Dramatism and Illusionism

[Valamir]

I think they are concerned with primarily exploring situation, other explored elements are secondary or being used as tools of exploration.
If you can give a good Premise about setting, I'd like to see it. But, make sure it's exploring setting, not using setting to explore.

I don't think that's all that hard to find either.

Alyria is the first example that comes to mind.  Very much a premise game, and the premise is very much embedded in the setting.  You will find the premise in the Arc, in the Web, in the Blessed, in the Dragons and Cultists, in the numbered etc.  Situation and Characters are formed in the first session of play specifically to be a tool to reach into the setting and hit the premises embedded there.  So I'd definitely say this was using Situation to explore Setting, not using Setting to explore Situation.

I'd say its very easy to do the same thing with Zero, Puppetland, Little Fears and other like games where the premise is very much part of the setting itself.  Not that its required.  You could easily do it the other way in these games too.  That's my point.  There is no "Agenda X means always this way and Agenda Y means always that way" statement you can make.

Its a subtle distinction, however.  Do you have a setting without premise and then the situation gives the premise.  Or do you have a setting with embedded premise and then the situation is the key to unlocking access to it.  Very subtle.  Too subtle I think to be basing major differences in Creative Agenda on.

So again, I think you are committing major synecdoche with your position.  Not that your position doesn't have some insight.  Those are certainly useful trends to notice and discuss what they mean.  But its a mistake to think those tendencies are requirements, IMO.

[Mike Holmes]

So given that:
we can agree that the bend in the horseshoe is exploration,
we can agree that all CAs involve conflict
we can agree that when conflict happens you move out of exploration and into the prongs.

What exactly is your objection to having 3 prongs instead of 2?

I think it's fictional. That is, I think that the phenomenon that exists is orthogonal to conflict. That's also the point of Beeg Horseshoe, that there are two axes, one about conflict, and one about versimilitude (or fecundity, or whatever you wanna call it). Which is not to say that they aren't inter-related, but that it's best not to think of them as such. Because they do represent different qualities. To be precise, I think that people only stay down on the arch of exploration, and don't address conflict in any special way. Basically BH says that sim doesn't exist, or that it must be "just exploration." Where "just exploration is actually positively protecting the other axis.

and if, as you note above, "that all CAs you've seen in action have conflict" what is your objection to defining CAs as being the player's response to that conflict?  That seems to be the distinguishing feature we've both hit on that differentiates a CA from exploration.

Again, BH says that conflict can happen on the arch. It's just looking at is as more exploration rather than in terms of one of the other two agendas. Again, maintaining that special RPG quallity, and not backsliding into boardgames or storytelling. Again, some people would call this simulationism.

Think about it this way. Ron says that narrativism, when it gets down to it, is being interested in the ramifications of a conflict, emotionally. Well, if I'm getting "Jazzed" about "what if" isn't that emotional?

No more than getting jazzed about step on up is emotional, and you agree that that's not narrativism.  

Indeed, it's easy to see the difference between Gamism and Narrativism. Excited about two different things related to conflict. It's precisely my point that when you say that a player is interested in the ramifications of an act, that it's not "sim" in this case. Because to be interested "outside" the character is to not be playing sim. Or, rather, when you talk about seeing "what if" how can what excites a person not be what the "moral" ramifications are, or who wins of loses? What's the third thing? Just the technical result? Well, I agree that this is interesting, but as someone who's really into that mode, I can tell you that it's just as exciting when "what if?" is "What if I go over that hill?" It's the same thrill. If I'm particularly[/] excited about a conflict, and I'm neccessarily about all, then it's because it's player challenge, or theme based.

Again, it's precisely my point that when you're prioritizing exploration, that conflict is not in any way special. Or, rather, that when push comes to shove, that we all play Gamism and Narrativism, and that exploration support is orthogonal to these.

It seems to me that once we agree that it is conflict that moves us out of the base of exploration and into the prongs, then it must be the approach to that conflict that differentiates one prong from another.

