Simulation and Subjectivity

[Jared A. Sorensen]

I don't buy it.

Name another game that you could run using the Sorcerer rules, as written -- yes, that includes demons and Humanity (which I contend are NOT plug-ins the way "fantasy magic" or "cyberware" or "anime superheroes" or "vampires" are plug-ins to existing Simulationist systems).

Even if the setting changes, the Premise remains the same -- it's integral to the game and that is what makes it Narrativist.

Explorative, while being a cute term, is bunk.  It describes player/GM goals.  Hell, using Explorative as a term, then ANY RPG is explorative -- even a game like Puppetland or Dying Earth or Stuporpowers.

- J

[GreatWolf]

On 2001-05-29 19:44, Jared A. Sorensen wrote:
I don't buy it.

Name another game that you could run using the Sorcerer rules, as written -- yes, that includes demons and Humanity (which I contend are NOT plug-ins the way "fantasy magic" or "cyberware" or "anime superheroes" or "vampires" are plug-ins to existing Simulationist systems).

But that's not the point.  Whether or not you could use the Sorcerer system (including demons and Humanity) to run another game is irrelevant.  Simulationism (Explorationism) is not defined by whether or not the rules system can be plugged into a different genre.

One could make the same challenge regarding Vampire.  "Name me one game that you can play using the Vampire rules--yes, that means Humanity and Blood Pool and Disciplines and all."

Even if the setting changes, the Premise remains the same -- it's integral to the game and that is what makes it Narrativist.

Vampire:  The Dark Ages.  Setting changes, Premise stays the same.  Is Vampire Narrativist?  I think that we both agree that it is not.

Explorative, while being a cute term, is bunk.  It describes player/GM goals.  Hell, using Explorative as a term, then ANY RPG is explorative -- even a game like Puppetland or Dying Earth or Stuporpowers.

I agree with Valamir that design follows from player/GM goals, just like form follows function.  Mechanical design and gaming group goals are not severable.

But ironically, all this proves Valamir's original point.  Simulationism is not well-defined in the current GNS paradigm.
_________________
Seth Ben-Ezra
http://darkomengames.bizland.com">Dark Omen Games

[ This Message was edited by: GreatWolf on 2001-05-29 22:30 ]

[Clinton R. Nixon]

On 2001-05-29 20:38, GreatWolf wrote:

Vampire:  The Dark Ages.  Setting changes, Premise stays the same.  Is Vampire Narrativist?  I think that we both agree that it is not.

The Premise doesn't stay the same. Vampire: The Masquerade is about being something outside of humanity and outside of this world, and the emptiness of that loss. V:tM asks what it is to be human, no matter how it's actually played. Vampire: The Dark Ages is gothic drama, and is about being the archetype of the time's worst nightmares.

Anyway...

I agree with Valamir that design follows from player/GM goals, just like form follows function.  Mechanical design and gaming group goals are not severable.

This twists Jared's point a little: he said that Explorative is strictly a player/GM goal. Players and GM's have definite goals, no matter what the design: fun, self-discovery, exploring a rich background, group therapy, or whatever. This is definitely a different 'node' than design on what makes up an RPG experience.

[Jared A. Sorensen]

But that's not the point. Whether or not you could use the Sorcerer system (including demons and Humanity) to run another game is irrelevant. Simulationism (Explorationism) is not defined by whether or not the rules system can be plugged into a different genre.

One could make the same challenge regarding Vampire. "Name me one game that you can play using the Vampire rules--yes, that means Humanity and Blood Pool and Disciplines and all."

Immaterial.  Vampire is not a narrativist game.  If it was, it certainly wouldn't require blood points or disciplines.  it would only require virtues, humanity and willpower.

Sorcerer cannot be played with humanity/demons because the game is ABOUT humanity and demons.  Period, end of story.

And Clinton is spot on re: Dark Ages.

_________________
jared a. sorensen / http://www.memento-mori.com
indie game design from beyond the grave

[ This Message was edited by: Jared A. Sorensen on 2001-05-29 23:18 ]

[Paul Czege]

Hey Jared,

Vampire is not a narrativist game. If it was, it certainly wouldn't require blood points or disciplines. it would only require virtues, humanity and willpower.

