Some Myths About Virtualism

[Marco]

Contra,

What is it you find impossible to believe in concerning Virtuality? This thread might be a good place to ask it if you don't believe it's possible for a GM to do what Lee suggests.

-Marco

[contracycle]

I can't see what its is about this "virtuality" that is not Sim.  I don't claim it's not do-able at all, I just claim that when its done its sim.  

I ask, what would I use as a diagnostic characteristic of virtuality that would tell me there was a virtuality game, as opposed a sim game, in progress?  How would I distinguish between the two?

If no distinction can be given than I just think its another word for Sim, which we don't need.

[Marco]

I ask, what would I use as a diagnostic characteristic of virtuality that would tell me there was a virtuality game, as opposed a sim game, in progress?  How would I distinguish between the two?

(Emphasis added)

You distinguish between the two exactly the same way you spot illusionism. If done sufficiently well, the Narrativist will play in the most railroaded, panama-canal, Bobby-G style game and not know it, right?

So you assert there is no difference between the two?

If that's the case then why do we need a description of Narrativism?

-Marco

[contracycle]

You distinguish between the two exactly the same way you spot illusionism.

Fine, pretend I'm a noob, how do you spot illusionism?  And what do you campare it with?

If done sufficiently well, the Narrativist will play in the most railroaded, panama-canal, Bobby-G style game and not know it, right?

No; I fully expect a narratavist will chasfe at not beoing able to trigger the conflicts they feel are iportant in favour of the GM's.  But then its not suprising that we would see just such a CA clash.

So you assert there is no difference between the two?

If that's the case then why do we need a description of Narrativism?

You are failing to answer the question, Marco.  You've given a jargonsmorgasbord and comer back with a challenge; why can;t you just tell me what Virtuality looks like and how it is distinct from Sim?   Seeing as you are so adamant there is a distinction, tell me what it is.  It shouldn't be that hard.

[John Kim]

You are failing to answer the question, Marco.  You've given a jargonsmorgasbord and comer back with a challenge; why can;t you just tell me what Virtuality looks like and how it is distinct from Sim?   Seeing as you are so adamant there is a distinction, tell me what it is.  It shouldn't be that hard.

If you really want an explanation, demanding an answer within the span of a few hours isn't helpful.  You posted at midnight (12:04AM) and here are upset that your question hasn't been fully answered by 9:30AM when you wake up.  That's just not reasonable.  

Assuming that the GM and players can answer truthfully, you can distinguish a pure Virtuality game by asking them how they decided on in-game events.  If they genuinely attempted to decide based on in-game criteria, then the game is Virtualist.  That is the basic definition.  Note that the genre of the game and themes of the game are meta-game -- i.e. they are not visible as such to the characters, but instead are things visible to the players.  

I'll describe beyond the raw definition, because a lot of people don't grasp the significance of this.  Virtuality is radically different from traditional RPG play.  In most traditional RPG play, the GM designs an adventure based on what he wants to see happen and/or what would be interesting to have happen.  However, in a purely Virtualist game, the GM (if there is one) would decide what is in a town based on what would in-game reasonably be there.  This is still a creative process, but it is a world-creating process which is different from designing based on what events you would like to see.  

Not designing "adventures" is a big shift.  This generally means that either (1) the PCs are proactive and the campaign is largely player-directed (cf my http://www.darkshire.net/~jhkim/rpg/theory/plot/proactivity.html">Proactive PCs essay), or (2) there is a central in-game setup to the campaign which moves the reactive PCs -- for example, the PCs are agents who follow orders from a pro-active organization.  

This also enables play as a moral testing ground, because the consequences of PC actions are always followed through.  The group can't have an evil PC be punished because that's what is in-genre or because that's what they want to see.  By playing Virtualist, they are agreeing to follow through what they think would really happen.  

As for whether or how this is distinct from GNS Simulationism, I think that's a tricky question.  Different people have very different views of what GNS Simulationism is.  I would be interested to hear how you think this relates to GNS Simulationism.

[Marco]

You distinguish between the two exactly the same way you spot illusionism.