Yep, that's why Beeg Horseshoe calls that the Conflict Axis, yes. But it's a Horseshoe, not a trident. If I thought there was a third mode that was the same as the other two, I wouldn't have needed to come up with Beeg Horseshoe at all.

Why is it difficult to imagine a third approach to conflict that is neither N, nor G, nor just Exploration alone?

Not hard to imagine, just not an agenda. As you say, "just exploration."

When a player is interested in the resolution of situation as a commitment to furthering the experiment of "what if" to the point that they view conflict as an opportunity for Discovery to "see what happens" and actively seek out such opportunities for the purpose of setting them in motion that's Simulationism.  When they aren't actively pursueing opportunities to act as a catalyst to conflict and are just dealing with adversity as it comes up, that's just the resolution of situation through system of basic exploration.

How are these two things observably different? What's the use of defining them as a different in terms of GNS? Since the exploration part isn't agenda, then there's no new conflict to be discovered here. All you do is remove the ability to see that this exploration could be analyzable as one of the other three agendas, or visible enough as such to cause a GNS problem, or any of the other uses of GNS.

But, again, you still seem to reject that exploration can be determined as part of a mode of play, so we're at an impasse here.

You can define gamism as Exploration plus something else without reference to N or S.
You can define narrativism as Exploration plus something else without reference to G or S.

Because both of them have actual meaningful definitions.  The fact that they are also mutually exclusive and can be defined as Not N, Not S; or Not G, not S is irrelevant, because they don't have to be defined that way.

Only S cannot currently be defined as Exploration plus something else.
Only S can only be defined with the Not N, Not G property of being the third element of the mutually exclusive triad.

My desire is to a) acknowledge that this definition is insufficient as it currently stands, b) avoid simply defining it out of existance by replacing it with Exploration at the base of the horseshoe and not leaving a prong for it as your approach seems to be, and c) come up with a valid "Exploration plus something else" definition for S.

Why? Why must there be S? Or, rather, why must S be something other than prioritizing exploration? Or, rather, why does there have to be an actual third agenda, if that's how you want to look at it? Yes, I agree there's a third phenomenon that exists, but my point, over and over has been that it's not the same as the other two. And the need to define it as such to make it "equal" is not neccessary. You're looking for a neat parallelism here where not exists in practice.

(From another POV, saying that S is "Exploration with an additional committment to doing that exploration in such a way as to make it seem more "real." Which might fit your paradigm. It's all semantics anyhow.)

But it's simply not neccessary for Sim to be stated in such a way that its defined similarly to the other modes for it to be a valid mode of play. I like sim, and play that way a lot. The way I see it, that doesn't mean that I don't also play with narrativism, just that on occasion I go out of my way to "protect" the simulation so that it feels more real. Again, I reject that "what if" is really what's going on here, that can exist, but is ancillary (it would be, at best, a sub-mode). It's a complex subject, but it's not about "discovery" neccessarily, but about taking extra steps to ensure that the world has a feeling of existance.

But where conflict is special, it's Gamism or Narrativism.

Mike

[Sean]

So Mike...

When a scientist is working out her discoveries, is that Step on Up, or Premise Now?

Yeah, yeah, I know, science isn't gaming. But I guess I just don't see why it's unreasonable to think that some people might just be interested in answering 'what if' or 'what is going on here' or 'what's behind that hill' type questions as a matter of pure curiosity.

So my question is: if so, then why isn't this a third CA for you? I especially see this with detailed game worlds, the curiosity angle overwhelming the others.

If not, then why not?

Or if I've set things up wrong, what am I missing?

One possible answer: you write - "To be interested 'outside' the character is to not be playing sim." Why not? Aren't all interests ultimately outside the character? And aren't you identifying sim more generally with immersive roleplaying here, which is only one variety of Sim?

I guess I just don't see why pure (player) curiosity can't be a motive for in-game action involving exploration of internal cause (and content).

Do you subscribe to a psychological theory that says pure curiosity is not a genuine human attitude?