This is a good point. Although I do think there's latent Narrative value in the blood points, the execution undermines that by being too Gamist. In the game as designed, blood points are power ups without any real thematic context. The idea that your enhanced strength is based on taking the strength of someone else should have a more direct and personal linkage to Humanity.

Paul

[james_west]

The original goal of this thread seems to be to clarify the difference between simulationism and narrativism. Given that most things in life, and G/N/S certainly included, are easier to provide paradigms for than to define, here are my paradigms:

In the unattainable ideal for a simulationist game, the GM knows absolutely everything that's going on in the setting. These things are fixed, except perhaps as they would naturally evolve over time, and only change either in response to PC actions or as they would change according to the internal rules of the setting (ie, the GM may have the villains actions planned out, and these proceed in the absence of PC interference). PC stance is firmly fixed in "actor" mode. In my experience, the big problem with strict simulationism is that usually the GM only has an interesting thing going on in one part of the setting, and if the PCs miss it, or miss a critical clue, nothing at all interesting happens, and it gets friggin' dull.

The ideal for a narrativist game involves a group of aggressively creative players who make up a beautiful, consistent, thematically satisfying story on the spot, with the GM's input being limited to his use as a sounding board. The big problem with narrativist games is that, unless your game group consists of Shakespeare and the entire cast of "Who's Line is it, anyway?" they probably don't have nearly that level of initiative. Even the "Who's line ?" guys require a starting situation ... so, again, nothing happens.

The ideal for a gamist game involves the GM producing a set of challenges finely tuned to require both clever play on the part of the players and clever design on the part of their characters. The main problem with these is that unless you have the Imperial War College working on your scenarios in their spare time, one fight tends to look like another, your "shoot" and "dodge" skills are all you need, and they're pretty easy to minmax. At least stuff's always happening ...

I have to say, then, that purists in any of these memes drive me buggy, and lead to dull games. I strongly suspect that some of the most satisfying sessions of any game are based on a combination of these elements. It's which one's dominant, and in what combinations, that differentiate interests.

Back to Valamir's original point:
Put in these terms, exploration of setting is usually going to be simulationist in nature, while exploration of character can be either simulationist or narrativist (depending on how you go about it.).

However, I think that basically what the issue here is is related to what I was talking about in my 'game space' essay: G/N/S is a set of vectors that define a space. You can define other quite different vectors that define the same space (I can recreate your 'explorative' vector with a combination of narrativism and simulationism). This doesn't mean that your vector is inferior; I haven't read the article in GO, but I presume that if the system is well designed, you can recreate any G/N/S example using it instead. Am I convinced that G/N/S is the best possible set of vectors for defining the space ? No, although I'm not convinced they're -not-, either. Further, I guess I've met a LOT of people (most people who aren't explicitly gamist) who are explicitly simulationist. So I guess I feel that they're fairly workable, and a reasonable jumping off point.


                              - James

P.S. I have to stress that these aren't definitions; they're paradigms, examples that fall very clearly into each meme. Can you change them and remain within the meme ? Very likely. Just the more you change them, the more they start to look like another of them.

[greyorm]

Something about the discussion in general has been bothering me...I can't put my finger on it, but I had it on the tip of my tongue earlier tonight and lost it.
It's related to the whole 'axis-shift' of the game depending on how its viewed/played, and using the mechanics to determine whether a game is within a certain category or not.
There's something major that's being overlooked or forgotten about that would change the whole paradigm of discussion.

I know, I know...this isn't incredibly useful, or even slightly so, but I felt I had to bring this up in case anyone else is experiencing this uncomfortable feeling as well, or in case it sparks someone into trying to think about the situation in a new light.

[Logan]

I've had a similar feeling with respect to some games. The thing is, you can't use any individual mechanic in isolation to determine a game's emphasis because any given mechanic can support any given emphasis (G, N or S) depending on the designer's intent. Instead, you really must look at the bulk of the mechanics as a whole with respect to the designer's stated intent to get a sense of the game's overall emphasis.

