Dramatism and Illusionism

[contracycle]

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.

Indeed.  And if they are free to do so, who is to say they do not exercise that freedom?  And that leads to the prospect that a large part (or all) of sim play chooses not to make conflicts.  Which has more or less already been suggested in the idea that simn is conflict avoidant.  At the very least, if Sim requires the freedom to decline conflict, then its value as a diagnostic feature vanishes.

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.

I find this difficult to conceptualise.  Specifically, I find this experimental behaviour difficult to conceptualise, let alone identify in actual play.  I'd like to ask for examples of how you would see this sort of thing play out.

While I do agree that it is probable that there is a certain similarity between sim and scientific praxis, I'm not sure its safe to assume an identity.  Could I not also claim that the fascination with cause and effect, working parts, and the potential for a reputation as a giant-killer make an attractive case for science as Gamism?

However, I simply have not encountered anything that I can construe as a sim player setting up an experiment.  I've never had a sim player propose that play be directed toward a specific end to achieve a specific, informative, result.  At least, not in a sense any more profound than the players control over their character being used to look over the next hill.

The nearest I can come to sim-as-experiment would be a recent event in which the player I identify most confidently as exhibiting a sim agenda had been reading about Venice and opined that it would be cool to play a character "who came from there".  Thats it.  I can see this as exploration - I can't see it really as an experiment, because it is not meaningfully bounded, or quantified, or measured.  What strikes me most about simmers is there willingness to go wherever I send them, rather than a proactive attempt to formulate a theory and test it out.

Can you describe for us how you expect this proactive sim behaviour to appear in actual play?

[Valamir]

Indeed.  And if they are free to do so, who is to say they do not exercise that freedom?  And that leads to the prospect that a large part (or all) of sim play chooses not to make conflicts.  Which has more or less already been suggested in the idea that simn is conflict avoidant.  At the very least, if Sim requires the freedom to decline conflict, then its value as a diagnostic feature vanishes.

Correct assertion.  Incorrect conclusion.  Of course they are free to decline conflict.  And when they do they are engaging in raw fundamental roleplaying which we call Exploration and which is the foundation for all of the agendas.  I fail to see how that isn't completely obvious at this point.

Now whether you choose to look at a sequence of Exploration, Exploration, Exploration, Sim, Exploration, Sim, Exploration as being Exploration punctuated by simulationist agenda or take the whole process and say that overall the sequence on a whole exhibits simulationist behavior doesn't really matter much.

But what you can't do is pull out an episode of Exploration and say "this is sim".  No, its Exploration.  It could be exploration as part of an overall Sim agenda, or it could be exploration as part of a Gamist or Narrativist agenda.  Its just exploration, and exploration is held in common by all three.  When we enter into a cycle of conflict we will see decisions being made that indicate an underlying agenda at work.  In the absence of such a conflict existing and our ability to observe the player's response to said conflict, alls we have is Exploration.  

I find this difficult to conceptualise.  Specifically, I find this experimental behaviour difficult to conceptualise, let alone identify in actual play.  I'd like to ask for examples of how you would see this sort of thing play out.

I think you're finding difficult only because you're looking for something unusual to jump out at you.  I can't offer that.  Functional Sim play looks quite ordinary.  Just as with any other agenda there is no magic sign that says "hey we're playing sim now'.

I've given several examples already.  But any occassion where the GM is establishing a situation and the players choices as to how to engage that situation is creating a conflict has the potential to be Sim.  The setting up of the experiment can be witnessed in nothing more than the choice of which conflict to engage in.  

When faced with an Imperial Invasion of a planet, do the Jedi's attempt to flee?  If so then the players have set up the experiment "Lets see if we can escape from an entire Imperial army".  Do the Jedi's attempt to launch guerilla raids from the hills?  If so then the players have set up the experiment "Lets see what a group of insurregents backed by a couple of jedi can do to thwart an entire Imperial army".  Do the Jedi's attempt to surrender in exchange for the army leaving the planet?  If so then the players have set up the initial experiment of "Lets see if our negotiations,  jedi powers, and the desire of the commander to win accolades for capturing us will convince him withdraw" followed by the experiment "Lets see if we can escape from Imperial captivity now that we've surrendered".


