Some Myths About Virtualism

[contracycle]

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?

??  Virtuality as a special subset, form, type of sim appears not to exist.  It's indistinguishable from common or garden sim.

[Marco]

??  Virtuality as a special subset, form, type of sim appears not to exist.  It's indistinguishable from common or garden sim.

Do you find games that "have a point" (as Ron describes in his discussion of talking to Nar players coming to Sim games) to be identical to Virtuality?

Can you understand why someone might wish to distinguish between the two in terms of a request to a GM?

-Marco

[contracycle]

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.

I'm inclined to think its very common, especially amongst adolescent gamers.  It seems to encompass what I have referred to as "wandering psychopath" play, in which the characters are sorta freelancers wandering the landscape and living more or less hand to mouth.

[contracycle]

Can you understand why someone might wish to distinguish between the two in terms of a request to a GM?

Marco, I asked you for the differences between virtuality and sim precisely because I cannot distinguish between them, as they are described so far.  How would you discuss the distinction you perceive with a GM?

[Marco]

Can you understand why someone might wish to distinguish between the two in terms of a request to a GM?

Marco, I asked you for the differences between virtuality and sim precisely because I cannot distinguish between them, as they are described so far.  How would you discuss the distinction you perceive with a GM?

In the ways that have been detailed here over and over, Gareth.

In terms of picking the "considered most-probable" result of an action--or most probable sequence of events instead of making decisions deisgned to enhance the dramatic value of a situation or to "keep it interesting" or to "keep it moving."

Not having events or (especially) coincidences occur in order to "maintain interest."

Not mutating situation to make the outcome of decisions palatable or satisfactory to the players when the GM thinks "what would really happen" would be something less palatable or frustrating.

Careful watch over implementations of "Dramatic Timing" of events--having events occur when their dramatic impact will be the highest even if the GM thinks that's probably unlikely.

A lack of attention to theme in terms of the GM making absolute decisions about a message the world promotes. Genre may be trappings (the Cthulhuian monsters are out there, so, yes, it's "like Lovecraft") or mechanics ( "The game rules for a hard-boiled game make a blow to the back of the head a near-certain knockout") but not as a goal of play that is enforced the same way as internal cause would be ("The fem-fatal would probably cut and run now, but she's got to hang around for her explanation/confession scene.")

An understanding that the players will behave as they think their characters would, rather than agreeing to engage with presented conflicts for the sake of "keeping the story interesting" or because "the GM made a spy game so we have to be satisfied happy spies." (in the begining of the game they might be if the GM stipulated that--but if the mission gets dirty and the player thinks her character would document the events and go to the press the GM is ready to accept that 'that's what she thinks would happen.')

There are probably more--and these are just some examples I'm coming up with off the top of my head ... and I haven't paid extremely careful attention to my language so there's likely some loopholes in there--but these are all based on tratis I've seen attributed to GNS Sim here.

Moreover: this is stuff I think we've been over before.

-Marco

[contracycle]

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:

They appear to fit to me, so lets be explicitly about what the distinctions are.,  We don;t need to appealk ot other peoples arguments to lay those out, surely, so why not just provide a statement as to what the specific intent is.

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.

To me it seems perfect for virtuality; clearly we are interpreting thes epassages in evry different lights.

A game at the table, using a product like Blue Planet, can easily be be ABOUT "what if...we weere on an alien water-world".  And the GM can and will introduce elements that reinforce the presence andf reality of that waterworld and its particular conditions in order that the players can get their groove on being in this virtual (that is, imginary) space, paint the colour.

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.

Erm, on the basis of what, they have both hitherto been labelled techniques?  The map is not the terrain.  There is no similarity between virtuality and participationism if virtuality does not exist.

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).

It may well be there is a Narr form of participationism.  I don't think its likely myself, but it could be discussed.  This does not seem to be served by a redefinition of sim, however.

[contracycle]

There are probably more--and these are just some examples I'm coming up with off the top of my head ... and I haven't paid extremely careful attention to my language so there's likely some loopholes in there--but these are all based on tratis I've seen attributed to GNS Sim here.

You are correct that they have all been, and still are, attributed to Sim.

So what distinguishes that stuff above FROM virtuality that virtuality needs its own term to be introduced?