[ErrathofKosh]

[Its a subtle distinction, however.  Do you have a setting without premise and then the situation gives the premise.  Or do you have a setting with embedded premise and then the situation is the key to unlocking access to it.  Very subtle.  Too subtle I think to be basing major differences in Creative Agenda on.

How does the situation giving the premise and premise embedded in setting differ?  It seems to me that you are making the distinction between a game with Premise given beforehand and a game where Premise is determined just prior to or in-game.  Premise is still setting and character interacting to inform the players about human issues.  

The way I currently see it, in G and N character, setting and situation are at the fore.  (and I still think that situation is the most important part of that)  Thus, there is always conflict in these Agendas.  Indeed, the types of conflict present are characteristic of these CA's.  Thus, in that respect I agree with you.

However, in S I don't see a need to always emphasize those three elements.  (Just to be clear, I know they are still present.)  I think system and setting, for instance, can be prioritized without a need for conflict.  

On a totally different tangent, I'm considering proposing a model that isn't about player motivations on the level of creative agendas, but based on player's "exploratory intent."  Look for a new thread in the near future, as I geniunely want imput in this area.

Cheers
Jonathan

BTW, Ralph, I appreciate the effort you've made to help me understand your view.  I still have a lot of thinking to do on this issue...

[Valamir]

I guess we are at an impasse Mike

I see you and I agreeing on 80% of the important stuff.  Then I see a big huge glareing hole in your material that I think I have the other 20% to fill and you're not interested in filling it because you don't see that it exists.

Basically you're taking the "third prong" and just squishing it back down to the base of the horseshoe so once again "Simulation" is a big mixed up jumbled up mess of conflicting stuff...only now you're calling the mixed up jumbled up mess Exploration instead of Sim.

To which I can only shrug and say I'm 99% certain you're wrong.
I'm not 99% that my variant is right.  But I am 99% certain yours is wrong.  Because alls you've done is shuffled around the labels and not really addressed any of the issues.  Same mistakes different geometric shape.  The Beeg Horseshoe threads were instrumental as a source for my essay, they take a different angle than the original Big Model and so illuminate different stuff, but in the end I find BH incomplete and missing the boat on Simulation.

So maybe at some point we'll pick up the discussion again.  But until then, I don't find your definition of Exploration / Simulationism to be any more functional then the one in the glossary.

[Valamir]

How does the situation giving the premise and premise embedded in setting differ? It seems to me that you are making the distinction between a game with Premise given beforehand and a game where Premise is determined just prior to or in-game. Premise is still setting and character interacting to inform the players about human issues.

As I said a subtle difference.  My point isn't that the distinction is one that needs to be made, but one that since it can be made disproves that there is any set prioritization of Explorative elements by agenda.

I'll try an over simplified example.

Situation:  "your character discovers that at birth his mother named him Richard"  Is there a premise in that Situation?  Not really.  Not an obvious one.

But now lets pretend we're playing Alyria an the character is one of the Numbered.  A vast population of people who are born, live, and die in a rigid caste structure where everyone wears masks with nothing but a number to identify them.  The Named are rebels.  The Named are radical thinkers, the Named are dangerous individualists...small voice of freedom crying in the wilderness, or dangerous subversives who'll destroy a cherished way of life.  That's a huge premise built into the setting.

Revisit our Situation now and we can easily see how that seemingly pointless situation really is a gateway into the premise that's part and parcel of the setting.  


This is different from a Situation driven premise like is typically found in Sorcerer.  The default setting for Sorcerer is a vague "modern day".  Its very clear that Demons don't really exist...so you don't even have any "modern day + demons" imagery to riff off of.

The Premise of Sorcerer then, is entirely found in the situation that is superimposed over a setting that is primarily a blank canvas (in standard play).  The situation of the character's relationships on the back of their sheet.  The situation of relationship map the GM brings to the game.  The situation embedded in the kickers.  That's where the premise is to be found.  


That's how I see the distinction anyway.  

But in any case, my key point is simply that there is no required order of prioritization of the 5 exploration elements based on Agenda.

