Simulation and Subjectivity

[Valamir]

Ok.  This is a very Sorcerer specific message and so in that sense might more appropriately belong on the Sorcerer forum.  But my intent here is not so much to disect Sorcerer but illustrate one of the key problems I'm having with the definition of Simulationist.  Namely the very subjective way games do or don't get cast as being simulationist.

I'm using Sorcerer here for 2 reasons.  One it obviously should be a game most of us are familiar with, and two I used it as an example elsewhere and got a lot of negativity for the attempt.  This negativity actually feeds into a second problem I'm having and thats the apparent elitism of the model.  Again this elitism is probably unintentional, but it is so palpable it is no wonder to me why GNS has gotten such a bad rap in certain circles.  When I suggested that Sorcerer by the definitions of GNS is actually more of a Simulation than a Narrativist, game the reaction was just short of abject horror that I could think such a thing.  As if somehow Sorcerer would  be tainted by the association.  That sort of reaction makes me very uncomfortable.

But I'm not really here to discuss that.  Nor am I really here to claim that Sorcerer SHOULD be categorized aa simulation.  What I am here to do is illustrate (using the very definitions of what Simulation is under GNS) that Sorcerer clearly meets that definition and yet somehow an exeption gets made and the game gets categorized as being Narrativist.  I offer this in no way as a value judgement on Sorcerer but soley (and I hope we can keep the discussion to this) on the subjective nature of the Simulationist category which to me is one of the greatest faults of this model.

Ok.  In the interest of keeping individual messages brief, I shall conclude my introduction here and begin my first arguement in a new post

[ This Message was edited by: Valamir on 2001-05-26 13:46 ]

[Valamir]

Ok,I'm going to begin this analysis using Ron's defintion of Simulation from Alternate Phylogeny.  My goal is to build a case showing how Sorcerer meets the criteria that Ron has established for what a Simulation is.  NOT, repeat NOT as a crusade to get Sorceror reclassified.  Rather, my goal is to ask the big question at the end..."It meets these criteria, so why isn't it a Simulation" the point being to illustrate the subjective nature of the category.

***Behavior: the purpose of play is to see "how events play out," specifically without VICTORY or THEME as the indicator of success. (One very knowledgeable poster on the Forge does not think any player REALLY conforms to this, but opinions differ.)***

Ok.  Now I would argue that the experience of playing a Sorcerer is the primary purpose of the game.  The game is about getting into the mind set of a Sorcerer who has to struggle daily with his own humanity vs. his own drives and ambitions.  How he juggles these and the needs and desires of the demons he has summoned is, in the main, the whole point to a Sorcerer session.

Several items from the Sorcerer rules themselves support this.  Just a few examples include:

From the Heart of Sorcery on page 6, the introduction explaining what this game is all about
"Whatever else they accomplish or believe, they are outlaws: the ulitmate in arrogance.  By any moral system, karma, or means of adjudging right and wrong, a sorcerer is taking a grave risk by using his or her knowledge".
"Sorcerous deeds mix the heady possibility of awesome power and the certainty of blood-freezing danger.  If you risk all on a crucial bargain with a demon, get nervous when it readily agrees...what have you missed?"

On Page 7 & 8, The Heart of the Game offers the following advice to Players:

"...what do you want? How far would you go? How far have you gone already?"
"What price have you already paid?  Faced with madess, armed with madness, how do you hold on to your humanity?"
"What kind of crisis has driven you to immediate action, Are you out for worldly gain, using sorcery merely as a tool? Or are you an esoteric seeker probing at the fringes of human understanding?  Or are you desperate and driven, perhaps for vengeance or battling against something intolerably unjust?"

ALL of the above is focused NOT on story but on experienceing what it is to be a sorcerer.

Heres a particularly compelling line from the same section:
"Nothing--literally nothing--is more important than what you want out of a situation..."

In other words, the entire set up for the game, from introduction to instructions to players is to create a compelling character in an effort to experience what it is like to be that character.

Granted, compelling characters are important to Narrativist games too, but Simulation of Character seems much more the goal of these sections.  The fact that one can argue this one way or the other is precisely my point.  The definiton is very very subjective.

Interestingly, the issue of telling a good story (the hallmark of a narrative game) is not even mentioned until the bottom of page 8.  More interestingly the concept of story is found in the section titled "The Game Master".  

"...playing Sorcerer should generate a good story, specifically one that YOU [referung to the GM, emphasis mine] believe in personally"
"If you, The GM, don't have a dramatic narrative goal..."
"What conflicts would make a sorcerer sit up and take notice?"

These items are clearly labeled in the game as being part of the GM's purvue.  There is NO mention made of a shared story telling experience.  The story belongs to the GM, the narrative belongs to the GM.

Mere mention of the desire to create a good story does not a Narrative game make.  Even gamists and "simulationists" value a good story.  Isn't the uniqueness of a Narrativist game that the story is created jointly.  Its a shared experience among the play group.  Sorcerer AS WRITTEN clearly leaves the story in the hands of the GM...which to me seems a VERY VERY simulationist trait.


Ok, next I'll address Author stance as it exists or does not exist in Sorcerer.





[ This Message was edited by: Valamir on 2001-05-26 13:50 ]

[Valamir]

Part two of my analysis of Sorcerer as a Simulation will focus on the idea of Author stance.

