Some Myths About Virtualism

[Lee Short]

There are a number of confusions circulating about Virtualism.  In this post, I will try to expose some of them.  These confusions are a consequence of the following belief:  

In a Virtualist game, internal cause must rule absolutely every decision related to the game.

This is not true.  It cannot be true.  To use a definition of Virtualism that allows it, is to simply define Virtualism out of existence -- because it is impossible to make all game decisions based on internal cause.  

Some Decisions Are Inherently Metagame

Every game has a certain number of decisions that must be made on a metagame basis.  What Setting to use is a metagame decision; it cannot possibly be informed by in-game-world criteria (there is, after all, no game world just yet).  Yet you can hardly begin the game without choosing a Setting.  Choosing a Setting is an example of a decision that is inherently metagame.  The same is true about choice of Character.  There is no possible in-game-world causation for choosing one character over another.  In fact, you do not have sufficient context to create in-game-world causation until you have chosen Setting, Character, Situation (and possibly System and Color).  

Inherently metagame decisions are not limited to startup time.  Spotlight time -- the issue of what in-game events to play out, and in how much detail -- is one that the GM must address on a metagame basis, and he must address it during every second of play.  In-game rationale provides the GM with no guidance at all on the question 'should I roleplay through Torak's negotiation with the town armorer, or not?'  No matter how the GM answers this question, he cannot break in-game causation by doing so -- the act of playing out this encounter is not an in-game-world event.  The act of playing out the encounter creates in-game-world events, but is not itself one.  The crucial point is: in-game causation only applies to in-game events.  At most, the (expected) in-game events can help the GM answer the question 'will my players find this interesting?'  It is this question which bears on spotlight time, and it is an inherently metagame question.  

These are a sample of gaming choices which are inherently metagame.  There are others.  Most (all?) of these are about the game rather than within the game.  

Virtualism and Inherently Metagame Decisions

The simple fact of the matter is that internal cause cannot apply to inherently meta-game decisions.  It's impossible, and the Virtualist gamer recognizes this.  He does not attempt to use internal causation where it cannot possibly apply.  Yet he must make these decisions.  On what basis?   A Virtualist's criterion for making those decisions is this:  which of these alternatives will lead to an interesting game, if we allow internal cause to have its way.  What constitutes 'an interesting game' is subjective, and will certainly be different from Virtualist to Virtualist.  Note that inherently metagame decisions like the choice of Setting/Character/Situation are metagame for the other CAs, too.  The Gamist GM & players choose their S/C/S based on what they think will allow them interesting opportunities to Step On Up -- but there is not likely to be any Stepping On Up in the choice itself.  

Selecting S/C/S can be very important for a Virtualist.  His ideal goal is to have a game that consists of "winding the characters up and letting them go."  But at the same time, he rarely wants to play Paint Drying: The Watching.  So he must be careful how he chooses his S/C/S.  He has several metagame goals to meet in making this choice.  He must choose well to make sure that the game is interesting to himself and his players.  If it is important to his playing group that the party remain together, then the characters must be carefully chosen so that they are likely to remain together in the face of the potential adversity.  If his playing group is interested in a combat-light game, he must choose the S/C/S so that combat is not likely to be a regular part of the characters' lives.  This is a careful balancing act for a GM with a heavy commitment to Virtuality.  

Despite careful planning -- or because of its lack -- things may go wrong.  The game may evolve into Paint Drying: The Watching.  If this happens the GM has a number of options that are consonant with Virtualism.  The GM also has the option of abandoning his commitment to Virtualism and "getting the game back on track" with a metagame interference in the game world.  But this is not his only option.  He may revisit his choices on any inherently metagame decision, without sacrificing his commitment to Virtuality.  This gives him a many options, including:

 1.  He may cancel the game completely.  He may then opt to start a new game, or not.  
 2.  One or more of the players may retire their characters and create new ones.  
 3.  The game may be "fast forwarded" to a point where the Situation has changed into something interesting.  

Summing Up

Now that we've examined Virtualism in a bit more detail, we can see that the appropriate statement would be:  

In a Virtualist game, internal cause must rule every decision where it can be applied.  

If this is kept in mind, much of the confusion about Virtualism will be cleared up.