Each of these decisions by the players is a valid and plausible approach by their character to the situation the GM offered.  But each is a very very different scenario of conflict.  They aren't simply choosing these conflicts from a menu of "choose you own" conflicts offered by the GM in a branching scenario.  The freedom of action required in sim play means the players have completely constructed these conflicts themselves from the raw material of the situation at hand.  Given that they could do anything, their choices are creating the arena of the conflict...they are setting up the experiment.

Gamist, and Narrativist players often make the same kind of choices in determining which arena of conflict to pursue.  That's part and parcel of the first part of my definition of Conflict...there must be a situation and the player must be committed to seeing that situation change.

This decision to engage in a conflict is what moves us away from raw Exploration and towards a Creative Agenda.  The "proactive" part is what distinguishes Sim from Exploration.  Not Sim from the other agendas.  Its then in all of the decisions that are made over the course of that conflict cycle that will determine whether the agenda behind this conflict is a G, N, or S one.

[Marco]

While it's concivable that there might be sessions in which "nothing happens"--perhaps the players just conceptualize the characters sitting home and being bored ... or captured in a prison cell, unable or unmotivated to escape, and the group decides to play out every minute of it for some reason, I think these are extreme edge cases rather than any kind of norm.

And I think that if, truly, nothing is happening (there is no conflict, no adversity, etc.) then they might be said to be agenda-less or dysfunctional.

I think the relevance of the science experiment to the creative agenda may create some confusion (from the phenomena as I see it). For one thing, science is usually dispassionate in theory--but in practice I expect most scientists are emotionally invested in their results ("I just invented anti-gravity!"). I don't think this analogy bends quite the way people are bending it for roleplaying.

I don't see play as a science experiment exactly: for me, the what-if nature of the play is the methodology by which decisions are made--and my primary motivations are in character.

The primary goal of play is still entertainment (i.e. no one will be thrilled if the session is boring or collapses to anti-climax) but that is the risk that's taken because the value of play derrives from a mind-set that allows that to come to pass (as opposed to Participationist play where that is not allowed to come to pass).

What you're suggesting here:

Indeed. And if they are free to do so, who is to say they do not exercise that freedom? And that leads to the prospect that a large part (or all) of sim play chooses not to make conflicts. Which has more or less already been suggested in the idea that simn is conflict avoidant. At the very least, if Sim requires the freedom to decline conflict, then its value as a diagnostic feature vanishes.

Is that the players promptly avoid play of any sort and essentially do just about nothing.

In some cases (Sauron is marching and my character is in denial about taking the ring to Mt. Doom) that will simply heighten the tension--deciding not to decide is still a choice. The problem is still mine and won't go away.

In other circumstances the decision to avoid conflict--if no new conflict is found (a rich character retreats to his mansion and stays in bed all day, refusing contact with friends or family) is going to be something very like zilch-play which, as I said, seems a serious edge-condition.

-Marco

[contracycle]

I think you're finding difficult only because you're looking for something unusual to jump out at you.  I can't offer that.  Functional Sim play looks quite ordinary.  Just as with any other agenda there is no magic sign that says "hey we're playing sim now'.

OK.  But then the problem is that we don't seem to have anything to discuss; we are looking at the same stuff and interpreting it in different lights.  to me, the ordinary sim play you describe has not relationship to conflict and looks not much like experimentation.  So at the moment, all I can say is that I think you are wrong.