***Another aspect of Simulationist behavior is that the player is "inside" the character and has complete and utter authority over "my guy" and what he does. The GM, by contrast, has complete and utter authority over anything external to the PCs. Author stance is frowned upon; Director stance is unheard of. Railroading is an ongoing, constant issue in these circumstances. ***

Now, it is clear that Ron intends Sorcerer to be played with heavy emphasis on Author stance.  I'm certain he plays it that way, and I'm certain many who've relied upon him for guidance on playing Sorcerer have come to play it that way.  However, as I've said in a prior thread, Intent is not the deciding factor...Execution must be the deciding factor.  As an example of this I point to Vampire:  The INTENT of the game is to get into the mindset of a vampires struggle with his power and his humanity (a premise not entirely unlike that of Sorcerer).  The actual EXECUTION of Vampire (do to its poor currency mechanic appealing more to power gamers than story tellers) derailed this.

Recently on the Sorcerer forum on GO, Ron offered the following advice to someone struggling with how to play Sorcerer for the first time with a very gamist group:

***What I'm getting at is that Sorcerer, like Over the Edge, like Prince Valiant, Zero, Hero Wars, and several others, enlists the player as SERIOUS co-author. You get to say things that NPCs do. You get to describe and invent many aspects of the causal events leading up to a resolution.

In terms of resolution, this means that (a) announce the action, (b) roll to resolve, and (c) see what ensues is NOT the model being used. Instead, it's (a) announce overall intent, (b) see what the dice say, and (c) retroactively figure out what ensued. Modifiers can go in before or after the dice roll - in Sorcerer, they go before. When they go in, that's when the Author (and even Director) power of the player is wielded.

Say you have "undercover cop" for your Cover score. Do you announce that you're looking around the bars and seedy dives, then roll, and if successful, wait for the GM to tell you what happens? No! You announce a desired OUTCOME of your investigation, including perhaps even the specific information you want, perhaps even inventing an NPC or two, complete with their specialties of knowledge. Making your roll creates them into the game.***

Clearly, Ron's intent is for Author stance to be prevelent in the game.  However, NOWHERE...repeat NOWHERE...at least in the current edition of the rules is the above even hinted at.  This is clearly Ron's intent, but a new player who has not availed themselves of the Sorcerer Forum will NOT learn this from the rules.  The actual execution of Sorcerer offers NO mechanics specifically designed to promote Authoral stance, and in the absence of such mechanics one cannot point to the ability for Authoral stance to be used as evidence.  Players CAN use Author stance in ANY game that does not specifically have mechanics preventing.  That's a game play issue.  When categorizing a game design it becomes necessary to evaluate not whether the design ALLOWS it (any game that encourages players to alter the rules allows anything) but whether the design actively encourages it.

Examining the Sorcerer rules:

Page 6 "Each player is responsible for the actions of a character..."
"The Game Master plays the demons as characters"

While certainly not explicit, this definitely sounds very much like the instructions found at the beginning of most "simulationist" games regarding playing in character while the GM runs the NPCs.

On page 8 "...enormous amount of freedom in terms of game actions."  "if you're moping around saying, 'There's nothing we can do',you're almost certainly missing something".

This would be the perfect spot to mention the ability of players to get involved in the story using Author stance (granted Ron has explained that he hadn't discovered/developed those terms at the time Sorcerer was written, but there isn't even a hint of that thought process here).  Instead the section about freedom of actions concentrates on the free form nature of sorcerous magic and the ability to summon demons to deal with problems.  In other words it is nothing but a reminder that when confronted with an obstacle, characters have a wider range of responses through Sorcery than found in most games with limited spell lists.  No mention at all of influencing the direction of the story directly.

The rest of the section deals with Fortune based game mechanics, no plot points or drama dice or any tell tales of that nature.

What about Kickers?  Again, Ron has gone to great lengths to elaborate on the idea of Kickers, and hopefully some of those wonderful ideas will be incorporated into the new edition.  But as written, they are no more involved that standard "backgrounds" that can be purchased in Gurps or 7th Sea.  In three pages of Organizing a Game 40-44 which offer instructions on how GMs should set up a story (again no mention of player participation) Kickers are mentioned in only 2 sentences.

Mention was made of the ability of a player to select the nature of his demon as being an Author stance power.  I have addressed that in another thread.

Ok, so enought about Author stance.  In first edition Sorcerer as written it doesn't exist.  Obviously Ron has greatly developed this portion of Sorcerer since...but until the rules are published they remain in the same status as house rules.  In other words I could write house rules that incorporate Author stance into Rolemaster.  That doesn't make the game suddenly become narrativist.  At any rate the point here is not to pigeon hole Sorcerer but to illustrate how the existing definition of Simulation doesn't work very well.

Next we'll address the chronological cause and effect of Simulations.



[ This Message was edited by: Valamir on 2001-05-26 13:55 ]

[Valamir]

This is part three of my analysis of Sorcerer as a simulation vs narrative game.  Again my point here is not about categorizing Sorcerer and totally about pointing out weaknesses in the definition of Simulation.

***Design: (1) system mechanics that act as final resolvers to a stated/established set of conditions. This concept is found in games as diverse as The Window and RoleMaster, and it is a direct contrast to "in the middle" mechanics like those in Hero Wars and Story Engine.