The limitation here is that GMs and players can subtly (or not so subtly) alter the designer's intent for a game by applying their own emphasis to it. Deleting certain rules or tweaking other rules can really change the character of a game. Mike Holmes pointed this out very clearly with GURPS. Dump the point-counting system for char gen, and GURPS loses most of its Gamist thrust. It then becomes a much more effective platform for Simulationist play.

All that said, I must add that intent clearly does matter. So does the expression of that intent. It's easy to look at individual mechanics from a game like Sorcerer and say, "This mechanic does this. Therefore, the result is THIS." Well, if you look at an individual mechanic, you can say that, but you're probably wrong. You really need to look at the sum total of all mechanics.

With respect to Sorcerer, read the character design section and especially Chapter 7. The Narrativist intent is there, and the bulk of the mechanics support it. Maybe the earlier edition of the game doesn't express Ron's vision as well as the print version will. Maybe for now you also really need to look at the Sorcerer discussions to get the complete picture. Maybe you still want Sorcerer's Soul to see how some of the game's best concepts really fit into the big picture. This is somewhat inconvenient, but in this case, it doesn't hurt anything. First and foremost, as presented, Sorcerer is a playable game with a lot of potential. Now, let's tell the truth: A game that's available only as a PDF on the internet is really only available to players with internet access. Those people are going to look at the online discussion and they're going to ask their questions. Even if the last set of rules isn't as updated as it could be, the current state of the Sorcerer game is pretty accessible, and it's pretty obvious that it's a Narrative-oriented game. As far as I'm concerned, that's the context for evaluating Sorcerer.

If I have found one annoying, recurring source of irritation in these 3-fold discussions, it's that people just love to take things out of context and twist them into something else. It doesn't just happen here. It's everywhere. It's pointless, and 9 times out of 10, the people doing it know they're doing it and they do it just to be annoying. I have 2 words for everyone doing that: STOP IT! :wink:

Thank you and good night.

Best,

Logan

[Mytholder]

Jared wrote

Explorative, while being a cute term, is bunk. It describes player/GM goals. Hell, using Explorative as a term, then ANY RPG is explorative -- even a game like Puppetland or Dying Earth or Stuporpowers.

I've always thought that Explorative was more a style of play...and that G/N/S was best used to describe styles of play. This whole discussion shows that mechanics and design alone don't determine how a game is played (you can play Sorcerer as a Simulationist game, although I think the strong premise makes it more suited to Narrativist players).  

[Logan]

I'm with Mytholder on this one. The whole Explorative/Explorationist term takes aspects of the Simulationist definition and makes them the emphasis. The term Simulationist as we use it doesn't negate the "Explorative" aspects, but it emphasizes the "Simulative" aspects. Explorationist as it's been expressed... I think it does try to negate or suppress the Simulative aspects of gaming, because it's really a term brought out to express the whole Elaytijist, deep in-character immersion style of play mostly used in LARPs. At least, it seems the people who most want the label change seem most attuned to that idea.

One of the interesting pitfalls produced in the entire Explorative/Elaytijist branch of the debate is the idea that "In-Character mode is Exploration of Character. Any time you use In-Character mode, you're  Exploring Character, so all games must be Explorative or Simulationist." Now, this is just the impression I have from reading many posts, and I've condensed it. I've stumbled into the thing myself. For a while, I was looking at the enforced In-Character stance found in Puppetland and saying, "Gee, I wonder if Puppetland really is an Explorative game, not Narrative?" Then I realized, that's not the way it is at all.

A player can be In-Character or Out-of-Character in any Stance and in any sort of game. Being in-character does not automatically mean the game is a simulation or that primary emphasis is on exploration of character any more than having a story in an RPG automatically makes the thing Narrativist. Again, it's context and the intent of designer, GM, and players.

The Elaytijists are an extreme and singular example of one style of play. You really can't point at them and say, "This is what Simulationist (or even Explorationist) play is all about." They've made simulation of character with enforced in-character mode their sole mechanism for play. But consider this: Their "other" goal is to help the GM realize his vision for the game, and they're supposed to make allowances for that. Also consider that if you follow the polarized Elaytijist/Explorationist vector to its logical conclusion, guys like Mike Holmes, people who really embody the spirit of Simulationism (but who think Explorationism sounds sexier) get left pretty much out in the cold.