[Marco]

I think that ultimately, so long as illusionism is kept in Sim then there's going to be a fundamental area of the model that doesn't make sense. I believe Ralph's model works if we assume that Sim players are chasing "what-if" questions and realize that illusionist techniques work against that goal.

The idea that the model is somehow stronger for not addressing what is a fundamental disagreement in play-goals (albeit, yes, one that wasn't acknowledged here first) seems essentially incorrect to me.

Functional illusionism may be a technique and not a 4th agenda--however, the idea that illusionism as force is not as out of step with Sim-agendas as Nar-agendas (or Gamist ones) means that there is something about Sim-play that rather than being Exploration-squared is just really "seems like exploration"--something a massive number of Sim players don't identify with, IMO.

What makes this clear is that illusionism *is* functional in a certain mode of play. We call it Participationism. I'd say GDS calls it Dramatism.

In Participationist play the players could be said to be exploring story (as in, how, keeping with literary structures and working so that the transcript of play is something like a published work can we develop the situation). The priority however, is not what would happen from these starting conditons (that might lead to an untimely death)--although as with all CA's, the development of play must seem logical--but as with other actual named agendas the internal processes that the players go through are different and even alien to each other's.

This difference in thought processes is not I think the difference between step-on-up and competition amongst gamist players (a scoping issue of who-do-we-compete-with?). I think it's way more fundamental than that.

I don't think I'm the only one (GDS was largely based on that divide) and the thread discussing the differences was dropped pretty quickly.

-Marco

[Mike Holmes]

But I am 99% certain yours is wrong.  Because alls you've done is shuffled around the labels and not really addressed any of the issues.  Same mistakes different geometric shape.  The Beeg Horseshoe threads were instrumental as a source for my essay, they take a different angle than the original Big Model and so illuminate different stuff, but in the end I find BH incomplete and missing the boat on Simulation.

I'm not surprised by that assessment, because BH was an attempt to do precisely what you are also trying to do (however unsuccessfully). That is, simply make the material easier to understand. I said specifically in that model that it doesn't change anything from the current model. Because I think the current model is correct no matter how hard it is to understand. I was merely trying to give a new perspective on the same things.

I think that any attempt to make simulationism a mode that somehow matches Gamism and Narrativism is doomed to failure. Because Simulationism is fundamentally different than the other two. Those two are about how conflict is addressed, and sim is about how well you hide that fact. Separate, though inter-related concerns.

Mike

[Valamir]

I think that any attempt to make simulationism a mode that somehow matches Gamism and Narrativism is doomed to failure. Because Simulationism is fundamentally different than the other two. Those two are about how conflict is addressed, and sim is about how well you hide that fact. Separate, though inter-related concerns.

Yup that's the key difference.

I completely agree that what-you're-defining-as-simulation is fundamentally different.  I don't agree that what-I'm*-defining-simulation-as is fundamentally different.  I firmly believe that what-I'm-defining-simulation-as is every bit about how conflict is addressed as G or N is.


*noting that "I'm" hardly the first one to conceive of Simulation in these terms.

[ErrathofKosh]

Those two are about how conflict is addressed, and sim is about how well you hide that fact. Separate, though inter-related concerns.

Mike

I'm curious as to what you mean "sim is about how well you hide that fact."  The fact that conflict is addressed in all play? Or is it something I missed?  Please elaborate.

[Caldis]

I think that in sim there is more going on than just trying to answer the "what if" questions.  The fact that one person controls how the simulation runs, and what the conflicts that allow the "what if" questions are, makes the scientific merit of the experiment questionable.  There are plenty of assumptions that come into play with a sim agenda that really muddy the waters.  

The first assumption is that there will be conflict or at least something that gets the players involved in the situation faced.  This is inevitable everyone plays hoping to find something of interest no matter what their creative agenda.  Players arent stupid they will be looking for the interesting things so it wont be hard to justify their characters latching on to whatever signs of conflict the gm sends their way.  On the other side of the coin gm's arent stupid either they tailor the situation towards what the players signal they are interested in.   I dont think it's a far stretch from this to participationism, it's a totally plausible result given the traditional style of play where the gm controls almost everything.