-----------
I've presented the two "quotes" above using

for formatting reasons only.  I don't mean to imply that I'm quoting them from somewhere.

[John Kim]

A background note on this.  

"Virtuality" as a term was coined by Ben Lehman in "http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=11317">Subtyping Sim".  I used it afterwards in http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=11662">Virtuality and Ouija Boards.  As I have been using it, it is an exact synonym for rgfa Threefold Simulationism.  Thus, you can read more about it in my http://www.darkshire.net/~jhkim/rpg/theory/threefold/faq_v1.html">Threefold Model FAQ and my essay http://www.darkshire.net/~jhkim/rpg/theory/threefold/simulationism.html"> Simulationism Explained.  

I don't have comments on Lee's point yet.

[John Kim]

I completely agree with Lee on the first post, by the way.  I also see other misconceptions from other threads.  The following was a comment in http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?p=132301#132301">post to the "New 3D Model" thread:

A big part of my recent essay was trying to rip the Dramatism back out of Sim, but its become such an ingrained assumption here that high GM control of plot and theme = Sim (which is ridiculous) that I haven't met with complete success in that endeavor.

But high GM control of plot can be valid in Sim.  The GM has control of the whole world so he can bring about any situation he wishes by twisting the dials, making forces beyond the pc's direct the plot for a bit.  Yet play itself can continue trying to answer the 'what if' of the current situation.

If the GM is twisting the dials to get the situation he wishes, then he is not pursuing 'what if'.  i.e. It isn't Sim in the rgfa Threefold or Ralph's model.  If the players are pursuing 'what if', then this is at best incoherence.

[Marco]

This is a very well written post. I agree with it strongly. It may even help clear things up.

There have been several recent posts here that assert things like the idea that Vrtuality play, without intentional thematic guidance from the GM, will become Paint Drying: The Watching.

Objections (usually from the same posters) that present-form GNS Sim simply "includes Virtuality as an encompassed stylistic mode" are natural outgrowths of the orignal misconception.

If Virtuality was well understood and usefully defined under present-form GNS we wouldn't see the Paint-Drying misconception in the first place and the discussions wouldn't lead to the "it's-included-already" objection in the second.

-Marco

[Caldis]

If the GM is twisting the dials to get the situation he wishes, then he is not pursuing 'what if'.  i.e. It isn't Sim in the rgfa Threefold or Ralph's model.  If the players are pursuing 'what if', then this is at best incoherence.

I'm not trying to describe Sim as per rgfa threefold or under Ralph's model, I'm trying to show how they differ from sim under GNS.  

'What if' is not the heart of simulationism under GNS, it's an important component but not the sole motivating factor.  Sim under GNS is any game that puts the experience of the game (of being present in an imaginary world) ahead of premise and challenge.

I think Jay (Silmenume) is on to something when he speaks of meaning structures.  Though I find his use of language hard to follow, his posts have been full of interesting concepts that seem accurate to me.

The question then becomes, what concepts are created in the Sim CA? While in Gamism one addresses many Challenges and their effectiveness is measured in terms of Victory, and while in Narrativism one addresses a couple or one premise and their effectiveness in commenting on the human social condition is put to the test, in Simulationism one address conflict not for any specific goal, but to create more concepts which define, expand and support the Dream which is itself a meaning structure. .... As more structures are created via the address of conflict, the more of The Dream that is manufactured during play. Thus Sim is the creation of more Dream (meaning structures/concepts), not the understanding of its constituent components. The Dream and fictional meaning structures are identical. The Dream is not just something it is a different point of view – it a different way of looking at reality.

This text reminds me of something you wrote once John, and I'm afraid I couldnt find the quote, that you dont play to try and create story but to see what the shared imaginings of the players come up with.  Can you see how this differs from just trying to see 'what if'?   It's not trying to find out what exactly would happen, what is the most realistic result but rather what the players at the table think would be an interesting and plausible result.

From your Threefold simulationism explained essay

On rgfa, most simulationist posters were opposed to coercive personality mechanics...  In discussion, the primary argument was accuracy. Adding in such rules was not felt to make character behavior more real. For a skilled roleplayer it would interfere with attempts, and for a poor roleplayer it would simply add uncorrelated random reactions to the poor roleplaying -- and real people do not behave randomly. I feel this argument is strong, but there is a further reason. The emotional power of Simulationism usually stems from the consequences of player choice. For similar reasons, Simulationists tended to favor point-based character creation rather than random-roll.