So this begs questions. Who are the Explorationists? What do the Explorationists want? Are the Explorationists actually Simulationists with a shiny coat of paint, or are the Explorationists actually a reaction to the conventions of Simulationism seeking their very own corner in a Manifold model?

I will front-load this. I don't care which term is used. I do care about what the term means. I think the Elaytijists are at one end of the Sim/Exp range, while the rules-heavy, detail-layered World Simulationists are at the other. In between, you have a lot of possibilities. I also think the Elaytijist method of play is too limited, too rigidly defined to be a corner on the model. That's my opinion. What's your opinion?

Best,

Logan

[Logan]

(It was suggested on RPGNet that I make this challenge to Ron to see the result, but I can't imagine anyone making the effort for something that would gave so little benefit)

Bottom line, Brian, you didn't take the challenge. That's fine, but it's curious that you posted a request for his e-mail address and then didn't even contact him. I was curious and I downloaded your game. From a surface scan, it looks well-developed, it reads well, and you've made no secret about your intentions. The rules are far, far too heavy for my taste. Yet even without Design Notes, I think people can see where you placed your emphasis.

Again, you can't look at any one mechanic and use it to determine intent of a game. It's the sum total of the mechanics combined with expressed intent, and that intent is still subject to the interpretations and preferences of the GM and players.

Best,

Logan

[ This Message was edited by: Logan on 2001-05-30 10:28 ]

[Valamir]

On 2001-05-30 09:57, Logan wrote:
So this begs questions. Who are the Explorationists? What do the Explorationists want? Are the Explorationists actually Simulationists with a shiny coat of paint, or are the Explorationists actually a reaction to the conventions of Simulationism seeking their very own corner in a Manifold model?

Well, I can't speak for how others have used the term, but I can attempt to address how I see it being used in the GEN model currently being developed on GO.  I will caveat that by saying I'm but a student of the model not its creator, and to a large extent its a work in progress, so I may not have every detail correct or current.

The GEN model takes something of a reverse approach to the style model.  Rather than starting by trying to identify what category different games fall into, it starts by identifying different styles of play.  The GEN model is meant from the beginning to be have practical applications for Game Designers.  It seeks to provide a level of understanding and a "tool box" if you will that will help current game designers create games which match their target audience.  In other words to offer guidance in making sure Execution matches Intent.

Thus, the first step is to identify how games are played and what motivates players to play a game.  The three broad styles of the model are Gamist, Explorationist, and Narrativist but there are several sub categories of each so I encourage interested parties to check out the threads on GO's Critical Hit forum.  Step two is to identify the various Stances (or Modes of Play) that players take on when actually playing.  Step three is to identify various mechanics that promote specific styles and modes of play, as well as those mechanics that interfere with specific styles and modes of play.  The two broad categories of mechanics being Resolution Mechanics (including emphasis on Search and Handling time and different "dials") and Reward Mechanics (what activities is the player/character rewarded for, what form does that reward take, and how is the reward "spent")

The purpose behind all of this is so that a game designer can create a game with a certain style and stance in mind and use the model to influence his choices of mechanics, drawing upon those that promote the desired style, and avoiding those that can conflict with the design goals.

In my oppinion one of the key advantages of this approach is that it avoids problems of regression analysis.  In other words if you have a model which takes a universe of games and attempts to fit those games into certain categories based on some idea of "best fit" you wind up with a number of outliers that don't fit very well and alot of subjectivity as to where those outliers should go.  Additionally since many of these games were designed without a clear idea of the relationship between form and function many of them are "dysfunctional" in the sense that Execution does not match Intent (as with the ubiquitous Vampire example, or similarly 1st Ed Blue Planet). Basing the categories on a universe of games in which many of the games are "dysfunctional" (for lack of a better word) can lead to dysfunctional categories, which can limit their utility.  What GEN attempts to do is match Intent with Execution, therefor it is quite useful at identifying where a game "went wrong" in terms of failing to deliver on its intentions.