What I mean by this is that "announce action completely," "resolve success or failure," and "resolve outcome" are ALWAYS handled in precisely that order. The system OCCURS LAST in the resolution process. ***

This is something of a continuation of the previous post in the series addressing mechanics in game design more completely.  As I mentioned in the previous post Ron's intent for the game is to clearly NOT restrict actions to this cause and effect.  But the execution of the game as it is currently written very clearly does.

As by now anyone following this thread should have a pretty good idea where I'm going I'm going to try and keep this one brief.

Start with the list of modifiers of page 10:  Without exception they refer to applying modifiers to a roll when it is announced and before it is resolved.  First the task is announced.  Then modifiers to that roll are added and the roll is resolved.  Then the number of victories is determined.  This is precisely the same order as found in Ron's definition of a simulation.  There is no suggestion of making a roll and then describing what it means the way Story Engine does.

Then examine the examples and advice on page 44-45 Actual Play.  They are all of the above format.

---------------

Finally the point of it all:

NOTHING in Sorcerer disqualifies it from being a Simulation.  The exact same elements that promoters of GNS would use to label Rolemaster or RuneQuest as a Simulation apply to Sorcerer.  Yet Sorcerer is NOT categorized as a Simulation it is categorized as a Narrativist game.

Why?

Well to outside observers trying to condemn GNS, the answer is obvious.  Because GNS views Simulation as an inferior form of game play and since Sorcerer is Ron's game GNS people will go to great lengths to not let it fall into that category and instead fit it into the "prestigous" category of narrativist.

For those of us who know better such an arguement is clearly bullshit (but one we should be aware of and take pains to address if widespread acceptance of the model is a goal).

I submit that the answer to "Why?" is because the definition of Simulation is not a good one.  It is too subjective and thus too easy to catergorize a game as a simulation or not as a simulation based on personal preferences or incomplete understanding.

I submit further that this is not a situation that is resolvable by improving the definition of Simulation because one of the core problems of the current definition is that it is in direct conflict with the actual, original, widely held definition of what the word simulation means.  Refinement of the current definition will not solve the problem of having elements of the more traditional definition creeping in and confusing peoples understanding and analysis.

I would suggest that it is carry over impressions from the traditional definition regarding complex rules and goals of realism that are the primary contributor to the subjectivity of the definition.  Even though Rolemaster and Sorcerer both meet the same criteria, Rolemaster is a Simulation because it is complex and attempts to be "realistic" while Sorcerer does not.  These criteria are being used by GNS proponents to categorize games as simulation even though they are NOT part of the actual GNS definition of Simulation.  Even we get confused by it, no wonder the average newbie does too.

Further I submit, that the category itself is misunderstood.
I offer the following reasons as topics for discussion:

1) most of the current work as to what makes a game simulationist was done by people who are not only primarily narrativist in bent but self admittedly don't really understand the appeal of the category.

2) a great many games (most of the efforts of the 80s in fact) get thrown into the simulationist category.  Yet the definition of the goals of a simulationist PLAYER are held by such a defineable minority that there are those who claim that that type of player doesn't even exist.  Obviously if the type of players who are so completely simulationist are so few as to even generate such a claim there is a clear disconnect between the number of players of that style and the number of games catering to that style.  

There are ENORMOUS followings for games such as Rolemaster and GURPs and many of the games we'd call "simulationist".  Yet there are not enormous numbers of players who identify with the stringent definitions of what a simulationist player supposedly wants in a game.  I believe that this more than anything else is proof positive that the category of Simulationist as GNS defines it is fundamentally wrong.

3) What then accounts for the huge number of players who enjoy "simulationist" games when most of them are not playing them for what GNS would suggest are "simulationist player goals".  I offer Explorative play as a the missing feature of the GNS model.  These players are attracted to games that allow them to Explore setting, character, and situation...quite apart from the rigid requirements for simulationist play (which are truly alien to most players).

I shan't put forth a description of what Explorative play means, entails and involves, instead I direct your attention back to the GO Critical Hit forum where it is being currently discussed.  I will say it is MORE than just a facelift or a name change and it is probably NOT what you've been led to expect that it is.  Also it is very unambiguous in nature.

Sorcerer for example in its currrent written form is very clearly a Exploration of Character game.

I know that many here have grown tired of the constant rehashing of GNS.  Ron himself has expressed a strong desire to leave this part of the overall model behind for a while and concentrate now on other components like stance or currency.

I truely believe, however, that stance and currency CAN NOT be completely and accurately understood as long as the GNS model fails to account for what I believe to be one of the most common and prevelent player goals...Exploration in all its forms.  I also truely believe that it would not be so burdensome to explain GNS to new people if the category of Simulation which is extremely difficult to explain let alone comprehend were replaced with something far more intuitive to grasp.

I further hope that this will not be viewed as an attack, or a challenge to existing "authorities" on the topic, but a true belief of someone who's found in GNS an extraordinary tool, but believes that that tool is flawed in a way that will prevent its acceptance by the gaming public at large.