The other assumption that usually takes place is that a totally unfair situation will not come up.  Dragons dont attack without warning in the middle of the night, the village doesnt get surrounded by an army of genocidal warriors.  In situations such as these there are always escape routes for the characters even if realistically there shouldnt be, otherwise they dont come up.  It's just a matter of degree in comparing this to an agreement that characters dont get killed in meaningless moments, whether through dice fudging or allowing fate points or drama points or whatever.

To me this means that sim is about something more than just finding out "what if", it's finding out "what if" with several caveats and addendums to the question.  If people were really interested in answering what if they would remove the human input that muddy's the water.  The game would be randomized entirely so that other factors couldnt spoil the validity of the simulation.  Characters would be randomly generated, with traits and features that would determine their actions in the situations they faced.  Yet games arent like that, over times games have become less and less like that.   By allowing human input into how the simulation plays the question no longer is "what if" it's "what do you think would happen if" and that allows for interesting stories to develop within sim through participationism and even illusionism.

[Valamir]

I think that in sim there is more going on than just trying to answer the "what if" questions.  The fact that one person controls how the simulation runs, and what the conflicts that allow the "what if" questions are, makes the scientific merit of the experiment questionable.

I disagree pretty profoundly with that.  I think it demonstrates the sort of thinking that has been incorrectly attached to Sim over the past couple of years.  In other words, yes you are correct by current-status-quo definition of sim.  No, that's incorrect by my proposed definition of sim.

I tried to stress in my essay, that a sim player is one who looks for opportunities for their character to be a catalyst for conflict.

The GM in a sim game does NOT control what the conflicts are.  That is anathema to a sim...except to the extent that certain conflicts are built into the initial set up of the game (i.e. "This will be a game about Jedi who are being hunted by the Empire pre Rebellion")

Part and parcel of what dedicated sim players had been harping on for some time is that players in a sim game must be free to respond as they wish.  The player in a sim game has the ability to turn situations into conflicts based on what they do.

The other assumption that usually takes place is that a totally unfair situation will not come up.  Dragons dont attack without warning in the middle of the night, the village doesnt get surrounded by an army of genocidal warriors.  In situations such as these there are always escape routes for the characters even if realistically there shouldnt be, otherwise they dont come up.  It's just a matter of degree in comparing this to an agreement that characters dont get killed in meaningless moments, whether through dice fudging or allowing fate points or drama points or whatever.

Again, I don't see this as being true of Sim at all.  Sim requires that the elements of Exploration remain true to their nature.  If it is part of a dragon's nature to attack without warning in the middle of the night, then NOT having that happen will be a breach of Sim expectations.

Deus ex Machina escape routes or character plot immunity are also viewed negatively by sim players.

Part of the sim player's ability to have their character act as a catalyst for conflict in games that typically don't allow overt director stance is Author their character into situations based on their understanding of how things should work.  If the world doesn't work accoring to these expectations (without a good ingame reason why) than dysfunction arises.


This sort of thinking, Caldis, is why various Sim players have been harping for years that the Forge's definition of Sim is broken.  When you can quite naturally throw out a series of things that are "sim" to you...that in reality are diametrically opposed to the very philosophy of sim...then the definition we've grown used to using for Sim is very very broken.

If people were really interested in answering what if they would remove the human input that muddy's the water.  The game would be randomized entirely so that other factors couldnt spoil the validity of the simulation.  Characters would be randomly generated, with traits and features that would determine their actions in the situations they faced.  Yet games arent like that, over times games have become less and less like that.   By allowing human input into how the simulation plays the question no longer is "what if" it's "what do you think would happen if" and that allows for interesting stories to develop within sim through participationism and even illusionism.

Randomization is one approach.  Check out any of a number of early sim heavy game designs that sought to do just that.  Objectivity through random charts was a common theme in alot of games.