Fine, pretend I'm a noob, how do you spot illusionism?  And what do you campare it with?

If done sufficiently well, the Narrativist will play in the most railroaded, panama-canal, Bobby-G style game and not know it, right?

No; I fully expect a narratavist will chasfe at not beoing able to trigger the conflicts they feel are iportant in favour of the GM's.  But then its not suprising that we would see just such a CA clash.

So you assert there is no difference between the two?

If that's the case then why do we need a description of Narrativism?

You are failing to answer the question, Marco.  You've given a jargonsmorgasbord and comer back with a challenge; why can;t you just tell me what Virtuality looks like and how it is distinct from Sim?   Seeing as you are so adamant there is a distinction, tell me what it is.  It shouldn't be that hard.

How do you discern Illusionism? What is it contrasted to?

I'm no expert on "catching illusionism"--I'm not much good at reading tells (which is one of the popular modes of CA-analysis)--but how about this: You catch the GM cheating at dice and on being questioned he admits he was manipulating the system, setting or situation for some personal, previously undisclosed goal.

I contrast this with the GM stating his goals up front and being clear about his manipulation of system, setting, or situation. In the case of Virtuality the GM states a commitment to most-playsible what-if play and doesn't secretly overrule mechanics to, say, enhance the game's drama out of line with his stated goals.

Using Illusionsim with Narrativism

The Premise of the game has to do with fidelity in the face of old wounds. The situation involves a single powerful foe the PC's may choose to face alone or together (and they have old wounds between them that make standing together tough). The foe--although powerful--is presented as possibly defeatable by a single character who holds true to what he believes concerning individuality or communalism. The game system gives extrra-dice for holding true to what you believe in that respect.

The GM secretly determines that unless the PC's face a final enemy together they will fail (and be killed). He will make it look like they simply had a run of bad luck--or he may simply make the foe absorb more and more damage until the PC is dead--but either way the character who faces it alone is secretly doomed. The players, however, assume that the GM is "playing it straight" and that while the outcome of the battle is not certian, they have a chance to defeat the opponent if they choose to face him alone: in short, both choices are viable.

IMO, the GM has answered the question (he runs the foe, keeps track of damage, rolls dice behind his screen, etc.) but the player will never succeed and, in fact, will be punished for going against the GM's decision.

[One can, and I imagine will, make the argument that they would be making the statement and answering the question by simply deciding to face the foe. I think that if you then point out later that they were irrevcoably doomed to die because the GM didn't like that answer (and it wasn't clearly suicidal). In short, the statement that is made by the game is that individualism is deadly while fidelity is what works].

If the illusionism is artfully handeled the players will never know (unless they catch the GM cheating at dice, for example). They will believe the game was run in a Narrativist manner. For this hypothetical, I assume that the players who are killed are very unhappy but consider the game functional (it's a Fortune system, dying was always a possibility, after all) until they learn the truth.

But that isn't what's important.

What's key is that the difference between Virtuality and Participationism lies in how decisions are made. You can say that that distinction isn't made by GNS and argue that--but I think it's very clear that ultimately that *is,* functionally, what GNS (and GDS) are about--and if the formal definitions don't say that, then the formal definitions (which don't exist) are out of line with the common and profitable usage of the taxonomy.

It's key to understand is that Illusionism in either Virtuality or Narrativism will not reliably lead to a satisfying game (my example is one where it leads to a disappointing game but one that is still considered functional, unless the truth comes out)--if the players had agreed with the GM about fidelity the ending would've been happy and no player would've been punished for his decision.

Similarily, using the 'Dramatist' mind-set to run a game for a Virtualist will not reliably produce a satisfying game whether or not the GM is caught.

That's the key point. Not getting hung up on 'observed behavior' or third-party analysis (which either will or won't be relevant depending on how good your mad-telepathy-like-people-reading-skills are when it comes to reading tells).

-Marco

[Mark Woodhouse]

Virtuality is radically different from traditional RPG play.  In most traditional RPG play, the GM designs an adventure based on what he wants to see happen and/or what would be interesting to have happen.  However, in a purely Virtualist game, the GM (if there is one) would decide what is in a town based on what would in-game reasonably be there.  This is still a creative process, but it is a world-creating process which is different from designing based on what events you would like to see.