I welcome discussion:

And look Ron, I started a brand new thread :smile:

[ This Message was edited by: Valamir on 2001-05-26 14:00 ]

[Supplanter]

First off, Valamir, that was a fine series of posts. I don't really disagree with anything you say except on the level of premise. You've put together an impressive argument based on its controlling assumptions. Some responses:

1) I think that Ron's thinking has changed over time, influenced by his gamist emphasis on mechanics. When I read System Does Matter, it's strongest, most thoroughly demonstrated point seemed to be that system matters in a negative way - that is, the wrong system can prevent a style of play inimical to it. Frex, if your concern is story or character, six-step combat resolution mechanics are not only beside the point, they get in the way. Have you played the Blade Runner computer RPG? (If not, do so!) There is a point where your character has the option of shooting his boss. The point is the decision: shoot him and it says one thing about you, don't shoot him and it says another. Complicate the act of shooting itself and you marginalize what is supposed to be central - you remove attention from the question of murder to the mechanics of it.

Sorcerer seems designed to get the system out of the way of story. By doing so, it is at least partially successful at getting system out of the way of character, so it appeals to a non-narrativist, quasi-ellajatist (s?), stop-and-smell-the-rosist atomist role-player like me.

2) Sorc's design enables story in a way similar to Isaiah Berlin's principle of negative liberty (Bill of Rights type stuff). Ron's recent discussions show an interest in mechanics that are supposed to produce story, a la Berlin's positive liberty (welfare state stuff). I submit that it is by no means proven that the latter approach leads to better stories than the former approach. The design would be more purely narrativist, which would make, say, Sorcerer less appealing to someone like me. But actual game results are not guaranteed to be more vital and compelling, even from a perspective that priveleges story above all other values.

I sometimes think that whatever is most important to you in a game should not have rules for it.

3) Gamism is the elephant in the room here. The emphasis on mechanics of story production is a foregrounding of rules as such, that is, the most "gamey" part of a role-playing game. Take the Humanity score in Sorcerer, which is pure gamism. The Humanity score gains emphasis from one volume of the Sorcerer series of games to the next. Which is not to say that humanity as such gains emphasis.

(Note BTW, in line with your comments on where the authorial power lies, that the definition of what Humanity is is entirely the province of the GM. The rules as written don't contemplate a player being able to say, "Hey, Humanity may represent empathy for all these other schmucks, but my score represents my degree of conformance with Mosaic Law," let alone your telling another player what Humanity represents for his character.)

But the Humanity rules are fundamentally a matter of resource management. If your score gets too high, you have a hard time adding demons. If your score gets too low, you lose your character!

Let's focus on this last for a minute: WHY do you lose your character if Humanity reaches zero? Does the existence of such a character violate the integrity of the game world? No. The character continues to exist in the game world as an NPC. So simulation does not demand removing the zero or negative-Humanity character from player control. Does the existence of a zero or negative-Humanity character in the campaign preclude the generation of Story? No. In fact, there may well be such characters under the control of the gamemaster generating all sorts of story. There is, in principle, no reason why a zero/negative-Humanity character under the control of a player couldn't generate just as much story. Especially if we really don't fear player use of authorial power. So narrative does not demand removing the zero/negative-Humanity character from player control.

Can we imagine that there exists a Sorc player whose character reaches Humanity 0 who would rather not lose his character? Easily. Therefore, reaching Humanity 0 represents defeat for the player. Indeed, everything in the rules emphasizes that if you don't keep your Humanity up you will "lose" (there's that word) your character.

In classic, Gamist RPG fashion, victory = not losing. Didn't die in D&D tonight? You "won." Didn't lose all your SAN in CoC? You won. Didn't become an NPC in Sorc? You won.

So far we have come up with what are not reasons to strip the player of the zero/negative-Humanity character, but not reasons to so strip her. I can think of two possibilities right off the bat: 1) a sqeamishness factor. I do not gainsay this: there are all kinds of depravities I wouldn't enjoy GMing or witnessing in play. But that means Humanity is a punishment/reward system enforcing certain limits on player behavior. 2) a fairness factor: IOW, a sense that the zero-Humanity player might just have Too Much Fun freed from the constraints that still obtain for the other players in the game. They Can't, She Can.

So we're back to player fairness and the mechanics of reward and punishment, which is to say, we are as gamist as it gets.

4) Back in my RGFA days I tended to argue the opposite sides of these issues, and I recall a very relevant thread on whether Hero Points and Plot Points were inevitably metagame or not. It eddied into a specific discussion of how gamist was or was not Theatrix. I was waxing enthusiastic about Theatrix plot point mechanic, using as my example the Incredible Hulk. Why you could give the Hulk a strength of 10, I said, which would still mean that in the ordinary course of things, there would be things he couldn't lift, foes he couldn't knock out etc. But then you give him the descriptor "The Madder Hulk Gets, the Stronger Hulk Gets." Now, he can spend a plot point to activate the descriptor and lift that bigger thing or pummel that formerly unpummelable opponent. But why, the very polite and very sharp interlocutor wanted to know, do you need to bring plot points into it? Why not just have the descriptor, and a player who activates it as appropriate? Why do you have to spend a point for your character to get mad? Her point was that Theatrix' approach was very gamist, but that an emphsis on story did not require that approach.

I had no good answer for her then or now.

Best,


Jim

[greyorm]

Oh vey...here we go:

One it obviously should be a game most of us are familiar with, and two I used it as an example elsewhere and got a lot of negativity for the attempt.

I'm not sure when the dictionary started defining: "anyone who disagrees with me" as "negativity".

You made a statement, people didn't agree with your logic and dissected your argument.  You're trying to claim they did it because they're fussy Sorcerer fanboy religious fanatics of some sort?