However, that's not the only approach.  There is also the objectivity of individual experts willingly cooperating to bring about honest simulation.  Yes, that means you can have a 100% free form game using 100% drama mechanics that is 100% compatable with the Sim CA (as I've defined it).

I've seen wargamers player out an entire Napoleonic battle with thousands of miniatures with no written rules other than a time, distance, and figure scale and a list of what the various items used for terrain represented (depth of water of the creek, height of fence, etc.)  Based solely on their own individual expertise of Napoleonic army capabilities they ordered their units around, fought a battle, adjucated casualties with no dice, no tables, no anything but their own pure negotiated system.

That's an extreme in the other direction, but the point being, that human input is not automatically considered to be too subjective to trust.  In fact, the whole role of Game Master in RPGs stems directly from the role of referee in many minis and board wargames who was expected (like a sports referee) to be as objective as humanly possible.

A big part of the reason why traditional roleplaying has ceded so much authority to the GM and limited player input to actor stance is precisely in order to support the needs of Simulationist gamers.  Since RPGs originated with simulationist wargamers, they carried their assumptions about how to organize an effective simulation with them.  If RPGs had originated with improv actors, I bet today GM-less play would be considered old school traditional and the idea of appointing a single player as GM with near autonomous powers would be fringe radical.

[Caldis]

I tried to stress in my essay, that a sim player is one who looks for opportunities for their character to be a catalyst for conflict.

The GM in a sim game does NOT control what the conflicts are.  That is anathema to a sim...except to the extent that certain conflicts are built into the initial set up of the game (i.e. "This will be a game about Jedi who are being hunted by the Empire pre Rebellion")

But how can the conflicts not be controlled by the GM?  In the example you give the GM decides what Imperial forces are on the planet the players begin, what they are doing, how powerful the force hunting the Jedi is.  He sets the scene. All he can know about what should happen in the setting is that by the time the first movie starts all Jedi should be dead.  Since that is the case the first scene could realistically be the pc's on a small shuttle about to be blasted by a star destroyer.  That would give an answer to the "what if" question but I doubt it would be fulfilling to the players.

Part and parcel of what dedicated sim players had been harping on for some time is that players in a sim game must be free to respond as they wish.  The player in a sim game has the ability to turn situations into conflicts based on what they do.

Then there is something going on besides trying to answer a what if question.  That desire to turn situation into conflict is not answering a what if question it's formulating one, and to me thats a seperate creative agenda from one that is trying to answer the question.  If players are creating conflict based on their desires and not on what should realistically be happening within the situation then it doesnt fit your definition of simulationism.

If they are creating conflict by their action then as long as the GM sees it as feasible they do.  There is nothing inherent in sim that disallows it, instead it allows for both player and gm initiated conflict depending on the social understanding of the group.  

Again, I don't see this as being true of Sim at all.  Sim requires that the elements of Exploration remain true to their nature.  If it is part of a dragon's nature to attack without warning in the middle of the night, then NOT having that happen will be a breach of Sim expectations.

Yet it is always the judgement call of whoever controls the dragon on what it's nature is, or if it has the chance to make the attack, or if it is silent enough to not be noticed.  Either you define everything beforehand and allow dice to determine the likelihood of such actions taking place or you allow someone to decide and then the situation is warped based on their bias.

This sort of thinking, Caldis, is why various Sim players have been harping for years that the Forge's definition of Sim is broken.  When you can quite naturally throw out a series of things that are "sim" to you...that in reality are diametrically opposed to the very philosophy of sim...then the definition we've grown used to using for Sim is very very broken.

I dont see how they are diametrically opposed.  The only difference that I see is that in one form of play the GM's judgement is allowed more free reign than in the other.  If you can accept that the GM will make a realistic call in allowing the player to create conflict why can you not accept that he can make the same call in creating conflict himself?  He still uses the same methods to determine outcome of the conflict, determining what should realistically happen.   I think they are two sides of one coin.