Where Simulation comes into GEN is as a second stage of style if you will, seperate from but not existing independently of the G-E-N distinctions.   It is a means of identifying a certain level of detail, specifically with regards to game mechanics, as opposed to more abstract (or cinemagraphic) approach.

For instance D&D is a very gamist game.  However its mechanics are very abstract...an example of Design for Effect, if you will.  Armor and Hitpoints work in the sense that the in the end the net effect is that armor reduces the likely hood of injury, and skilled combatants (having more HPs) have a higher chance of survival.  Rolemaster on the other hand is also really a Gamist game.  The major goals of Rolemaster are still overcoming obstacles acquiring treasure, surviving and improving the character.  However, Rolemaster takes a more simulationist approach, it is an example of Design for Cause.  There is a clear attempt to make armor and injury behave in a more realistic fashion.  Thus, even though the final destination is the same, the path taken is much different.  D&D is a Gamist game with Abstract mechanics, while Rolemaster is a Gamist game with Simulationist mechanics.

In this sense the term Simulation is different from the way it is used in GNS, it in fact is closer in to the traditional definition of Simulation.

Much of what GNS might call Simulation is in fact part of Exploration.  The desire to discover what it would be like to be an Arthurian knight or a hero of Glorantha, for instance is considered to be an Exploration of Setting style.  However, this is deeper than just a superficial name change.  Under GNS this motivation would be seen as a desire to Simulate that setting, however, it would then come with a great deal of additional restrictive baggage (which I've discussed in detail elsewhere).  Under GNS, the desire to Simulate that setting would prohibit Author stance and require the use of what Ron describes as chronological cause and effect mechanics.  Under GEN, no such restrictions exists.  A game can be designed with the Exploration of Setting in mind that takes full advantage of Author and Directoral powers and Fortune in the Middle style mechanics, OR which requires rigid adherance to Actor/Possesser Stance, and Fortune at the end mechanics: depending on where the Simulation vs Abstract scale is dialed to.

So yes, pretty much every game GNS can categorize can be categorized under GEN, but not at a simple 1 to 1 correlation.  Many games GNS might call simulations GEN would call Gamist with Simulative mechanics.  Some games GEN might call Narrative GEN might call Explorative with Abstract mechanics.  However, since the purpose of GEN is not so much to categorize existing games but to provide tools for creating them this effort is really secondary. Alos, many games would be categorized differently under GEN depending on whether the game's INTENT was being evaluated or whether its EXECUTION is...it is these games I was referring to as "dysfunctional" above (although that is certainly not the best word as it rather perjorative, I'd be open to suggestions on a more appropriate word to use).

At any rate, I hope that makes things a little clearer, demonstrates that this is more than just a name change for the sake of changeing the name, and hopefully encourages some cross participation over at GO.

[Logan]

I'll probably hear from Jester for saying this, but Jester's model is really Jester's model. It's its own entity independent from but dependent on both Ron's model and the rgfa model. He did pretty much what I predicted he would do, and I salute him for that. OTOH, as much as I respect Jester's work, admire his passion for the topic, and value his insight, it doesn't really help very much.

I'm specifically interested in what people are thinking with respect to Simulationism and the possibility of adding Exploration to our lexicon here, either as a new term with its own ramifications or as a replacement for Simulationism. At this point, I'm specifically not using information from his freshly-minted GENder model. I'm only using what is already known about our model and what you and others have added to the debate here. I don't think this discussion is anywhere near over, but I would like to see some sign that it is moving forward.

Best,

Logan

[Valamir]

I'm not sure I understand your position here Logan.  On the one hand you point (correctly) to the idea that the GEN model was influenced by GNS and earlier work, yet then you suggest that its not helpful to have GNS be influenced by GEN's work.

On the one hand you ask an open ended question about what role Exploration should or shouldn't have in the context of GNS but on the other you express reluctance to draw ideas and information from the source that has probably done the most work regarding what Exploration is.

I would think that a cross pollination of ideas would be extremely productive.  Why don't you see it that way?

[Logan]

Everything in its turn. Cross-pollination is fine, but my current priority is on the discussion here and on the reference doc.

Best,

Logan