Ridiculous.  Drop the 'oppressed serf' attitude, please.
If people disagree, they disagree, but they aren't doing so because they're trying to defend something they've emotionally invested in.  They're disagreeing because they DON'T AGREE with your A+B=C.

Frex, if you say A+B=C, and I can show that's not right and A+B/=C, I'm GOING TO argue it with you; not because I'm horrified that you could suggest such a thing, not because I'm being difficult or blind or childish, but because I find your logic suspect.

It's simple: If you can't deal with discussion or criticism of your ideas, don't discuss your ideas and open them up to criticism.

When I suggested that Sorcerer by the definitions of GNS is actually more of a Simulation than a Narrativist, game the reaction was just short of abject horror that I could think such a thing.

Abject horror?
The amount of straw in this getting rather thick...please leave scarecrows out of this.

This all reminds me of the story of the engineer who makes a stupid mistake and has it pointed out to him by his coworkers, who then goes and starts badmouthing as jackasses everyone who pointed out HIS mistake.

Now whether you actually did 'make a mistake' is still being discussed, but it is the same sort of situation here: you're raving because people disagreed with you, trying to make it seem that the only reason for disagreement was that the individuals dislike the idea instead of disliking the logic behind the idea.

Bad show.

Well to outside observers trying to condemn GNS, the answer is obvious. Because GNS views Simulation as an inferior form of game play and since Sorcerer is Ron's game GNS people will go to great lengths to not let it fall into that category and instead fit it into the "prestigous" category of narrativist.

I would need hip-waders to deal with this, and I don't own any...mainly my problem with it is this bit: "because GNS views Simulation as an inferior form of game play"

Talk about a loaded mischaracterization!  And yes, I recognize that some people do see it this way, but that doesn't change the fact that it is.

I've even discussed this very problem of outsider viewpoint before: If outside observers believe this, it isn't because the model says anything of the sort, implicitly or explicitly, it is the reader injecting personal thoughts/feelings/reactions into the model itself.
It is exactly similar to a fundamentalist Christian claiming that evolutionary theory encourages atheistic humanism and denies God.

The people who do this, reading "this is better than this" into the model, aren't reading the model objectively.  Plain and simple; they see it saying this because they WANT to see it, NOT because it is there.

For example, if you are married, you know this situation well, because you may argue with your wife about these sorts of things.  One of you will read something into the other's statements that they didn't say...not because it was implied, but because the listener mistakenly inferred it.

"Does this dress make me look fat?"
"No, it looks good!  Let's go!"
(This dress is yellow, I look awful in yellow, men always lie to their wives about the dresses they wear to make them hurry, ergo, my husband is lying!)
"You're lying!  I do look fat!"

(Similarly, don't go misreading my opposition to your use of the argument as a belief that you think the model says that... that would be putting a great many words into my mouth.)

So I find the argument (that because some people do a very human thing and misread the model) that the model is poorly phrased to be wrongheaded...I'll blame low reading comprehension before I blame the quality of writing, since this is the more probable cause.

_________________
Ravenscrye Grey Daegmorgan
http://www.daegmorgan.net/">http://www.daegmorgan.net/
"Homer, your growing insanity is starting to bother me."

[ This Message was edited by: greyorm on 2001-05-27 12:39 ]

[greyorm]

Gamism is the elephant in the room here. The emphasis on mechanics of story production is a foregrounding of rules as such...Take the Humanity score in Sorcerer, which is pure gamism...

Since Sorc's theme is about what makes a person human and how far they'll go to get power...how you balance the two...I'd argue the Humanity mechanic is a facilitator for narrative play since it is being used to support/reflect the conflict and theme mechanically.

At least, according to my current understanding of the use of the model, this is how it would be described as a narrative mechanic.  It appears the utilization and function of the mechanic are what is important in deciding what category it falls into (otherwise it seems all mechanics are essentially gamist).

I'm hoping Ron will pipe in if I've got this wrong.

[Supplanter]

Since Sorc's theme is about what makes a person human and how far they'll go to get power...how you balance the two...I'd argue the Humanity mechanic is a facilitator for narrative play since it is being used to support/reflect the conflict and theme mechanically.

Hi Raven. If at some point you want to actually make that argument as opposed to simply glossing it, feel free to join us in the Gamism and Mechanics thread. There the question has been addressed at a level of detail and a specificity of claim well beyond what Valamir and I posted on this thread. We even take on the question from the latter part of your post about whether, if Sorc's Humanity mechanic is "gamist," then any mechanic is gamist. (Cliffs Notes: No.)

Best,


Jim

[Valamir]

Raven...I have no desire to discuss your post with you.  You have stuffed far more strawmen into one message than I can even count and absolutely none of it is constructive.  Most of it in fact is pointless and counterproductive.  Personally, I find it most telling that you spend a lengthy post dissecting a couple of lines from 1 message of a 4 part thread while absolutely saying nothing regarding any of the rest.  In otherwords its nothing but the age old tactic of trying to find 1 or 2 sentences to take out of context and blast in an attempt to illegitimize the rest of the arguement, I had thought you were above such things.  I'm not interested in going there with you, I've come to expect a much higher calibre of post from you in particular and this forum in general.  I do find it odd though that while you spend many words attacking me for expressing that this opinion is out there and held by others you conveniently ignore the part where I agree with you in pointing out that such an attitude is total bullshit.