When faced with an Imperial Invasion of a planet, do the Jedi's attempt to flee?  If so then the players have set up the experiment "Lets see if we can escape from an entire Imperial army".  Do the Jedi's attempt to launch guerilla raids from the hills?  If so then the players have set up the experiment "Lets see what a group of insurregents backed by a couple of jedi can do to thwart an entire Imperial army".  Do the Jedi's attempt to surrender in exchange for the army leaving the planet?  If so then the players have set up the initial experiment of "Lets see if our negotiations,  jedi powers, and the desire of the commander to win accolades for capturing us will convince him withdraw" followed by the experiment "Lets see if we can escape from Imperial captivity now that we've surrendered".

I concede that all those sentences parse correctly, but I do not agree that they are meaningfull.  The bulk look primarily like gamist challenge to me - an "experiment" about some insurgents backed by rebel jedi looks a helluva lot like strategy and guts to me - so much so that it already appears to have exited Exploration into one of the prongs of the horseshoe.  As such, it is by no means a convincing example of experimental sim play, in my eyes.  that is why I really want specifics; I don't think its adequate to rephrase challenge as experiment, because a challenge is necessarily in some doubt like an experiment.  I agree it can be done, but it is not meaningfull or helpful.

Each of these decisions by the players is a valid and plausible approach by their character to the situation the GM offered.  But each is a very very different scenario of conflict.  ....  Given that they could do anything, their choices are creating the arena of the conflict...they are setting up the experiment.

The fact that character actions contribute to the content of the SIS does not, it seems to me, justify describing them as experimental, nor as indication that challenge is significant.  I might choose between crossing the road over here, or crossing it over there, but this choice does not seem to me to indicate that I have nows formulated an experiment.

I guess a big part of why I object to the experimental phrasing is that an experiment to me is purposeful activity.  I think you need to have some idea of what the outcome would or should be.  Going down to the woods to see whats there is not an experiment, its exploration.  Testing the lethality of falling off cliffs is an experiment within Ex-Sys, I think, because there is a pre-existing expectation which the experiment will confirm or deny.

I don't see exploration as experiment, and I dont see meaningfull experimentation with any frequency in play, as far as I am aware.  When I do see it, I suspect its often gamists trying to turn a gamble into a crunch.

This decision to engage in a conflict is what moves us away from raw Exploration and towards a Creative Agenda.  The "proactive" part is what distinguishes Sim from Exploration.  Not Sim from the other agendas.  Its then in all of the decisions that are made over the course of that conflict cycle that will determine whether the agenda behind this conflict is a G, N, or S one.

From where I sit, this proactive part has yet to be shown or identified or even properly described.  Seeing as I do not recognise the phenomenon that is alleged to arise when sim, motivated by conflict, goes proactive, I also do not see the necessary role of conflict.

[Valamir]

Hey Gareth, I'm not gonna go around and around with you on this.  Its a freakin' analogy.  Its one that resonates with me.  If it doesn't with you because you have a different perception of what an experiment is...fine.  Frankly nothing in your last post seems any more compelling to me than mine did to you.

It isn't all that important to the point of my essay.

But I will point out that your willingness to ascribe gamist motives to a single sentence of conflict set up...is horrendously misguided.  Leaping to snap Agenda conclusions invariably causes more grief and confusion than anything.

[Mike Holmes]

The question I have, Ralph, is whether or not this mode of play as described can be shown to exist. I see sim as something that I do, and have no problem with the definition for as is. MJ seems to be the only real advocate for sim as something else who has examples of play that back this. That is, he's the "vocal" person rejecting the definition. Possibly Marco as well, but he's got a much more central position, I think.

The problem with MJ's points is that I think he's defining a phenomenon, but that it's not a mode because it doesn't represent a type of play that conflicts with the other two on the level that modes do. If at all. That is, "what if," discovery, these are not "the dream" to use Ron's term. These are additional to the dream. Now, you're calling these additions a mode (implying that the basic exploration is not one). The point is that the friction between the modes of gamism and narrativism both with simulationism is in terms of players not being willing to, in certain circumstances, go "beyond" exploration to do the things in question. That is, the priority is not to damage exploration by doing these other things.