So far, so Sim. A particular flavor of Sim, to be sure.  Typically even Story-sim GMs pay attention to plausibility, although they don't place as strong an emphasis on it as Virtualists.

Not designing "adventures" is a big shift.  This generally means that either (1) the PCs are proactive and the campaign is largely player-directed (cf my http://www.darkshire.net/~jhkim/rpg/theory/plot/proactivity.html">Proactive PCs essay), or (2) there is a central in-game setup to the campaign which moves the reactive PCs -- for example, the PCs are agents who follow orders from a pro-active organization.  

So Virtuality is distinguished so far by 2 things, as I see it. There is a different division of labor, in that the players are principally responsible for generating plot and the GM reacts to it. And there is a commitment to GDS-Sim decision rules in which aesthetic and game-mechanical System components are not just subordinated but disallowed except in specific and limited ways.

This certainly leads to a very different and distinctive style of play than more traditional allocations of plot responsibility do, but I still see the outcome as being geared mostly toward GNS-Sim ends - the production of a desired experience of "being there." Degree of player empowerment and methods of decision change the look and feel, but so do different die mechanics, or play-by-post vs tabletop. Virtuality is real, but does it fall outside Sim? I can't see any reason to think so.

This also enables play as a moral testing ground, because the consequences of PC actions are always followed through.  The group can't have an evil PC be punished because that's what is in-genre or because that's what they want to see.  By playing Virtualist, they are agreeing to follow through what they think would really happen.

Perhaps. But the commitment to logic as resolution puts players in a bind when attempting to address these moral questions - in the end, the Universe doesn't care about their values. If the evil PC is sufficiently effective, the answer to the question "Does Might make Right?" is always YES. Not that this is necessarily a bad thing, but it does limit the effectiveness of Virtualist techniques in handling Narrativist play goals.

As for whether or how this is distinct from GNS Simulationism, I think that's a tricky question.  Different people have very different views of what GNS Simulationism is.  I would be interested to hear how you think this relates to GNS Simulationism.

I've been pretty concise in my other thread on what I think GNS Sim is. I don't think there's a one-to one map between it and Virtualism, and I don't think that all Virtualist play is a subset of GNS Sim, but I think that Virtualist techniques most reliably support GNS-Sim goals.

Best,

Mark

[Marco]

Mark,

The idea that GNS Sim is simply RPG play with a focus on plausibility (and nothing else, really) isn't new. The problem is that a "focus on plausibility" or a "focus on exploration," while these can both be ascribed to Virtuality and Participationism, are about as meaningful as saying "both types of games might use dice."

It doesn't hit on what is important to both of them.

I submit that the player who doesn't want to die unless their death is "meaningful" isn't committed to a what-if (or 'being there') experience. After all, we must, in reality, accept that our deaths could be 'meaningless.'*

In fact, the very stipulation the universe doesn't care about my moral statement is, for me, what validates it when I make said statement. If I can be assured that my statement will be facilitated by the GM because it is mine then, for me, it has less power.

Of course if my statement is blocked by the GM because he doesn't agree with it, that's even worse.

This points out why Virtuality, while it might be a technique that can produce something descriptively Narrativist, is not (for many people) going to be the most reliable way to achieve that result (although there are some techniques the GM can employ if he wants to that can really help with that).

But that's also why Participationism, while it kinda looks like Virtuality, isn't the same and won't appeal to people the same way. Grouping them in a given agenda is because they seem similar is not a mistake people who are familiar with both would, IME, make.

-Marco
* There are some metaphysical arguments to the contrary and I'm down with 'em--but in a this-lifetime, human-level-of perception situation people die from slipping in the bathroom all the time.

If anyone takes this to mean that a Virtuality must/should model characters slipping and dying in the bathroom, however, they're missing the point.

[Valamir]

I make some new points about where Vituality might fit in the grand scheme of things in this thread that might have some application here.

