Simulation and Subjectivity

[Clinton R. Nixon]

Bolt Factory, a short allegory

There was once a bolt factory where they made bolts for anyone to use. The owner of the factory had thought long and hard about it and decided people needed three things to fasten stuff with bolts--actual bolts, nuts, and washers.

One day, though, the oldest guy in the factory retired, and the owner had to look for a new hand on the line. He interviewed dozens of people, and thought he'd found the right guy--the guy knew a heck of a lot about bolts--but he kept referring to them as screws.

"Why in the world do you keep calling those bolts screws?" the owner asked.

"That's what they are--you put a washer on and screw it into the nut," the new guy said.

The owner thought long and hard about this, and guessed the new guy was sort of right--you did screw the bolts into the nuts.

But then the new guy started taking orders. Old customers didn't know what to say when he kept calling the bolts 'screws,' and new customers kept getting surprised when they ordered 'screws' and got bolts.

In the end, the boss had to fire the new guy. The new guy asked why, and the owner said:

You seem to know a heck of a lot about screws, but that ain't what we're selling here.



In other news, could people please stop saying things like:

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

Think about this for a second. This is a carefully crafted piece of debate that can't be deflected. On the one hand, someone could say, "I do see it that way," and suddenly you're in agreement. On the other, you could stick by your point, and then be accused of not being open to 'cross pollination of ideas.'

Please, debate and learn. This isn't the place to win, though, but learn. Keep that in mind.

[Valamir]

On 2001-05-30 15:33, Clinton R Nixon wrote:

In other news, could people please stop saying things like:

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

Think about this for a second. This is a carefully crafted piece of debate that can't be deflected. On the one hand, someone could say, "I do see it that way," and suddenly you're in agreement. On the other, you could stick by your point, and then be accused of not being open to 'cross pollination of ideas.'

Please, debate and learn. This isn't the place to win, though, but learn. Keep that in mind.

Now hold on one second there Clinton.  No way am I going to let that slide without comment.

Logan asked a question about what Exploration is.  Who Explorationists are and what they want.  I offered information on where a lot of discussion regarding Exploration is going on right now and what is being said about it.  In fact there is a whole treatise on what it is, who they are, and what they want over on GO, including testimonials from folks who say "yeah that describes me exactly".  In other words a perfect source to draw upon when seeking to answer this question.

Logan than responded with what amounts to "thats nice, but I'm not really interested in what they are saying about it over there".

My reply was no "carefully crafted piece of debate" meant as a catch 22 trap, but a valid query as to why the information being discussed "over there" isn't acceptable (in Logan's opinion) for consideration "over here".  

His answer seems to indicate that first the Forge needs to determine its own definition of Exploration and whether or not there is any validity to it before listening to what people elsewhere think about it.  This makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever, especially in light of the previous eagerness Logan displayed to new updates from John Kim & Co.

As for the learning vs. winning remark: Certain that you meant that only in the most constructive and universally applicable way, I suggest we apply the advice immediately.

Over on GO there is an entire discussion on what Exploration means.  Rather than pretend its not there, may I suggest the following:  "Please, debate and learn"

[ This Message was edited by: Valamir on 2001-05-30 16:13 ]

[Clinton R. Nixon]

First, I need to establish a new login, so we can differenciate between what I say as "Clinton the kind-of-quasi-administrator" and "Clinton the forum poster."

All previous posts in this thread are done as "Clinton the forum poster" (besides the 'debate and learn clause') and I'll have an admin login soon.

Ok:
Brian said, "But I thought you had a higher goal in mind then inbreeding."

As Clinton the forum poster, I reply, "Not really." Seriously. This ties in directly with Valamir giving me a dressing down about ignoring a Explorative discussion over at GO.

If I was at all interested in the opinions of the people at GO on game design, I'd spend my time on that forum and not this one.

A lot of people have been throwing around the word elitist recently. No one's owned up to that so far, but I will. I am elitist. I think a small group of people can come up with a better theory than the soupy morass created by many. I think this 'everybody jump in the GNS discussion and define our own version of GNS' madness is infuriating, and it's stopped me from posting much on the board that I host, much less some monster pool of crack-headed-ness like GO.

I've studied the GNS model we have here. I agree with it fully. I don't think every game can fit into it. Furthermore, I think any game that can't fit into it is flawed.

I'm interested in discussing this with a small group of like-minded people. I'm not interested in re-hashing the same topic we have been re-hashing for two years: "GNS: Yea or Nay? How can we improve it?"

Maybe one re-naming would be a good idea: what I refer to as GNS is now officially the "Ron Edwards G/N/S model". And as far as I'm concerned--and I think quite a few would agree with me--that model's complete. If you want a new model of your own, I do think that's a worthy enterprise--but make it your own and don't try to wedge pieces of it in this one.

There. That didn't accomplish a thing. I'm going to cease posting now. Have fun making a mess.

In other news, if anyone wants to be a forum administrator, e-mail me.

