elements and features and flavor of the legends are translated to other times or places.  Its the imagery and mood that's important.


Someone with the Situation dial cranked higher is likely to focused not just on experiencing various elements of Pendragon but how they fit together as well.  One of my favorite situations in Pendragon is that of the old knights who conquered the saxons and overthrough the northern kings through blood and feats of arms and how they relate to the younger generation who've never known real warfare and have turned to tournaments and games and poetry and courtly love.  The Younger Generation vs. the Older Generation is a fantastic situation in many settings.  Someone with a particular fascination for that situation may seek to explore it repeatedly across many games.


In each case, however, all of the dials are present.  None can really be set to "zero".

Is that of any use to you?

Edited to note the cross post with Ralph.

Quote from: ErrathofKoshAs I understand it, even though these are all elements of Exploration, I have difficulty understanding how one can be explored in the same manner as another.  I would like to compare and understand this a little better.

I don't suppose that it would suffice to say that exploration of each is different? That they aren't explored in the same manner? That is, exploration of system looks nothing like exploration of setting in any mode. For instance, exploration of system might be a player reading up on how a particular rule works in a certain situation. Exploration of Setting could be a player asking and getting an answer from the GM as to where the next town is.

Not great examples, but are you seeing it?

QuoteI would also like to learn which methods are "more typical" in a particular CA historically, though I wasn't going to ask that question on this thread.   However, I suspected that it might come up.

Ah, you're falling into a trap, the notion that some of these are done more with one mode than another. There's really no evidence that this is true. Rather, it maybe that, historically, there's been more of one sort of activity in one mode than another. But there's nothing about a particular mode that makes this neccessary.

The classic example is the mistaken notion that exploration of system is more "sim" and less "nar". The whole nar=lite fallacy. It just doesn't hold true.

For instance, I spend a lot of time in Sorcerer manipulating the rules in my narrativism play of the game. That is I do a lot of Exploration of System while playing in the narrativism mode in that game. Alternately, I've seen very sim games that were very much exploration of character (often erroneously associated with nar).

Basically, if you're looking to clarify the modes, looking at the elements will do nothing for you at all. There is no automatic association between them. Just as there's no automatic association of stance to mode.

Mike

My first question has been sufficiently answered in both posts.  Ralph, I do understand that these elements are more like dials.  In fact, I'm not sure that you can roleplay if you don't have them all.  (But that is a whole other topic!)

Quote from: Mike Holmes

QuoteI would also like to learn which methods are "more typical" in a particular CA historically, though I wasn't going to ask that question on this thread.   However, I suspected that it might come up.

Ah, you're falling into a trap, the notion that some of these are done more with one mode than another. There's really no evidence that this is true. Rather, it maybe that, historically, there's been more of one sort of activity in one mode than another. But there's nothing about a particular mode that makes this neccessary.

The classic example is the mistaken notion that exploration of system is more "sim" and less "nar". The whole nar=lite fallacy. It just doesn't hold true.

For instance, I spend a lot of time in Sorcerer manipulating the rules in my narrativism play of the game. That is I do a lot of Exploration of System while playing in the narrativism mode in that game. Alternately, I've seen very sim games that were very much exploration of character (often erroneously associated with nar).

Basically, if you're looking to clarify the modes, looking at the elements will do nothing for you at all. There is no automatic association between them. Just as there's no automatic association of stance to mode.

Mike

Actually, I'm not trying to clarify the modes, I'm trying to understand the basic ideas of each element as it applies to Sim.  If I also get some education on how they work under Nar or Gam, that's gravy.  I'm intrigued on how you explore system while playing Nar Sorceror for instance.  

As someone who tends to explore character in whatever mode I'm playing, I'm looking for examples and ideas about exploring the other elements.

Hey Ralph,

That has to be best singular description of Exploration with areas of emphasis that I have ever read!  It drives home the point with astonishing clarity that the elements of Eploration are employed to create into the SIS, but with different foci.

Exploring Setting, which more accurately phrased, using Setting to Explore, is exactly what you demonstrated in you example above.

One is not focusing on the element of Setting, but rather one is employing all the elements of Exploration to maximize the focus on the qualities of Setting that are interesting.  Or like the example given for Character, all the elements of Exploration are employed to emphasize the investigation of Character.

As Ralph indicated, all the elements are always in play.  Its not that a single element is being Explored, rather its how one employes all the elements (Explore) that determines what is being focused on - i.e., Setting, Character, etc.

Mike is also right on the mark with the idea that looking at or focusing on a single element of Exploration does not map one to one to a Creative Agenda.

edit - cross posted with Jonathan

Mike and Ralph have done quite well in elucidating this. Let me reiterate for clarity that you cannot have role playing without all five elements; that's fundamental. You might not be able to identify or isolate a particular element, but it is always there.

I'll also take a moment to offer my insights of exploration of each of the elements individually.

Exploration of Character: This is often done subjectively, particularly in immersive play, as "what would it be like to be this person?" It can also be done objectively, as "what is this person really like?" All of the elements can be explored subjectively or objectively (probably in all three agenda), but this is particularly so of character, and particularly in variations of simulationism. If your focus is on understanding the character you're playing, whether as an experience or an experiment, that's exploration of character.