Where's the mutual exclusivity of "What if" and N or G? Without talking about dysfunctional My Guy play, where is the asking of this question that bothers the G and N players? This is not a phenomenon that I'm aware of. Yes, it's a phenomenon that some players want this - it's just not a mode in GNS terms.

Mike

[Marco]

Where's the mutual exclusivity of "What if" and N or G? Without talking about dysfunctional My Guy play, where is the asking of this question that bothers the G and N players? This is not a phenomenon that I'm aware of. Yes, it's a phenomenon that some players want this - it's just not a mode in GNS terms.

Mike

What-if (Virtuality) won't (intentionally) produce story and can't (IMO) be said to be "story now." That conflicts with N.

What-if won't guide you (consistently) to interesting challenges for the group. There can be anti-climax, avoidance, etc. That conflicts with G.

What-if won't (necessiarily) get you a good story in the transcript of play (a proposed value of participationism).

-Marco

[contracycle]

Valamir,

But I will point out that your willingness to ascribe gamist motives to a single sentence of conflict set up...is horrendously misguided. Leaping to snap Agenda conclusions invariably causes more grief and confusion than anything.

I said it LOOKED LIKE IT to me, I didn't say I was ready to sacrifice my children on an altar to demonstrate my faith that it was.  If you can show in more detail why its is not strategy andf guts, I am more than willing to engage in that description.

Marco:

What-if (Virtuality) won't (intentionally) produce story and can't (IMO) be said to be "story now." That conflicts with N.
What-if won't guide you (consistently) to interesting challenges for the group. There can be anti-climax, avoidance, etc. That conflicts with G.
What-if won't (necessiarily) get you a good story in the transcript of play (a proposed value of participationism).

All of those seem a like like default sim to me, which will also not purposefully produce story and may discount challenge.  So the term virtuality here, as characteristic of "what if", seems itself indistingishable from bog standard sim.

And it is unremarkable that sim doesn't server other agendas; so in this regard, the alleged exlcusivity of What If with N and G is only because... its sim by another name.

There is nothing inherent to the asking of what if questions that cannot appear in G and N (and I think it must appear in G); questionining, explorative behaviour is common in all modes.

[Marco]

Marco:

What-if (Virtuality) won't (intentionally) produce story and can't (IMO) be said to be "story now." That conflicts with N.
What-if won't guide you (consistently) to interesting challenges for the group. There can be anti-climax, avoidance, etc. That conflicts with G.
What-if won't (necessiarily) get you a good story in the transcript of play (a proposed value of participationism).

All of those seem a like like default sim to me, which will also not purposefully produce story and may discount challenge.  So the term virtuality here, as characteristic of "what if", seems itself indistingishable from bog standard sim.

And it is unremarkable that sim doesn't server other agendas; so in this regard, the alleged exlcusivity of What If with N and G is only because... its sim by another name.

There is nothing inherent to the asking of what if questions that cannot appear in G and N (and I think it must appear in G); questionining, explorative behaviour is common in all modes.

[/quote]

Well, yes, they do look like Sim--but What-if is, IME, contradictory to either using illusionist techniques or playing in a game where illusionist techniques are acceptable. That was what started this thread.

And there *is* clearly a mode where using/playing-with those techniques are acceptable.

I think your last paragraph proves that no mode need be absolute (certainly what-if type thinking will appear in all modes)--but if it's a predominat tool for the GM and/or a predominant expectation of the players then you get "Virtuality."

If you expect the GM to keep things moving, keep things interesting, and/or tend a story as a predominant agenda then you get Participationism.

If you lump them both together you get a plethora of "What is Sim?" threads.

-Marco

[Mike Holmes]

What-if (Virtuality) won't (intentionally) produce story and can't (IMO) be said to be "story now." That conflicts with N.

What-if won't guide you (consistently) to interesting challenges for the group. There can be anti-climax, avoidance, etc. That conflicts with G.