To try and get back to Lee's topic I have one comment to make.  I understand Virtualism and have no problem with it, however it is looking at something different than GNS precisely because of it's exclusion of the metagame.  GNS believes the metagame decisions can be as important in determining creative agenda as the in game decisions.  

As an example consider a game based on gladiatorial combat.  The metagame decision is made that all players will be gladiators and that they either dont want to or cant escape.  Play will focus on combat sessions in the arena where due to a ranking system gladiators will usually fight against someone of the same skill level.  Players are free to do what they chose but just as with the decision not to play out Torak's negotiations with the armorer most situations that develop outside the arena floor will not be played out.  Once play starts internal cause is king and whatever happens happens.  Meets the standards of virtuality as presented here but the game is going to provide the 'step on up' that a gamist is looking for and not the 'right to dream' of GNS simulationism.

I think what i've written in the past hasnt been clear enough, my apologies for that. To try and be clear I do not think that under virtualism play will warp to whatever the gm finds interesting and that he will move the bars to create an interesting story.  My contention is that the meta game decisions that he makes before play can warp the outcome and make it more or less appealling to narrativists, simulationists, or gamists.
I also contend that simulationism under GNS goes beyond virtualism in scope.

[Marco]

To try and get back to Lee's topic I have one comment to make.  I understand Virtualism and have no problem with it, however it is looking at something different than GNS precisely because of it's exclusion of the metagame.  GNS believes the metagame decisions can be as important in determining creative agenda as the in game decisions.  

(Emphasis added)

I think there's no question on anyone's mind that GNS-Sim is a different animal from Virtuality (GDS-Sim).

The reason these threads exist is that GNS seems to hold that Virtuality is simply a "stylistic method of playing a GNS-Sim game." In other words, that Virtuality is cleanly and benefically encompassed by being included in the GNS Sim bucket.

From the section you quoted I can derrive one of two meanings:

1. That GNS doesn't really address Virtuality-games because it is, as you say, focused on the meta-game and that, therefore, for Virtuality players either another terminology or an extension of the theory would be required. I say this because of the use of the term "[Virtuality] is looking at something different than GNS" (italics added).

2. It is believed that Virtuality exists on a lower-level of the big-model (as a technique?) and therefore isn't specifically addressed as one of the three main lobes--but is correctly and benefically encompassed in the Sim bucket.

If we're going to say that Virtualists need a theory that extends or modifies GNS, then, based solely on observations of these forums I have to agree. It clearly, historically, doesn't serve them well.

If we're going to describe Virtuality as a sub-mode then I have to ask what the value is of putting it in the Sim bucket: as we can see that it doesn't exactly aid communication or discussion (it requires a new term that will, I think, need an essay on par with the one for Narrativism or Gamism--to look at John's essay).

I also wanted to touch on this:

The metagame decision is made that all players will be gladiators and that they either dont want to or cant escape. Play will focus on combat sessions in the arena where due to a ranking system gladiators will usually fight against someone of the same skill level. Players are free to do what they chose but just as with the decision not to play out Torak's negotiations with the armorer most situations that develop outside the arena floor will not be played out. Once play starts internal cause is king and whatever happens happens. Meets the standards of virtuality as presented here but the game is going to provide the 'step on up' that a gamist is looking for and not the 'right to dream' of GNS simulationism.

My only issue is with the "can't escape"--in terms that absolutes are very problematic for Virtuality. If a character wants to escape and something happens that allows it, you have an escaped gladiator.

I think it's perfectly valid to say "make characters who are down with the program"--this, as a starting-condition constraint, is part of the S/C/S that Lee talks about--and getting it right is important. So I've no problem with that.

But ... if during play events transpire that lead a PC to want to escape, will the player reign in his emotions? No. The starting constraint does not carry over into play (in the sense of being some sort of meta-game restriction on what a player or character may feel or do).