I also find it telling that while you claim that no one has expressed negativity towards the idea that everything has just been legitimate disagreement, that your post is nothing but negativity with no attempt at legitimate disagreement.

If you have something constructive to add please do so.  I was looking forward to the intellegent and informed debate that the Forge is famous for.

[I shall not retract, but chagrined by Clinton's admonishment I shall rephrase]

The arguement you've repeatedly given that "people who view the model as being degrading don't know what they're talking about so its their fault they feel offended and we're totally blameless" is niether enlightened nor productive.  Their perception is a mirror of your attitude.  Go back and read the last half dozen posts you've posted here.  THAT is why people find the model and its practitioners elitist.  You can't use a holier than thou, I'm giving you a lecture as if you were a six year old tone and then pretend you didn't mean to imply anything by it.

You need to seriously make up your mind as to what this model is for my friend.  If this model is meant to be nothing more than the special toy of a select few "insiders" than fine.  I'll be happy to depart because that would be a total waste of my time.  I'm not interested in being part of anyone's vanity project.

If, however, this model is meant to one day be in a position to influence for the better the way professional game designers design games and regular game players select games to buy, you'd better start recognizing that the perception of the "ignorant masses" is a heck of a lot more important than whatever "facts" you think you have on your side.  If they think you're a bunch of elitist snobs, than it makes absolutely no difference whether you actually are
or aren't.  Overcomeing a false perception is hard enough with out you feeding into it.  

If it were possible to do a head count I imagine you'd find that the members of this forum are significantly outnumbered by people who have been so turned off by their perception of your attitude that they want nothing more to do with GNS.  Whether their perception is accurate or not is irrelevent, either way it isn't good for the model today (because there are people with potentially deep insights who refuse to participate) and it isn't good for the model's eventual acceptance.

The fact that you seem entirely determined to absolutely refuse to be sensitive to this issue...to recognize that your words and way you speak them affect the way people percieve this model and this group,  absolutely baffles me.



[ This Message was edited by: Valamir on 2001-05-27 17:20 ]

[Clinton R. Nixon]

I can't believe I need to actually say this, but here's a few notes:

a) Don't be elitist.
b) Don't call someone elitist. It's an indefensible argument for both sides.
c) For Pete's sake, don't call someone's argument bullshit.
d) Don't give bullshit arguments. If you want to say something here, back it up.

e) There's no censorship to be had here at the Forge. I absolutely will not try to censor anyone just because I'm forum administrator. Most of you have much more important things to say than I do.

That said, the one ground rule I expect everyone to live by here is don't post when you feel angered. If you've read a post and you feel angry, repulsed, ignored, or slighted, don't post until you're over it. Posts written in passion benefit no one but yourself.

Be enlightened.

[greyorm]

You know, I shouldn't really even respond to this, because I think this is way over-the-top.  But it seems to me you're getting all twisted up when you make a statement and someone disagrees; you claim you're being wronged because someone deconstructs your premises or just one or two lines.  Well, if those one or two lines are wrong, they're wrong!  Don't take it personally.

As well, I've gone into detail on why I don't buy into "quacking to the ducks" elsewhere, so my thoughts on that subject are already known, certainly in regards to "elitism" and "attitudes."  Thus I'll stick to everything I have thus far argued here and elsewhere on that topic:
It is exactly similar to a fundamentalist Christian claiming that evolutionary theory encourages atheistic humanism and denies God.

It doesn't.  
It isn't a problem with the theory, the way the theory is stated or anything similar.  It doesn't make evolutionary theory the dirty-word elitist plaything of bright biologists or etc, etc, etc.
It is simply a problem with the reader expressing his own personal beliefs and attitudes into the theory itself.

Try and explain how the fundamentalist is wrong and you'll be told you are "holier than thou...giving [them] a lecture as if [they] were a six year old", exactly as you claim I am.

Ever try to explain evolutionary theory to someone who uses it to defend "survival of the fittest" as a morality?  You get the same response: anger, claims of elitism, personal attacks.

Why is it that when almost anyone that contradicts us or tries to explain anything to us is a threat?

Because one cannot find a cure for ignorance short of education.  And education is always "elitist", by definition.

Anyone smarter than you, more knowledgeable than you, unless you are willing to learn from that person, is a threat to you when you don't want to learn or abandon old conceptions.

Memes.  Resistance to change.
Alteration of beliefs, gathering new ones is NOT what the adult brain wants...it wants to reinforce the patterns it developed as a child due the survival instinct.
Anything that attempts to alter those patterns is a threat because survival could be compromised ("I know this and thus far I have survived because of it; I do not know if this new thing will allow me to survive so it is suspect").  Even when survival isn't an issue, this thought pattern comes up.
Lovely behavioral psychology, all stemming from before we stepped out of the trees.  A problematic artifact at times, but, yes, very useful, too.

But is that a problem with the model?
It doesn't make the model a 'vanity project', it doesn't mean the accuracy or relevancy of people's perceptions mean a thing in regards to the model.  It's Zen: "The grass is green."
The model is the model, no matter what people think about it.  Perception doesn't alter truth, so don't alter truth for perception.  That is, there will always be someone ignorant, someone who doesn't know about the model and chooses to misread it...that can't be the model's problem.