What-if won't (necessiarily) get you a good story in the transcript of play (a proposed value of participationism).

That's the same sort of tautological argument that Ralph is railing against. "What if" doesn't allow story now, so it's another mode. Why? Why doesn't "what if" allow story now? I propose that any "experiment" to have an "impact" on the player, falls under the sort of decision that Ron describes all the time as narrativism. See the section of the essay labeled something like, "What, I'm playing Narrativism?" Ron makes the description so wide that I really can't see any decision not falling under either that, or gamism.

And I really think this is what's going on. There are two goals with conflict - either you want to "win" (address player challenge) or you want to create theme in Ron's broadest sense. "Simulationism" relates to how willing you are, when the chips are down, to break a certain level of suspension of disbelief creating technique in order to get to this point.

People keep thinking that when I say this that I'm saying that G and N don't have plausibility or aren't based on exploration. Which I say is wrong. Because in most cases, you have conguence. The only time you can "tell" which mode is being employed, is when the gamism motive "shows" or the narrativism does, or there is a conspicuous absence of these (which, again, is likely to come about during actual conflcits but I posit can occur during any part of play - "about conflict" does not mean "only discernable with conflict").

Further, it's precisely my supposition that all games have some level of Simulationism, if you see it as support for exploration. That is, the only "conflict" between these things are when push comes to shove, and you go from a high level of plausibility (in terms of visibility of player intent) to a slightly lower one, not to a lack of plausibility. There is a certain level of plausibility that all groups have as a threshold which they will not dip below. The rule with an agenda is not that you shouldn't remain as plausible as possible all the time (in fact, most decisions are this plausible, and congruent), but that when you need to you can go as low on the plausibility scale as the threshold will allow. Beyond that, players get crinkled noses and dissaproving looks.

Simulationism, then is just having a very high threshold. Such that you can't see the Gamism or narrativism often if at all. Not that the motives aren't there. Just that you aren't allowed to go below that threshold that makes them invisible. Which is, yes, visible itself, and for a player in another mode is problematic.  

These are the places where the GNS conflicts occur. Any model that doesn't consider where the conflicts actually exist, what makes the modes problematic with each other, or at least substantively different, is another sort of model entirely, and has all the ancient problems that the lack of mutual exclusivity (or, more precisely, the eventual need to be decided during an "instance" of play) bring about. Namely that everything becomes analyzable as an equal hybrid, and then you have the idea that you can create a game without conflicting modes of play, yadda, yadda.

Mike

[Marco]

What-if won't (necessiarily) get you a good story in the transcript of play (a proposed value of participationism).

That's the same sort of tautological argument that Ralph is railing against. "What if" doesn't allow story now, so it's another mode. Why? Why doesn't "what if" allow story now? I propose that any "experiment" to have an "impact" on the player, falls under the sort of decision that Ron describes all the time as narrativism. See the section of the essay labeled something like, "What, I'm playing Narrativism?" Ron makes the description so wide that I really can't see any decision not falling under either that, or gamism.

Emphasis added.

If Story-Now means "player is emotionally involved with an experiment" then it's even more miss-named then I'd thought. I admit, I don't really know what Story Now means, if not Author Stance ("story on purpose") or something to do with player meta-game support concerning the creation of premise--but if what-if thinking on the GM and player's part leads to Story Now then I believe that, along with your proposition, the definition of Narrativism could be greatly simplified.

And I really think this is what's going on. There are two goals with conflict - either you want to "win" (address player challenge) or you want to create theme in Ron's broadest sense. "Simulationism" relates to how willing you are, when the chips are down, to break a certain level of suspension of disbelief creating technique in order to get to this point.

This is sort of the Beeg Horshoe with Simulationism as your HL index in CTI? Maybe something like that? I have some sympathy for that idea, really.

But I think the models are mixing in several things:

1. Where the value of play to the participant comes from.
2. Methods/priorities of decision making of the participants (perhaps most importantly the GM).
3. Stances the player wants to use.