[contracycle]

If you really want an explanation, demanding an answer within the span of a few hours isn't helpful.  You posted at midnight (12:04AM) and here are upset that your question hasn't been fully answered by 9:30AM when you wake up.  That's just not reasonable.  

That had nothing to do with my criticism, tho.  I criticised the jargon smorgasbord, not that delay.

I'll describe beyond the raw definition, because a lot of people don't grasp the significance of this. Virtuality is radically different from traditional RPG play. In most traditional RPG play, the GM designs an adventure based on what he wants to see happen and/or what would be interesting to have happen. However, in a purely Virtualist game, the GM (if there is one) would decide what is in a town based on what would in-game reasonably be there. This is still a creative process, but it is a world-creating process which is different from designing based on what events you would like to see.

I do not think this is an unusual play style at all.

First of all I think the whol issue of what "would really be there" is a tricky one as per the discussion of "what would really happen".  Apart from that wrinkle, I think 90% of non-participationist Sim is exactly what you describe, the phenomenon is unremarkable, and not worthy of a name.  Sim does just fine.

[Marco]

I do not think this is an unusual play style at all.

First of all I think the whol issue of what "would really be there" is a tricky one as per the discussion of "what would really happen".  Apart from that wrinkle, I think 90% of non-participationist Sim is exactly what you describe, the phenomenon is unremarkable, and not worthy of a name.  Sim does just fine.

I actually sort of agree with part of this. I'm not sure that Virtuality (as a basic goal) is all that unusual. And I also find that in some Forge conversations there is too much reliance on jargon and handwaving Although I find that you (contra) are engaging in this when you say "non-participationist Sim is exactly what you describe."

If there is such a thing as "non-participationist Sim" then logically it would be what is described as Virtuality. If it *is* virtuality, then Ralph is right: Sim, by itself, is a question of what-if--and therefore Participationist goals don't belong in the Sim bucket any more than it belongs in the Nar bucket.

-Marco

[contracycle]

If there is such a thing as "non-participationist Sim" then logically it would be what is described as Virtuality. If it *is* virtuality, then Ralph is right: Sim, by itself, is a question of what-if--and therefore Participationist goals don't belong in the Sim bucket any more than it belongs in the Nar bucket.

I'm afraid I can't see how any of that has to follow.  Its just sim.  The term virtuality has not meaning if you agree that virtuality is just bog standard, garden variety sim.  That does not imply a validation of Ralphs claim.  Futhermore you still make the error of placing techniques in the buckets when the techniques are not meant to fit in the buckets; techniques are external to the buckets.

I mean, I pointed that out 5 days ago on the 20th.  I also asked for a distinguishing characteristic of Virtuality and you have conceded that it is in fact ordinary sim as ordinarily practiced.  So its existance as something that requires being distinguished from sim is not established.  The error of allocating techniques inside the CA instead of outside the CA is still being made.  There is no coherent or convincing argument here as far as I can see and this all rather makes for a storm in a teacup.

[Marco]

If there is such a thing as "non-participationist Sim" then logically it would be what is described as Virtuality. If it *is* virtuality, then Ralph is right: Sim, by itself, is a question of what-if--and therefore Participationist goals don't belong in the Sim bucket any more than it belongs in the Nar bucket.

I'm afraid I can't see how any of that has to follow.  Its just sim.  The term virtuality has not meaning if you agree that virtuality is just bog standard, garden variety sim.  That does not imply a validation of Ralphs claim.  Futhermore you still make the error of placing techniques in the buckets when the techniques are not meant to fit in the buckets; techniques are external to the buckets.

I mean, I pointed that out 5 days ago on the 20th.  I also asked for a distinguishing characteristic of Virtuality and you have conceded that it is in fact ordinary sim as ordinarily practiced.  So its existance as something that requires being distinguished from sim is not established.  The error of allocating techniques inside the CA instead of outside the CA is still being made.  There is no coherent or convincing argument here as far as I can see and this all rather makes for a storm in a teacup.