A game based in an arena is an example of what I would call a very "tight" situation--the PC's have few good options (they can, for example, refuse to fight--but the consequences would be clear and grim). I do, indeed, find this a valid form of Virtuality (if one precieves that the players are disempowred by gaming with "tight situations", I believe that is a misconception).

But the distinguishing factor between Virtuality and, say, functional Illusionism is still deeply distinct even under those circumstances.

-Marco

[Lee Short]

As an example consider a game based on gladiatorial combat.  The metagame decision is made that all players will be gladiators and that they either dont want to or cant escape.  Play will focus on combat sessions in the arena where due to a ranking system gladiators will usually fight against someone of the same skill level.  Players are free to do what they chose but just as with the decision not to play out Torak's negotiations with the armorer most situations that develop outside the arena floor will not be played out.  Once play starts internal cause is king and whatever happens happens.  Meets the standards of virtuality as presented here but the game is going to provide the 'step on up' that a gamist is looking for and not the 'right to dream' of GNS simulationism.
.

I disagree that the game in question must be run as a gamist game.  The defining question is how the GM makes his decisions (the players too).  If he keeps his eye on internal cause at all times, even when that interferes with Step On Up, the game is sim.  It can be argued that the conditions are such that it is impossible to distinguish between these two criteria in this particular case.  If that is so, then you have identified a degenerate case -- a game which genuinely qualifies as both Sim and Gamist.  No one ever said GNS or GDS was perfect, just that the categorizations are useful precisely because they resonate with so many gamers.  Another degenerate case would be an attempt to run a game in a world based on Russian Fairy Tales [as best I understand that genre].  If internal cause is followed strictly, this game must be both Sim and Nar -- the very nature of the world being simulated will continually push the game back onto Premise.  

Degenerate cases are not the only examples of games which cannot handily be classified by GNS/GDS -- there are examples of things that fall through the cracks by engaging none of the CAs (rather than the present examples, which may be argued to fully engage more than one).    

That said, I do think that in this case you can distinguish between running the game in a Sim mode and in a Gamist mode.  But I think with a little more care it's easily possible to construct a clearly degenerate case.  

It's also possible to construct degenerate cases of Nar and Gam -- imagine a game with a whole bunch of really crunchy rules that are all about how to address a Premise.  Imagine a crunched-up version of Pendragon, made to make the game all about Honor.  Or Passion.

[Mark Woodhouse]

...Once play starts internal cause is king and whatever happens happens.  Meets the standards of virtuality as presented here but the game is going to provide the 'step on up' that a gamist is looking for and not the 'right to dream' of GNS simulationism.
.

I disagree that the game in question must be run as a gamist game.  The defining question is how the GM makes his decisions (the players too).  If he keeps his eye on internal cause at all times, even when that interferes with Step On Up, the game is sim.

Sure. It's possible that the game is Narrativist, too. We don't know anything about CA here - although it certainly looks to me as though it could facilitate G right out of the box, that would depend on aspects of System not specified in Caldis' example (is there an agreement to use a reliable ranking ladder that ensures in-game that gladiators will meet reasonably challenging opponents?). OTOH, it's also a setup that could go right into nice juicy Premise (do you spare an opponent and make a moral statement, or go for the easy fame of being a blood-letter?). Just because ICIK, not necessarily Sim, just because clear win-lose conditions exist, not automatically Gamist.

 It can be argued that the conditions are such that it is impossible to distinguish between these two criteria in this particular case.  If that is so, then you have identified a degenerate case -- a game which genuinely qualifies as both Sim and Gamist.  No one ever said GNS or GDS was perfect, just that the categorizations are useful precisely because they resonate with so many gamers.

I don't think so. You can't tell if the game is Gamist or Sim because you have agenda clash. ICIK interferes with Step On Up and 1 or more players  wanted Step On Up? Dysfunction. ICIK interferes with Step On Up and players are on board with What If? Functional play. GNS analysis really only becomes clear when there is a clash of priorities in the instance of play. A game cannot be said to be G or N or S until we know what agendas are operating, and often agendas don't become clear until they come into conflict.

The so-called degenerate case here is a game where different players (or the same players at different times) are prioritizing different goals. As long as this is out in the open and supported by System, it can remain functional in many cases. This would be Congruency. The game is not simultaneously Sim and Gamist - it is either hybrid with one subordinated or it is in dysfunction because the players do not agree what should be prioritized.