_________________
Clinton R. Nixon
indie-rpgs.com webmaster
http://www.acid-reflex.com">www.acid-reflex.com

[ This Message was edited by: Clinton R Nixon on 2001-05-30 18:14 ]

[joshua neff]

i have to admit, i agree w/ clinton--i feel i have a pretty good grasp of what "gamist", "narrativist", & "simulationist" is, & i'm not all that interested in debating or arguing about it anymore (which is why i've stayed out of this thread--tho for the record, i do not think "sorcerer" is simulationist, i think it's narrativist, in a very similar way to one of its influences, "over the edge")...
i realize that adds nothing to this thread, i just felt like saying it...
now, i am very interested in discussing ways of creating & running games that are aimed primarily at one of the three methods/goals--creating a narrativist game, or running a narrativist game...i'd love to see more written on ways to successfully create & run a gamist game, or a simulationist game...but arguing over what each word means gets really tiresome after a while & starts to become really academic (in the negative sense of the word)...


[ This Message was edited by: joshua neff on 2001-05-30 21:33 ]

[Valamir]

Heh.  Well, Clinton, as you probably know I 100% completely disagree with you.  

But I also 100% completely respect you for coming right out and making this post in no uncertain terms.  I have a feeling that the above attitude is exactly the impression alot of visitors to the Forge have recieved and labeled as elitist.  I applaud you for stateing clearly those feelings which seem to be ubiquitous here despite protestations to the contrary.

I much prefer knowing exactly where I stand rather than being left confused and frustration.

I've stated before that my suggestions were made with the idea of making the model more wide spread and broadly accepted, and that they weren't necessarily applicable if there was no such desire.  Thank you for letting me know that there is no such desire, too bad you didn't express this earlier so I could have avoided wasting so much time and effort.

I will say this:

I totally disagree with the assumption that a small group is by definition more effective than a large one.  I think here it has led to a great case of missing the forest for the trees.

I disagree that the model can categorize most games/gamers and those it can't are flawed.  I think Explorative style play is not only valid but probably has more practitioners than either narrativist or what you consider simulationist.  I happen to enjoy my style of gameplay very much and I can't find me in GNS, and I don't believe that makes me flawed (I can clearly find me in GEN, however, as can many others).  Nor is Explorative play part of Simulative play because Simulative play carries with it restrictions and qualifications that simply aren't applicable to me or many others.

I also disagree with the idea that the model is complete.  No model is ever complete.  If you only ever discuss the model with like minded individuals, how can you ever be certain its not flawed?  Seems to me the only people you can be certain your model applies to are your select group of like minded individuals.

But with all that said, this is not my web site or my forum, so I am not in a position to tell you how to run your facility.

If you are comfortable with what you have here, than have fun with your clique and enjoy your status quo.  I shant waste my time any further.

Again, in all seriousness and no sarcasm intended, thank you for clearly letting me know your position.  May I suggest this post become section one of your FAQ.

Meanwhile, I shall take my crack headed contributions over to GO so as not to disturb you any further.

[Mytholder]

Clinton -

Ok - introducing the term Exploration, even if it may be a more accurate description of what's going on, might be confusing. However - the Explorationist thread over on GO had one of the best and most thoughtful dissections of what simulationist/explorationist want and try to achieve in a game session that I've ever seen. Simulationism is certainly the least understood member of the triad here - a lot of recent threads have proved that.

Dismissing all that strikes me as being somewhat shortsighted.

Mind if I grab some stuff out of context?

I've studied the GNS model we have here. I agree with it fully. I don't think every game can fit into it. Furthermore, I think any game that can't fit into it is flawed.

We've joked about Cult of Ron before, but that bit I just quoted scares the living crap about of me. G/N/S/Threefold isn't the magic holy grail of game design or rpg theory. It's a model. It's a pretty good model...but it's nothing more than a really high-level classification of play style/design goals/handywavy stuff.

You can have really great games that are totally screwed up in terms of the model. You can have really terrible games that are designed explicitly to play to one of the three styles. Good game design is helped by the model, yes, but strict adherance to G/N/S is not necessary to create a good -or even an "unflawed" - game.

I'm interested in discussing this with a small group of like-minded people. I'm not interested in re-hashing the same topic we have been re-hashing for two years: "GNS: Yea or Nay? How can we improve it?"

If you're not interested in rehashing it, cool. You've created the 201 forum for other stuff. I don't think either
(a) the model is as robust and accurate as it could be
or
(b) everyone understands the model in the same way, yet. We're all playing in the same campaign, but some people are off in the forest while others are down in the dungeon, and there's buggerall party unity here.

Of course, if this post moves me from one of the "small group of likeminded individuals" to a crackhead of the soupy morass, so be it.

[Jared A. Sorensen]

No model is ever complete. If you only ever discuss the model with like minded individuals, how can you ever be certain its not flawed?

Debating its merits and flaws is not gonna break it.  Theorizing about it is NOT gonna break it.  Using it to design a game *may* break it.  So far it's been yet another nice piece of hardware in the old metal toolbox (metal!).

And I am, of course, so very metal.

And nobody is saying that your opinions or certain styles of play aren't valid -- come on, man.  It's just that, well, so what?  You like to explore a setting.  Congrats.  Let's move on...