What a person values from play and how they go about getting there can be two very different things. I value something I would identify as story (meaning a certain complexity of plot and a general rise of action to climax in a way that allows for character development or at least emotional resonance)--but I don't want to go about it through Participationist-style thinking (which would guarantee that I get that)--so I'm willing to take the risk that it doesn't happen "perfectly" ... or even ... at all.

To describe how this works from an "agenda" standpoint will need something like your two-axis system or it'll get pushed down under a given style (Sim?) where there are massive discrepancies with other stuff in the same style and the similarities are, IMO, trivial compared to the differences between them.

People keep thinking that when I say this that I'm saying that G and N don't have plausibility or aren't based on exploration. Which I say is wrong. Because in most cases, you have conguence. The only time you can "tell" which mode is being employed, is when the gamism motive "shows" or the narrativism does, or there is a conspicuous absence of these (which, again, is likely to come about during actual conflcits but I posit can occur during any part of play - "about conflict" does not mean "only discernable with conflict").

Some big proponents of Nar play have said effectively that plausibility (or something approaching that ... attention to the way a given phenomena really works?) will be sacrificed for better story. I don't believe this is or should be a defining feature of anything (neither good writing nor of good RPG sessions) -- but as far as that statement goes, I would say it's out there in the discussion (although I wouldn't attribute it to you).

Further, it's precisely my supposition that all games have some level of Simulationism, if you see it as support for exploration. That is, the only "conflict" between these things are when push comes to shove, and you go from a high level of plausibility (in terms of visibility of player intent) to a slightly lower one, not to a lack of plausibility. There is a certain level of plausibility that all groups have as a threshold which they will not dip below. The rule with an agenda is not that you shouldn't remain as plausible as possible all the time (in fact, most decisions are this plausible, and congruent), but that when you need to you can go as low on the plausibility scale as the threshold will allow. Beyond that, players get crinkled noses and dissaproving looks.

Simulationism, then is just having a very high threshold. Such that you can't see the Gamism or narrativism often if at all. Not that the motives aren't there. Just that you aren't allowed to go below that threshold that makes them invisible. Which is, yes, visible itself, and for a player in another mode is problematic.  

These are the places where the GNS conflicts occur. Any model that doesn't consider where the conflicts actually exist, what makes the modes problematic with each other, or at least substantively different, is another sort of model entirely, and has all the ancient problems that the lack of mutual exclusivity (or, more precisely, the eventual need to be decided during an "instance" of play) bring about. Namely that everything becomes analyzable as an equal hybrid, and then you have the idea that you can create a game without conflicting modes of play, yadda, yadda.

Mike

This describes where certain GNS conflicts occur-but I don't think it describes where modes of decision making occur and, as I said, I think these are as severe and consequential (if not moreso) than the differences between the three described agendas.

So while I think some bases get covered with three GNS bins, some don't--and while people can say "that's accounted for because of intra-style differences" I don't know that that's marginalizing the Virtuality/Participationism difference which is as predominant, IME, as any people-game-for-different-reasons schism going: in other words, to not include it as a top-level issue is, model-wise, incorrect (IMO).

A model that doesn't identify that issue as a major one is, essentially, a blurry lens when it comes to clarifying certain problems.

-Marco

[Lee Short]

The question I have, Ralph, is whether or not this mode of play as described can be shown to exist. I see sim as something that I do, and have no problem with the definition for as is. MJ seems to be the only real advocate for sim as something else who has examples of play that back this. That is, he's the "vocal" person rejecting the definition.  

There's a reason for this.  The view of simulationism which Ralph objects to (properly, IMO) is pervasive here at The Forge.  I would suggest that any actual GDS simulationist who shows up here very quickly comes to the conclusion that his play style is clearly not understood and that he faces an overwhelming amount of work to make it understood.  Unless he's a glutton for punishment, he will either quickly leave the Forge or at least keep out of the GNS discussions.  That was my experience here, and from email discussions I know that I am not alone.