The reason that people picked up on the term Virtuality is that GNS Sim as commonly used doesn't fit. Look at Ron's post on introducing Narrativists to Simulationists:

Furthermore, here's the point (or we discuss the point a bit, arriving at it together), and that's what it's about. Keep on doing stuff that supports that point and makes the game "about" that point, and we'll all get along. I'll throw a whole bunch of things at you that are pretty unequivocal regarding their relationship to that point.

That isn't Virtuality--so either Ron is describing something different than what Sim is (which is a contention you can take up with him) or there needs to be a distinguishing term.

Furthermore, If "virtuality" is "just Sim" (which was Ralph's contention--and I think it makes sense) then if you consider Participationism another CA it needs to be broken out with it's own name.

If you consider Participationism a technique (reduced player input) then it follows that the opposite: increased player input is a technique as well, and a form of Participationism belongs under Narrativism too (i.e. Narrativist becomes Themist and it has modes of high player empowerment and low player empowerment).

What I've always said is that Participationism shares as much (or more) with Narrativist play as it does with Virtuality/Sim play (i.e. not a lot).

-Marco

[John Kim]

So Virtuality is distinguished so far by 2 things, as I see it. There is a different division of labor, in that the players are principally responsible for generating plot and the GM reacts to it. And there is a commitment to GDS-Sim decision rules in which aesthetic and game-mechanical System components are not just subordinated but disallowed except in specific and limited ways.

This certainly leads to a very different and distinctive style of play than more traditional allocations of plot responsibility do, but I still see the outcome as being geared mostly toward GNS-Sim ends - the production of a desired experience of "being there." Degree of player empowerment and methods of decision change the look and feel, but so do different die mechanics, or play-by-post vs tabletop. Virtuality is real, but does it fall outside Sim? I can't see any reason to think so.  

Well, this depends on your personal view of GNS Sim.  You consider it to be based on conveying the experience of being there.  Thus, you would presumably exclude games without the "myth of reality" -- for example, Theatrix, or various comedy games.  

This also enables play as a moral testing ground, because the consequences of PC actions are always followed through.  The group can't have an evil PC be punished because that's what is in-genre or because that's what they want to see.  By playing Virtualist, they are agreeing to follow through what they think would really happen.

Perhaps. But the commitment to logic as resolution puts players in a bind when attempting to address these moral questions - in the end, the Universe doesn't care about their values. If the evil PC is sufficiently effective, the answer to the question "Does Might make Right?" is always YES. Not that this is necessarily a bad thing, but it does limit the effectiveness of Virtualist techniques in handling Narrativist play goals.

I think this may be a clash of philosophy.  I do not believe that might makes right -- but I also don't think that illogical and/or supernatural power is necessary for might to not make right.  So, for example, I think you can have a story where a good person is killed -- but he is still distinctive as being good.  

Virtuality is radically different from traditional RPG play. In most traditional RPG play, the GM designs an adventure based on what he wants to see happen and/or what would be interesting to have happen. However, in a purely Virtualist game, the GM (if there is one) would decide what is in a town based on what would in-game reasonably be there. This is still a creative process, but it is a world-creating process which is different from designing based on what events you would like to see.

I do not think this is an unusual play style at all.

First of all I think the whol issue of what "would really be there" is a tricky one as per the discussion of "what would really happen".  Apart from that wrinkle, I think 90% of non-participationist Sim is exactly what you describe, the phenomenon is unremarkable, and not worthy of a name.  Sim does just fine.

Well, I can't really answer what the statistics of games are.  In my experience, there are a great many non-participationist games which are based on genre and drama, rather than virtuality.  i.e. The GM deliberately designs dramatic adventures for the players, but they are ones which don't lock the PCs into a pre-defined plot.  Instead, the players have the power to change the adventure considerably -- but they are still trying for a dramatic storyline.  I'm surprised that you find this style so much rarer than Virtuality, but I am aware that experiences differ.

[Lee Short]

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

I can't see what its is about this "virtuality" that is not Sim.  I don't claim it's not do-able at all, I just claim that when its done its sim.  

These two quotes would appear to be contradictory.  Have you simply changed your mind, or is there another explanation I am missing?