[Marco]

There are probably more--and these are just some examples I'm coming up with off the top of my head ... and I haven't paid extremely careful attention to my language so there's likely some loopholes in there--but these are all based on tratis I've seen attributed to GNS Sim here.

You are correct that they have all been, and still are, attributed to Sim.

So what distinguishes that stuff above FROM virtuality that virtuality needs its own term to be introduced?

Gareth,
What Ron discusses in that quote I gave you is that the game has a point. While I think that it is probably literally possible to take "being on a waterworld" as a point of a story, I frankly don't buy it.

Each one of my samples I gave you is an either-or that would distinguish one mode of play from another. We don't have a name for the either-part other than GNS Sim.

-Marco

[contracycle]

What Ron discusses in that quote I gave you is that the game has a point. While I think that it is probably literally possible to take "being on a waterworld" as a point of a story, I frankly don't buy it.

Fine.  That we can discuss, it is how I have read it to date.

Please note you have subtly change "game has a point" to "point of a story".  Sim is not story, and the point of sim would necessarily not be the "point" of a story.

Each one of my samples I gave you is an either-or that would distinguish one mode of play from another. We don't have a name for the either-part other than GNS Sim.

That makes no sense, all the things you atrributed to virtuality are Sim features, as you acknowledged.  So what distinguishes sim from virtuality?  Why is virtuality being proposed as a term?  What does it denote that is not sufficiently described by Sim as it stands?

[Marco]

What Ron discusses in that quote I gave you is that the game has a point. While I think that it is probably literally possible to take "being on a waterworld" as a point of a story, I frankly don't buy it.

Fine.  That we can discuss, it is how I have read it to date.

Please note you have subtly change "game has a point" to "point of a story".  Sim is not story, and the point of sim would necessarily not be the "point" of a story.

Each one of my samples I gave you is an either-or that would distinguish one mode of play from another. We don't have a name for the either-part other than GNS Sim.

That makes no sense, all the things you atrributed to virtuality are Sim features, as you acknowledged.  So what distinguishes sim from virtuality?  Why is virtuality being proposed as a term?  What does it denote that is not sufficiently described by Sim as it stands?

Gareth,

1. All RPG's create stories. GM enforced Theme is a common descriptor of Sim. That is most logically, IMO, said to be the "point." Deciding that setting can be the "point" of a game seems bizarre to me. Honestly, I'm not too much more interested in discussing this. I see a is-not, is-too argument.

2. I will pick one of my quotes:

In terms of picking the "considered most-probable" result of an action--or most probable sequence of events instead of making decisions deisgned to enhance the dramatic value of a situation or to "keep it interesting" or to "keep it moving."

This is relevant to the question you asked and shows two distinctive decision styles--one, the first one, is associated with what is presently being called Virtuality. The second ("keep it interesting" or "enhance dramatic value of the situation") is associated more commonly on The Forge with GNS Sim.

If you want to reverse those, fine--but they are not the same mode of decision making. Distinguish between them by any name you like.

-Marco

[contracycle]

1. All RPG's create stories. GM enforced Theme is a common descriptor of Sim. That is most logically, IMO, said to be the "point." Deciding that setting can be the "point" of a game seems bizarre to me. Honestly, I'm not too much more interested in discussing this. I see a is-not, is-too argument.

I do not agree that all RPG's create stories at all - not least because I have run RPG's that were not in the least story-like.  What they were is experience-like.

I will row back a bit from my statement however and say instead that it applies certainly, but perhaps only, to High Concept Sim in which the point is exploration and exposition of an interesting event, place, situation etc.  

You may find it implausible, but I do not believe this is a widely held position; we have had a number of discussions about the high concept and players interrest primarily in exploration of setting.

This is relevant to the question you asked and shows two distinctive decision styles--one, the first one, is associated with what is presently being called Virtuality. The second ("keep it interesting" or "enhance dramatic value of the situation") is associated more commonly on The Forge with GNS Sim.

From the Glossary:

Right to Dream, the
Commitment to the imagined events of play, specifically their in-game causes and pre-established thematic elements.

Nothing here about "keeping it interesting" or "story".