I've seen wargamers player out an entire Napoleonic battle with thousands of miniatures with no written rules other than a time, distance, and figure scale and a list of what the various items used for terrain represented (depth of water of the creek, height of fence, etc.)  Based solely on their own individual expertise of Napoleonic army capabilities they ordered their units around, fought a battle, adjucated casualties with no dice, no tables, no anything but their own pure negotiated system.

That's an entirely different kettle of fish.  They are experts on a predefined well researched subject, roleplaying games are entirely imaginary.  Try having those experts try and decide who would win a fight between King Kong and Godzilla and see if you can get a result that anyone would consider scientifically valid.   Or better yet have one side control Napoleon's army at any of his battles and the other side the imaginary army of Varbang who's makeup and numbers can be entirely decided upon by that side.  Referee's can not be impartial if they are also playing the game.  Whatever the Varbang side chooses is showing their bias, either they want to test a fair fight or a lopsided battle.

[Marco]

I think that in sim there is more going on than just trying to answer the "what if" questions.  The fact that one person controls how the simulation runs, and what the conflicts that allow the "what if" questions are, makes the scientific merit of the experiment questionable. There are plenty of assumptions that come into play with a sim agenda that really muddy the waters.  

I disagree with this. By the same logic I can say that any game that does not involve directoral power in the hands of the players cannot be Narrativist. After all, since one person controls the results of all the actions then it's only the GM that answers the Premise question.

Clearly a GM may assign consequences--even unexpected consequences--without defeating the Narrativist agenda. How is this possible? It's possible because the Narrativist GM makes his decisions based on the player's response to the premise question.

If the Premise is 'Egoism costs me friends' (phrase as a question to suit. This is, I have been told, an Egri example) and the GM willy-nilly has the character's friends all standby him as cardboard cut-outs of buddies even after egrigious displays of egoism on the part of the PC then the GM is defeating the player's agenda. "Doesn't matter what you do," says the GM, "the outcome is up to me--I control those NPC's."

When you apply the same thinking to Sim you get what Caldis describes: someting like GDS Dramatism.

The fact is, in virtuality--"what-if"--style play the GM will be asking him or herself "what would really happen here?"

That's what makes it distinct from other styles.

Want to know how big the Imperial force hunting the Jedi would be? It's true: there may be no real way to know--but if you ask yourself "what do I think it would really be?" you are playing Virtuality.

If you ask yourself "what's fair?" or "what would make the best story?" or "what's the most interesting answer" then you are moving to ... something else. Participationsim? Dramatism? Maybe Gamism?

But there's a serious difference here. Let's look at examples.

The first assumption is that there will be conflict or at least something that gets the players involved in the situation faced.

I think it's a fair assumption that the game will involve the players and some situation. But let's say the players are a paranormal swat-team ... like Hellboy ... and the situation is: they're sent on a mission. Are we reaching here?

Let's say the players all quit the force (unlike Hellboy they're not prisoners)--does the Virtuality GM stop them? No--he or she doesn't--not if it's not what the GM thinks would happen. The situation may be unavoidable: Sauron is invading the whole world. It may be personal. Either way, the players aren't guaranteed to interact under virtuality.

The other assumption that usually takes place is that a totally unfair situation will not come up.  Dragons dont attack without warning in the middle of the night, the village doesnt get surrounded by an army of genocidal warriors.  In situations such as these there are always escape routes for the characters even if realistically there shouldnt be, otherwise they dont come up.

Well, no. Few games may begin with the players in a town surrounded by a genocidal army with no way out--but that doesn't mean it won't happen during the game. The very common case is where the players screw up and the cops get called and surround the building and ... there's no escape hatch.

Why not? Because it's not *realistic* for there to be one--meaing only "the GM doesn't think there'd be one." The GM may greatly *want* there to be one. The GM may consider this un-fun--but they triggered the silent alarm and the GM thinks that "what would really happen" is that the cops show up.

Oh--and the cops are unfair in terms of being a matched fight. I can attest.