There isn't a problem with the wording in the model, there's a problem with the people reading the model and making uneducated assumptions about what they read...that's a problem.  Education about the assumptions is the only cure for that because the model is clear.
This is a problem in every field...and every field that does it is "elitist" too. Mathematics, physics, biology, computer science, literature, history, etc.

So, will readers want to learn more?  Maybe.  Some will never read it and still put it down, some will decide not to agree with it despite being told where their assumptions are wrong.
That's not a problem with the model.
It's not dirty-word elitist, either.
It just is.

I hope ou don't take something herein as an insult too, but there's nothing I can do about that except avoid posting...but since I'm not insulting you personally or stating anything unprovable, I'm going to post.

I'd like to avoid further insults if we could.
_________________
Ravenscrye Grey Daegmorgan
http://www.daegmorgan.net/">http://www.daegmorgan.net/
"Homer, your growing insanity is starting to bother me."

[ This Message was edited by: greyorm on 2001-05-27 20:04 ]

[greyorm]

Hi Raven. If at some point you want to actually make that argument as opposed to simply glossing it, feel free to join us in the Gamism and Mechanics thread.

Thanks, Jim, I'll check it out (just did...lots of reading), though I'll probably leave the making of the argument to Ron, as I'm not entirely certain I AM correct in this regard.
From a recent discussion about a mechanic I'd set-up for one of my games, I got the feeling that intended utilization of the mechanic is the determining factor in where it falls, but I'm not quite sure if that is an accurate gauge.  This is why I'm hoping Ron will speak up in regards to it.

[Gordon C. Landis]

It's late, and I haven't been feeling well this weekend, which made me miss out on a bunch of gaming, so appolgies if this comes across as grumpy and/or incoherent.  But . . . my overall impression at this point is that Valamir has put his finger on some of the core issues, but has overstated a number of points in service of . . . I'm not sure what, but the overstatement doesn't seem to help either his case nor the overall clarity of examination of the issues.  As background, I do NOT yet own Sorcerror, and am a "budding" (at best) Narartivist as it is described here.  Let me try quoting some bits that struck me and including my thoughts:

..[>> quoted bits from from Sorcerror, I assume - > from Valamir]..
>>"...what do you want? How far would you go? How far have
>>you gone already?"
>>"What price have you already paid? Faced with madess,
>>armed with madness, how do you hold on to your humanity?"
>>"What kind of crisis has driven you to immediate action,
>> Are you out for worldly gain, using sorcery merely as a
>> tool? Or are you an esoteric seeker probing at the fringes
>> of human understanding? Or are you desperate and driven,
>> perhaps for vengeance or battling against something
>> intolerably unjust?"

>ALL of the above is focused NOT on story but
>on experienceing what it is to be a sorcerer.

I could just as easily say (as Ron probably would say)  "ALL of the above is focused on how to tell a compelling story about Power, Humanity, and Other Capitol Letter Things".  That's not to say that it CAN'T be used for "experiencing what is to be a sorceror", but by no means MUST it be - to say it is NOT focused on story is just flat out wrong.

>Heres a particularly compelling line from the same section:
>>"Nothing--literally nothing--is more important than what you
>>want out of a situation..."

>In other words, the entire set up for the game, from introduction
>to instructions to players is to create a compelling character
>in an effort to experience what it is like to be that character.

". . . in an effort to tell the story described above".  A completely valid alteration.

So what does this show us?  Offhand (and remember those 1st-sentence caveats), I think the places Valamir is looking to answer his "Sorcerer is NOT categorized as a Simulation it is categorized as a Narrativist game - Why?" are insufficient to the task of anwering it.  He eliminates "intent" as a deciding factor - I'd disagree with its. elimination, but agree it can't be the be-all end-all.  He points to "execution" as the alternative . . . but most of the example he uses (esp. the examples I picked - and that's surely no coincidence :wink:) aren't REALLY about execution - in the sense of something that FORCES (or even strongly biases) things into a non-Narrativist direction.  The fact that they could also (perhaps) be used to further Simulative ends doesn't invalidate their Narrativism.

Not owning Sorceror, I can't comment on the "overall" emphasis of the system, nor on some of Valamir's direct claims of "lack of Author stance support" and etc.  Valamir claims " . . . the point here is not to pigeon hole Sorcerer but to illustrate how the existing definition of Simulation doesn't work very well".  I'm not sure the problem is in the definition - it may well be in how to apply it.  I'm not certain of this, and I have my own questions about the defintion(s) itself, but I definitely see Valamir and other APPLYING it in invalid ways.  So I'm not prepared (yet, anyway) to agree that the definition is bad.

Uhm. I think I'm repeating myself . . . hope this is useful.  Tomorrow is another day.

Gorodn C. Landis

[Valamir]

So what does this show us?  Offhand (and remember those 1st-sentence caveats), I think the places Valamir is looking to answer his "Sorcerer is NOT categorized as a Simulation it is categorized as a Narrativist game - Why?" are insufficient to the task of anwering it.  He eliminates "intent" as a deciding factor - I'd disagree with its. elimination, but agree it can't be the be-all end-all.  He points to "execution" as the alternative . . . but most of the example he uses (esp. the examples I picked - and that's surely no coincidence :wink:) aren't REALLY about execution - in the sense of something that FORCES (or even strongly biases) things into a non-Narrativist direction.  The fact that they could also (perhaps) be used to further Simulative ends doesn't invalidate their Narrativism.