From the Right  to dream article:

Resolution mechanics, in Simulationist design, boil down to asking about the cause of what, which is to say, what performances are important during play. These vary widely, including internal states, interactions and expressions, physical motions (most games), and even decisions. Two games may be equally Simulationist even if one concerns coping with childhood trauma and the other concerns blasting villains with lightning bolts. What makes them Simulationist is the strict adherence to in-game (i.e. pre-established) cause for the outcomes that occur during play.

My emphasis.  Is that bolded section not precisely what is being claimed for alleged "virtuality"?

I don't see where you get the idea that sim likely or necessarily contains something story-like.  If you can show what bvrings yoiun to this conclusion, perhaps that might be constructively discussed.  However, at this time the problem I see with with your position is that alleged virtuality is already contained within sim, and so this title can be used for sub-CA but is not a CA properly in its own right.


The only place that I can thinik of that "story" might be brought to bear is that it seems to me that virtuality play often tails off into nothing play, that is, nothing interesting happens.  Which is not surprising, because most of the time "what would happen" in our immediate environment is not very interesting.  Therefore often some device is used to regulate changes to the environment to make it interesting, and these are often story-like elements of rising tension. But that dramatic crutch is not the point of the exercise, its just an excuse to keep changing the sets so that the primary explorative interest can be taken further.  But this strutural device is not a cretaive agenda and does not dilute the operational creative agenda.

[Marco]

I do not agree that all RPG's create stories at all - not least because I have run RPG's that were not in the least story-like.  What they were is experience-like.

Gareth,

I'll give this one more try and that's it. You ignored my second point which was sailent (and I don't think this is accidental):

1. People have been saying 'All RPG play creates stories' here for ages. I now suspect you didn't argue with them then because the people saying it were supporting the dominant paradigmn. In the case of virtuality play story is meant in the "this is what happened" sense. The quality of the story from a literary perspective will vary depending on what techniques are used for any style.

2. I agree that virtuality play creates, usually, a 'story with poor or zero literary structure.' This is because the participants are not interested in using techniques or whatever to enhance the drama or keep with literary themes or anything like that.

3. So what do you call the mode of play where story-structure is the intent of the participants (but without the focus on co-creation of Nar play)?

I don't care if we chuck virtuality (at this point, I'd rather examine the 3D model and see if we can chuck Sim altogether)--but something has to distinguish those two modes.

If you want to keep on about this, PM me.

-Marco

[contracycle]

1. People have been saying 'All RPG play creates stories' here for ages. I now suspect you didn't argue with them then because the people saying it were supporting the dominant paradigmn. In the case of virtuality play story is meant in the "this is what happened" sense. The quality of the story from a literary perspective will vary depending on what techniques are used for any style.

In fact I did argue with them, going back over years now you will find posts of mine suggesting that becuase tge brain is built to interpolate action over time, it necessarily constructs a series of events into a "narrative".  But these are often highly simplistic, as in the childs form of "and then.,.. and then.. and then...".  I have also suggested that the viewer of a wildlife documentary on say foxes feels pathos for the fox becuause it is the central "character", but we can then also watch another documentary about birds and cast the fox as an Enemy.

You will also note that recently I have made suggestions that the term story be stricken and not used with qualifiers, because it is too general; a term to be said to apply to anything specific.  Not all speakers mean formal story by the term, they often just mean a sequence of events, and I think greater clarity would be useful.  Not all colloquial references to story reference the same thing.

2. I agree that virtuality play creates, usually, a 'story with poor or zero literary structure.' This is because the participants are not interested in using techniques or whatever to enhance the drama or keep with literary themes or anything like that.

Right.  Standard sim behaviour.

3. So what do you call the mode of play where story-structure is the intent of the participants (but without the focus on co-creation of Nar play)?

Mostly, participationism, or extraordinarily skilled illusionism.  But a propose that scene framing can also be used in this way, and that a game can be created which is "virtual" when the action is "live", and constructed in literary terms when seen across all framed scenes.  However, these are all techniquies not creative agendas.

This is because I argue that like the wildlife documentary, the story part lies in the technique with which the piece is built, not because it contains moral and ethical issues.  That is, a story is a compelling way to communicate something about moral or ethical issues, but we should not confuse those issues with the methodology deployed.  That compelling method can be used to communicate something about foxes too.