Exploration of Setting: This can be travelogue play; there can be a lot of other approaches, though, as Ralph recognized. It is in essence coming to know a place, again either observed or experienced. "Place", too, should be understood broadly. It includes the culture, the entire backdrop for play, and in many ways exploration of setting pulls the background into the foreground.

Exploration of System: This is often the play of the "physicist" or "scientist" sort, asking "what happens if I do this?" I've seen guys in D&D fantasy-type worlds trying to create explosives. Some of them do it to be sure because they want a weapon no one else has; but some of them want to see what's possible in the world. If we don't have explosives, what happens if you put flammable oil in a sealed jar with some air and a fuse by which to ignite it? Does the jar explode, and if so can you use that as a bomb? What happens? Since system determines what happens in response to actions and events, any effort to understand how the world "works" is exploration of system, from jumping off cliffs to see how much damage you take to trying to seduce the princess because your charisma roll is so good and you want to see how the game handles that.

Exploration of Situation: Situation is very much where the rubber meets the road--it's the clash between character and setting. In a sense, it's "what is happening"; but that sense is static, like a snapshot of what is happening at any given instance. (System causes and controls change in situation; player choices through character and setting activate system to initiate such change. Situation then has changed, but is still perceived as whatever it is in the current moment.) It is difficult to explore situation without moving toward gamism or narrativism, and because of that it is the more difficult to describe without sounding like one of those. That is, it is exploration of situation to fight the dragon, and it is exploration of situation to decide whether to destroy the village in which the terrorists are hidden or attempt to save the innocent villagers at the risk of the terrorists escaping--but in simulationism you're not interested in the glory of beating the dragon or the answer to the moral question, but only the possibilities and the outcomes. Perhaps the best illustration I can find for exploration of situation is having the opportunity to play Lee at Gettysburg, to see whether a different strategy might have resulted in a different outcome in that critical battle--not because you want to prove you could have won with your knowledge and his resources, but because you're genuinely interested in whether he had a "playable hand" from which he could have won with different choices.

Exploration of Color: I find color the most elusive of the five elements, at least for me. The best example I can give is the mood of a horror game. That's established by elements of setting and situation, but also by techniques and ephemera which are not, strictly speaking, part of either. Seth Ben-Ezra often plays horror games with luminescent dice, so that he can turn off the lights when he wants to do so. In a sense, this would be asking, "how can we make this scary? why are we afraid?" I've noticed in the telling of ghost stories that many of them are terrible stories; but the mastery is in the telling, not in the story. I can read Lovecraft and even Poe with detached disinterest; but I've seen Vincent Price do some Poe, and his delivery was frightening. Exploration of color is about trying to get the "feeling" right.

At any rate, that's how I see them. I hope it's helpful.

--M. J. Young

Hello,

I also make the point in my Simulationism essay that diversity within this Creative Agenda is mainly defined by different combinations of the five components (in terms of emphasis, exactly as Ralph states) - not just a single big one of the five at a time.

Best,
Ron

Quote from: ErrathofKosh
Actually, I'm not trying to clarify the modes, I'm trying to understand the basic ideas of each element as it applies to Sim.  If I also get some education on how they work under Nar or Gam, that's gravy.  I'm intrigued on how you explore system while playing Nar Sorceror for instance.

But that's just it, if I tell you how the element "applies" to Sim, the only thing that will vary about it as it "applies" to nar is that I'm using that element to create that particular adenda. They'll be different, but only because the mode is different - there's no cross-product of results. Again, you seem to be looking for some connection in two completely unrelated things. It's like you're asking me what Cumen in Mexican cooking is like vs. Cumen in Indian cooking. Well, either way it's Cumen, the Cumen doesn't change. Only the resulting food. Which is true of everything about the preparation, not just certain ingredients.

The way a player playing with a gamism agenda explores system might be to look over the rules for how demons are rated. Which is precisely something I might do as a player playing narrativism. What differs is not that we're exploring the rules, or even how we're doing that, but instead the reason why we're looking. If the looking is part of a decision on the player's part to find a way to make a more powerful demon, in order to be a more powerful character, in order to kick more ass than anyone else as a player, that's gamism. If I'm looking throught the rules to find a way to make a demon more powerful, in order that when it rebels, it's more spectacularly bad, creating a theme of uncontrolled power, then that's narrativism.

CA is about how you make decisions. The parts of exploration are what you make the decisions about. You can make any decision about any part of exploration, they do not influence each other automatically. To work off what Ron says in the above post, in fact, what you emphasize in terms of exploration may make for a different Sim CA than somebody else's Sim CA. But any combination can be a Sim CA.

Mike

Thank-you Mike!

That was especially enlightening.  I like the cumen example!  The comparison has helped me to understand exploration using system better.  

I can say:
I explore X using Y, where X is CA and Y is an element.  And I can use Y the same way for each X, because X is independent of Y.  Of course, Y is always a mixture of the elements, not just one.