Another degenerate case would be an attempt to run a game in a world based on Russian Fairy Tales [as best I understand that genre].  If internal cause is followed strictly, this game must be both Sim and Nar -- the very nature of the world being simulated will continually push the game back onto Premise.  

Premise must be important to the players. Do the players have a stake in the Premise built in to the setting and situation? Or are they Exploring "What if the world were such that moral laws had objective embodiments?" If the players are not motivated to make a statement that answers the Premise, they are not playing with a Narrativist agenda. One could even play Gamist in that sort of world - how can I manipulate the moral laws of the universe to my benefit?

Strict internal cause by itself is not diagnostic of Sim CA.

...It's also possible to construct degenerate cases of Nar and Gam -- imagine a game with a whole bunch of really crunchy rules that are all about how to address a Premise.  Imagine a crunched-up version of Pendragon, made to make the game all about Honor.  Or Passion.

And crunch <> Gamist. Do the players intend to use those rules to engage with significant human questions in order to make a personal statement about them? Or do they just want the rules to simulate a world in which this particular human quality is of signal importance? Or are they competing to see who can create the greatest paragon of Honor?

You've described a case where the rules support a given style of play. Players may Drift them into any CA from there. Drift <> hybridization.

BTW - long time reader, 2nd-time poster. I've played in a few games of Lee's and know several of his more regular players. I hope I'm not making an ass of myself by jumping in with both feet!

Best,

Mark

[M. J. Young]

Mark, your post is excellent, and shows a clear grasp of the concepts.

It can be argued that the conditions are such that it is impossible to distinguish between these two criteria in this particular case.  If that is so, then you have identified a degenerate case -- a game which genuinely qualifies as both Sim and Gamist.

Lee, in terms of GNS, what the game "does" is only secondary. It's what the players are trying to do that determines the agendum in play.

As Mark said, what you've described is "coherence"--you can't tell from the choices made whether the player is playing gamist or simulationist, because the choice that best enables the player to meet the challenge is also that which best reinforces discovery of the nature of the game world. Thus by looking at the fact that the gladiator selects the best weapon and shield to use against the opponent he is about to face we cannot tell whether the player is seeking to achieve a personal victory over the obstacles presented in the game, or the player is seeking to best express what his expert gladiator character would do when faced with this situation. However, that does not alter the fact that the player is doing one of those things primarily. He is either focused in his mind on how he can prove himself as a player against this latest challenge raised by the referee, or he is focused on understanding what the character would do and what this decision is like for him when his life is on the line. Those cannot both be the first consideration in the player's mind at the moment he makes the choice; therefore, he is either playing one or the other, even if he is constrained by situation and system to make those choices within parameters that support both.

"Hybrid" does apply to game designs such as the one described, in which support is available for more than one agendum; "coherence" goes further than that, suggesting that the design is so tight that choices in support of one agendum are not contrary to the goals of another and thus do not create conflict. However (although there is debate over this) it does not seem as if hybrid play is possible. A player can have only one first priority as the basis for his decisions, even if he has other concerns that influence these.

(Doctor Xero will no doubt object that it is possible for a human being to hold two issues of first importance and never have to choose between them; I am unpersuaded.)

--M. J. Young

[Caldis]

If we're going to say that Virtualists need a theory that extends or modifies GNS, then, based solely on observations of these forums I have to agree. It clearly, historically, doesn't serve them well.

If we're going to describe Virtuality as a sub-mode then I have to ask what the value is of putting it in the Sim bucket: as we can see that it doesn't exactly aid communication or discussion (it requires a new term that will, I think, need an essay on par with the one for Narrativism or Gamism--to look at John's essay).

Here I think you are right.  It doesnt fit entirely into GNS sim, that's why things like John Kim's Water Uphill campaign can be entirely Virtuality and yet allow for mixed sim/nar play.  I think the similarities in terminology have mixed everyone up for quite awhile and not allowed people to realize how different what we actually were talking about are, while still accurately describing what they were intended to.

A game based in an arena is an example of what I would call a very "tight" situation--the PC's have few good options (they can, for example, refuse to fight--but the consequences would be clear and grim). I do, indeed, find this a valid form of Virtuality (if one precieves that the players are disempowred by gaming with "tight situations", I believe that is a misconception).