Uhm. I think I'm repeating myself . . . hope this is useful.  Tomorrow is another day.

Gorodn C. Landis

Its very useful and precisely the kind of discussion I was hoping to establish.  You statement that my quotes don't force a simulationist style of play are quite true.  They merely suggest it.  But, I think the opposite is also true, they don't force a narrativist style play either.

That really is the core concept I wanted to convey. Perhaps in my effort to be all encompassing I became too long winded and that concept got lost.  Perhaps rephrasing the question would help some.  

"What element in Sorcerer...in the actual rules of Sorcerer, qualify it as a Narrativist game."

My posts to start this thread were an attempt to outline how I did not find anything specific (in the rules) that clearly placed it in the Narrativist category.  In fact, it would seem that the game could at least equally qualify as a Simulation (I actually believe its more qualified to be a simulation).  What is it then that places Sorcerer in the Narrativist category instead.

My conclusion, because I could not find any answer to this in the rules, is that the choice of category was a subjective one.  I merely was using this one game as an example to demonstrate the level of subjectivity inherent in the category's definition. It is that subjectivity I'm looking to change (not Sorcerer).  

As far as Intent vs Execution, here's are my thoughts on that.  If we are talking about play style, than intent matters because intent can offer guidance to the play group which can alter the way the play group chooses to play.  However, when evaluating the game itself I believe only the actual execution of that intent (the rules as written) can be used.  The reason I feel this way is two fold.

1) Intent doesn't change the rules, but it can change the way a play group uses or interprets the rules.  However, since each group can have their own interpretation or choose to ignore the stated intent entirely, evaluating a games *design* based on how certain play groups use the game is a very subjective process, akin to evaluating a game based on a certain set of house rules.  The playgroups experience clearly gives examples of how the game CAN be used but that to me is not the same thing as trying to objectively analyse the game design itself.

2) I think Execution *should* follow intent the way Form follows Function.  If a designer had a certain intent when designing the game *and* he designed the game well, then the games rules should support that intention.  Thus, by evaluating Execution, Intent is also accounted for (in a well designed game).  On the other hand if the Execution does not support the Intent, the design can be said to be a failure (at least at that level).  This would be akin to designing a cooking pot, but then discovering that the pot won't hold holder.  Its Form was incompatable with its Function, so therefor the design is a failure (as a cooking pot anyway).  However, that doesn't preclude using the design for something it is better suited to and evaluating it that way.  That failed cooking pot may make an exceptional flower pot.  However, if we look to hard at Intent we may never see that as it was not intended to be a flower pot.  For these reasons I feel that when evaluating a games design actual Execution should be the standard used.

It is on the basis of that belief in Execution over Intent that I chose to evaluate Sorcerer on the grounds of the rules as written, discounting anecdotes about how individual play groups may have changed the rules for their own purposes.

As an example of this, I offer Fortune in the Middle mechanics.  There is a thread on the GO Sorcerer forum currently instructing new player to think in terms of Fortune in the Middle mechanics...clearly a very Narrativist Tool (and one with alot of value for Sorcerer games).  However, there is no place in the rules at all where such a use is encouraged or suggested.  All game mechanics examples are very firmly Fortune at the End in the actual rules.  This is why I discounted such anecdotes.  I was attempting to analyse the game itself, not the game + house rules.

Now, as I mentioned before I'm aware that much of Sorcerer was written before the terminology was developed so I understand that the actual verbage isn't going to be in there.  I also expect that with Second Edition, we will see the rules to Sorcerer completely rewritten to include many of these advanced narrativist techniques that have been codified since 1998.  However, the Second Edition was a relatively recent announcement and Sorcerer was considered narrativist long before that so I did not include that in my analysis either.

[Mike Holmes]

OK, you've convinced me; Sorcerer is Simulationist.

OK, before I get slammed for not understanding the argument, the above is tongue-in-cheek. To an extent. What I mean to say is that maybe there are more Simulationist elements in first edition Sorcerer than Ron would like to admit. It was developed a while ago, and may suffer from a design that intends to be Narrativist, but has Simulationist elements as many Narrativist elements had not been developed yet. Just like, say, Vampire, but not as bad. As I've said before, by the current definition, Narrativist describes the actual mechanics of very few games at the moment. This does not invalidate the goal.

And yet, I can see the other POV as well, that Sorcerer is Narrativist. There is definite evidence. I happened to be one of those people who are cursed by being able to see both sides of an argument as equally valid. And everyone is making some good arguments here each way.

Next consider that we have somebody describing just about every game with any mechanics as Gamist (OK that's an overstatement, but he says Sorcerer is Gamist). So this makes Sorcerer Gamist, theoretically.

My conclusion? What this really seems to represent is what James was trying to say in the thread below about "rotating axes". That from certain perspectives these definitions can be used to describe most any game as most any style. (BTW, this seems to me to potentially indicate a bias, but that's not up for discussion here).

But this doesn't change the fact that the axes still exist. To say otherwise is to chuck the entire model and begin anew. And just because we all see particular games in a slightly different light doesn't mean that the threefold model of axes cannot be applied effectively in either game design, choice of style, or matching players (and GMs) to games.

The fact that Narrativist and Gamist are equally as potentially confusing as Simulationist should be proof that Simulationist is no less well defined than the others, and, threfore, in no more need of adjustment.

I still think explorationist is sexier, though. ; - )

Mike Holmes