All he can know about what should happen in the setting is that by the time the first movie starts all Jedi should be dead. Since that is the case the first scene could realistically be the pc's on a small shuttle about to be blasted by a star destroyer. That would give an answer to the "what if" question but I doubt it would be fulfilling to the players.

If the GM sets the game in a time where the PC's should be dead then the logistics of PC survival should be worked out before the game starts. If I want to play a mideval knight in your modern-day game then I should  presumably spend the session roleplaying in a coffin?

What we're missing here (and the only place I even mildly want to clarify and expound on something Ralph said--this nigh-complete agreement getting spooky) is this:

Ralph:
The GM in a sim game does NOT control what the conflicts are. That is anathema to a sim...except to the extent that certain conflicts are built into the initial set up of the game (i.e. "This will be a game about Jedi who are being hunted by the Empire pre Rebellion")

It is my experience that what-if play can start from a fairly "tight" situation which does seem to impose conflicts on the players. There is a reason I wrote up my most recent game in the Actual Play forum. I believe it relates to these topics.

In this case the conflict, as Ralph astutely notes, is built into the initial set up. If there's no logical reason for the initial set up to follow the players then it has to be discarded. The GM doesn't *control* what the conflicts are in the sense that if Sauron is about to march, the PC's can still decide to run as far from Mordor as possible and decide to live their lives as rug-merchants in some other land--and it'll take a while for Sauron to find them. The GM doesn't force them to destroy the ring.

As Ralph also notes:
This is the same problem that comes up with Sim again and again. The style Caldis is describing (make sure there's an escape hatch, make sure the fights are balanced, etc.) doesn't match up with virtuality as I know it.

-Marco

[Valamir]

But how can the conflicts not be controlled by the GM? In the example you give the GM decides what Imperial forces are on the planet the players begin, what they are doing, how powerful the force hunting the Jedi is. He sets the scene.

But that's not a conflict, that's just a situation.

Its what the players choose to have their characters do that creates the conflict.

Do they say "screw this, the odds are impossible and I never liked this planet much anyway...lets go to Tatooine and gamble on the pod races"?  If so then they've turned their back on this situation and decided not to make a conflict out of it.  Something they must be free to do in a Sim.

Do they say "we're some of the most wanted men in this sector.  Lets turn ourselves in to the authorities in exchange for them leaving the peaceful people of this planet alone."?  If so then they've now begun to frame the parameters for what the conflict will be.

Do they say "we're heading into the hill country where will train some flappy eared Jamaicans in guerrilla warfare tactics and make the Empire bleed until they withdraw off world"?  If so they've come up with a completely different conflict from the same situation.

That's the power a Sim player has to frame their own conflict.  That's what it means to make ones character the catalyst for conflict.  

That desire to turn situation into conflict is not answering a what if question it's formulating one, and to me thats a seperate creative agenda from one that is trying to answer the question.

Nope, its the same one.  They are seperate parts of the same thing.  That's why I described Simulation as an experiment.  Like any experiment first you decide what the experiment is...then you run it.  Like any wargame, first you decide what variant scenario you want to test.  Then you run it.  In an RPG first you decide what Conflict you want to set in motion.  Then you run it.

There is a one sided version where you aren't interested in what conflict to set in motion, you're just moving pieces around to see what happens for no other reason than to enjoy doing it.  Its called exploration.

And that's the crucial difference why I so strongly disagree with Mike that Exploration and Sim are the same thing.

In Exploration you may get the same thrill from answering the "what if" question.  But you have no desire to choose the "what if" that gets asked.  You're perfectly willing to be spoon fed situations to run through because its in the running through them that joy is found.  This is why participationists don't mind Force, and Illusionists don't mind Force as long as they don't have it shoved in their face.

But for a simulationist that first part, the desire to not just see what happens when a situation gets resolved...but to have the power to choose which conflicts to get involved with, is crucial.  Its why Force doesn't work.  Its why they don't play nice together.

And its not just a minor variant.  Its about as fundamentally philosophically different as you can get.  

Its also a very very proactive endeavor.  Just like G and N are.

I