[Caldis]

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.

This is where GNS differs from GDS (at least the GDS I'm acquainted with from rgfa), it's not about what the people are thinking or how they are making decisions it's about the observable behavior that develops.  What's observable is not a search for what would really happen but a committment to the SiS that requires a level of plausibility of the events.  Not a search for the most realistic result but one that doesnt cause disbelief in the imagined reality.  

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.

Let's look at your example then.  The Hellboy swat team have quit the force, the gm decides the most realistic outcome is the government will have them black balled and they are unable to find any free lance work or any situations of conflict.  The players decide that it's most realistic that their characters will not turn to crime so they either have the choice of returning to the Hellboy team or moving to mundane occupations like bartenders, labourers or accountants.  

The what if question is answered but I dont think the play is fulfilling to anyone.  There is an inherent feature of the social contract that we are coming together to play out an interesting situation, to accomodate that either the players will have to participate with the gm's plot or the gm will bend his view of what's realistic and participate in the players choices and allow for new conflicts to develop even if they shouldnt.

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?

I dont think this willingness to allow the unrealistic pertains only to before play.  I think it's allowed during play as long as what is brought up has a plausible reason, not the most realistic but plausible.  I read your latest example of play in the Actual play forum and I think it's an example of this.  When your players asked the native tribe to help even though they had tried to end the world it doesnt seem like the most realistic result, a plausible one but not the most realistic.  

Now it may seem like I'm defending the status quo and to an extent I am.  I believe the definition of sim is a valid one and it describes an accurate break in creative agendas, ones that can cause arguments.  I do however think that there are other lines that can cause just as much conflict between players.  Virtuality vs. Participationism is one such break, for gamists the player who is competing against his fellow players in a group that is playing as a team against the gm is another such break.

Mike's new 3d model may be a better representation but I'm not entirely sure yet, still mulling it over.

[Marco]

This is where GNS differs from GDS (at least the GDS I'm acquainted with from rgfa), it's not about what the people are thinking or how they are making decisions it's about the observable behavior that develops.  What's observable is not a search for what would really happen but a committment to the SiS that requires a level of plausibility of the events.  Not a search for the most realistic result but one that doesnt cause disbelief in the imagined reality.  

GNS and GDS are about a lot of things in this arena. Ultimately if I can use GNS terms to express a goal or preference (which, clearly, I can) and I can use GDS terms to do the same (which, clearly, I can) then the distinction you are drawing isn't especially important.

If I tell you I want Narrativist play from the group--or GDS Simulationist play from the group, you can parse what I mean either way and whether you measure a response to that request as observed-behavior, intent, or mode of thought, the information content communicated is of the same type.

Let's look at your example then.  The Hellboy swat team have quit the force, the gm decides the most realistic outcome is the government will have them black balled and they are unable to find any free lance work or any situations of conflict.  The players decide that it's most realistic that their characters will not turn to crime so they either have the choice of returning to the Hellboy team or moving to mundane occupations like bartenders, labourers or accountants.  

The what if question is answered but I dont think the play is fulfilling to anyone.  There is an inherent feature of the social contract that we are coming together to play out an interesting situation, to accomodate that either the players will have to participate with the gm's plot or the gm will bend his view of what's realistic and participate in the players choices and allow for new conflicts to develop even if they shouldnt.

Well, Caldis, you can assert that a virtualist GM would do something to intervine or would break the commitment to Virtuality but I could as easily argue that a Narrativist GM will eventually rope a character back "into line" for the "sake of the Narrative." If a player decides to have his character jump off a cliff the consequences will also "break the social commitment to situation being interesting" but no GM will save him.

If you don't see these as the same thing, consider this: for the same reasons you don't quit your job in real life, the virtuality character might not quit their job with the government: because doing so would, likely, suck.