The example I had in mind was a very tight situation.  One of what Lee called a spotlight time decisions made was that the play would revolve around what happened in the arena, and by that I mean combat.  There would be little to no play that focused on down time between fights.  Consider it a magical arena of the gods where after the battles the characters are whisked away to limbo where they stay in a coma like state until their next battle.

The player still is open to choosing any option available to them, drop the weapon dont fight back, try and kill, cheat to win, whatever but they wont have a wide range of options.  The point of the example is that it can still remain technically virtualist and still provide no support for gns sim but tons for gamism.

[Marco]

Caldis,

Very much agreement. Virtualist play may also fall soundly under Narrativist play--which makes asigning it to the Sim bucket questionable.

What we are looking at here are three things:

1. What the player gets out of playing (I value plausibility. I value emotional impact. I value intellectual stimulation. I value challenge. I value peer admiration of my play.) It think it's clear that a player may value two or even more equally.

2. What methods the player will use in decision making (stances, priority of decision, etc.)

3. What methods the player expects the GM to use in decision making (the GM will work to ensure that challenges are prevalent and interesting, the GM will try to always choose the most-plausible direction of events, the GM will choose to have the world work to further drama, the GM will have things happen in a way as to be congruent with the PC's actions from a premise standpoint, etc.)

Mike's model, I think, explicitly addresses these (although I'm not sure it's as definitive on the last point as I'd like).

Because both GDS and GNS will functionally be used to express goals and desires of play (from both sides of the GM's screen) I think having a language that crosses over both of them is good (saying "I'd like to play a game where the observed behavior will center around Premise" is awkward and doesn't, for example, explain how the player would like to get there--on this board it sure doesn't imply Virtuality).

-Marco

[Caldis]

Mike's model, I think, explicitly addresses these (although I'm not sure it's as definitive on the last point as I'd like).

Because both GDS and GNS will functionally be used to express goals and desires of play (from both sides of the GM's screen) I think having a language that crosses over both of them is good (saying "I'd like to play a game where the observed behavior will center around Premise" is awkward and doesn't, for example, explain how the player would like to get there--on this board it sure doesn't imply Virtuality).

I like Mike's model in some aspects but Ralph had a good question regarding where premise fit and MJ's latest post in that thread also made me reconsider it as well.  I think his model catches the main points of both GNS and GDS but it may miss out on some of the finer distinctions made within each.

I'd prefer to keep GNS as it stands and add GDS into the big model, making it a seperate concern that in someways overlaps and influences gns and in someways is subservient to it.

[Marco]

I'd prefer to keep GNS as it stands and add GDS into the big model, making it a seperate concern that in someways overlaps and influences gns and in someways is subservient to it.

Well then you do have to decide whether or not Virtuality falls under Sim (as originally stated (and what about participationism? Illusionism?). I think Ralph's assertation does well with that--but then Participationism doesn't fit anywhere (IMO).

In other words: if we keep GNS, what is Sim?

-Marco

[contracycle]

Well then you do have to decide whether or not Virtuality falls under Sim

Only if I can be persuaded that virtuality exists, which I am not, and...

(and what about participationism? Illusionism?).

... are not CA's but techniques, and thus do not need to fall anywhere in GNS.  And thats still true even if there is an iron consistency between selection of technique and a particular CA.

In other words: if we keep GNS, what is Sim?

See Articles above.

[Caldis]

Well then you do have to decide whether or not Virtuality falls under Sim (as originally stated (and what about participationism? Illusionism?). I think Ralph's assertation does well with that--but then Participationism doesn't fit anywhere (IMO).

In other words: if we keep GNS, what is Sim?

-Marco

Sim remains any game that puts the reality of the game world ahead of the narrative or game considerations.  This includes metagame as well as in game decisions.  I think it is close to the virtuality description but slightly different because it does include the metagame decisions which virtuality does not.

Virtuality can fall within any of the creative agenda's.  If it's is set up tightly then it can be designed to provide a gamist his step on up while still remaining virtual as in the gladiator experience, a different set up can provide for the right to dream, and another one will allow narrativism.