If the GM steps in to make sure it doesn't suck then the players say "well, I can do whatever I want and it doesn't matter because there's no downside ... unless we stump the GM ... but that's okay. If he's stumped then he'll just prevent us from doing something that stumps him."

And that kind of social contract (Participationism) gets lumped with Virtuality and it's a major blind spot.

Consider this: GDS essentially lumped something like Participationism with Narrativisim. If I told you that the two forms of play were baiscally identical but for, oh, some minor style variations would you agree? I doubt it.

I dont think this willingness to allow the unrealistic pertains only to before play.  I think it's allowed during play as long as what is brought up has a plausible reason, not the most realistic but plausible.  I read your latest example of play in the Actual play forum and I think it's an example of this.  When your players asked the native tribe to help even though they had tried to end the world it doesnt seem like the most realistic result, a plausible one but not the most realistic.  

I agree that, ultimately, no one will ever really know what "really would've happened." All decisions will fall somewhere on a spectrum of plausibility and two hard-core virtualists could decide to spend their days arguing over which Kaiju would really beat which.

But that's missing the point: the mode of play is about commitment to "what I think is plausible" vs. "what I think would be a good story" (in the rawest of GDS terms).

In your case of the Jedi, you state that he should be dead so the player will get two seconds of in-game play before he's vaporized. If the GM is damn sure that's what would happen then the character's a no-go. If the GM thinks the character is plausible (maybe under "some condtions" then it's a go).

But if you factor out the gray areas and the congruence and get to a point where the GM has to decide between story and 'reality' then there's as big a difference as a player who decides between 'reality' and 'Premise.'

Now it may seem like I'm defending the status quo and to an extent I am.  I believe the definition of sim is a valid one and it describes an accurate break in creative agendas, ones that can cause arguments.  I do however think that there are other lines that can cause just as much conflict between players.  Virtuality vs. Participationism is one such break, for gamists the player who is competing against his fellow players in a group that is playing as a team against the gm is another such break.

Mike's new 3d model may be a better representation but I'm not entirely sure yet, still mulling it over.

My problem with saying that V-vs.-P isn't the N-vs-G is, to date, other than asserting it's true, I don't see any argument for it.

I see some trivial similarities in modes of GNS Sim (and, honestly, I see more similarities between Nar and Participationism than I see with Virtuality and Participationism) but I see far more dramatic differences.

-Marco

[contracycle]

Well, Caldis, you can assert that a virtualist GM would do something to intervine or would break the commitment to Virtuality but I could as easily argue that a Narrativist GM will eventually rope a character back "into line" for the "sake of the Narrative." If a player decides to have his character jump off a cliff the consequences will also "break the social commitment to situation being interesting" but no GM will save him.

Marco, I think you have grossly misunderstood Caldis argument.  The point was that strict adherence to alleged "virtuality" (if such a thing exists), or more accurately IMO, the simulation, it can still lead to play that is Not Fun.  And what we see in practice - certainly in my experience anyway - is that when even committed Sim players face the choice between a simulation of something boring, and a quick metagame negotiation to do something more interesting, they adopt the latter.  Otherwise, we should be seeing games like Watching: The Paint Dry and Watching: The Grass Grow.


That is not at all you interpretation, which assumes a large degree of intent: you claim that it is the GM forcing them back into line.  Where does this emerge from Caldis description?

And that kind of social contract (Participationism) gets lumped with Virtuality and it's a major blind spot.

Why?  I mean, is virtuality an actually accepted, observable phenomenon yet?  Not to me - I can't distinguish it from bog standard sim, on the characteristics given.  OTOH, I do think that participationism falls under sim, and I agree with Mike that the participationist mode of engaging with the Sim CA is contradictory to Gamism, and I would expect to see a classic GNs conflict under those conditions.

Quite a big chunk of the rest of your argument makes no sens eto me at all I'm afraid, swerving as it does from sim to gam to narr and alleged virtuality and referencing GDS...  I do not follow, and it seems awfully as if you are arguing your conclusion.