[Clinton R. Nixon]

On 2001-05-30 18:50, Valamir wrote:
Thank you for letting me know that there is no such desire, too bad you didn't express this earlier so I could have avoided wasting so much time and effort.

I didn't even post on this topic before today.

As I ended my earlier post, talk about whatever the fuck you want. It's certainly not my bulletin board--I just pay for it. It's yours, and build your own model. Build hundreds of them to the skies above.

All I had to say was that the Ron Edwards G/N/S model works, and I think it's stable. Other models can be made all you want and they won't be invalid, they'll be different. All I'm asking is to please quit comparing inches and centimeters around here. It's starting to hurt.

[ This Message was edited by: Clinton R Nixon on 2001-05-30 19:13 ]

[Valamir]

I wanted to apologize for my response to Clinton's message.  It was entirely unfair and unjustifiable of me to extend his sentiments to the members at large.

His post seriously pissed me off, and I responded poorly to it.

One thing that has become clear is that just about every member has his own definitions and perceptions about what the components of the model mean. This makes it difficult, to say the least, to debate the merits of various components objectively.

I shall therefor defer further comments on the subject until the FAQ is posted.

[Gordon C. Landis]

I disagree that the model can categorize most games/gamers and those it can't are flawed.  I think Explorative style play is not only valid but probably has more practitioners than either narrativist or what you consider simulationist.  I happen to enjoy my style of gameplay very much and I can't find me in GNS, and I don't believe that makes me flawed (I can clearly find me in GEN, however, as can many others).  Nor is Explorative play part of Simulative play because Simulative play carries with it restrictions and qualifications that simply aren't applicable to me or many others.

I'm gonna ignore the "flawed" part - people are being good about turning down the heat, and I'm not interested in turning it back up again.  But I have NO PROBLEM thinking about Explorative as Sim play with a setting and/or character focus - I don't see the "restrictions and qualifications" that you say are needed in Sim that keep it from fitting you.  Please, feel free to show me what I'm missing - I've read the GO thread (prolly ought to go back and see how it's going), and nothing there is outside MY understanding of Sim in GNS - that, when push comes to shove, the principle you'll honor is "is this true to the sim/my character?"  But it may be there, and I just don't see it.  (I hope that came across as sincere, 'cause it is - I really would like to know what you're seeing that I'm not seeing).

An alternate "mapping" of Explorative into GNS is Narrative with Actor stance focus, but that may be somewhat heretical as Ron et al seem to think Author stance is integral to Narrativism.  I can see that point, as restricting stance restricts story control and it's hard to say that "Story is  the Big Goal" if you're going to restrict how to achieve it.  But (as my "A understanding of GNS" post concludes), there may be be people who LIKE restrictions on their story creation ability, even restrictions that creep over from G or S, and I'm not sure that automatically disqualifies 'em as N . . .

Still, I'm (now) not really having a problem operating within GNS, and Clinton and others have a point about getting bogged down in re-evaluation.  Personally, I'm glad to see it (re-evaluation) happening - it's healthy - but it also shouldn't stop development of the original thread unless a MAJOR flaw is uncovered.  I began my posting here looking for such a flaw, and am now content that it's mostly just a matter of REALLY understanding what GNS is saying.  I'd rather (at the moment) work on developing that understanding - and carry the model further - than throw it out.

Gordon C. Landis

[Gordon C. Landis]

But you will use it to misrepresent the design goals of any number of games.

This is a criticism of GNS I'd be interested in seeing developed further - it seems "meaty".  Of course, I haven't actually seen evidence of it here at the Forge, and if it's based on stuff that's happened in the past Brian might be wise to wait (as he states elsewhere) until the "new, improved" version and FAQ is released before discussingthe issue, but . . .

I'm interested.  In the year or so I've been exposed to this stuff, there's something about this particualr phrasing of the "dislike" of GNS that strikes a chord.  I can see that, if someone truly believed "their" game (favorite and/or one they created/helped create) was misrepresented - they'd be pissed.  I can see that.  I wouldn't like it.  I hope GNS doesn't really do that . . . don't think it does, but you never know.

Gordon C. Landis

[Valamir]

To respond to Gordon on a couple of points.

Regarding the restrictiveness of Simulation vs Exploration, those restrictions are part of Ron's definition of Simulation (as expressed in the alternate phylogeny thread, the might possibly be modified in the FAQ).  According to that definition a Simulation requires 2 things, 1) No Author Stance, and 2) Mechanics that are entirely chronological cause and effect based.  While these might be legitimate restrictions to describe a Simulation they do not (necessarily) apply to Explorative play.  Explorative play might be a Simulation as described, or it might not require such restriction.  I can enjoy Exploration of Setting for instance and make full use of Author Stance or Fortune in the Middle mechanics.  This doesn't necessarily qualify it as Narrative with a Setting emphasis either since my goals don't necessarily place the creation of the story as highest priority.

With regards to criticism being leveled at the model, I think that will hopefully be deflated by the very inclusive FAQ that Logan and Ron are working on.  The model itself hasn't intentionally attempted to miscategorize games, but I think a few practitioners have miscategorized them due to an incomplete understanding of the model which hopefully the FAQ will rectify.

[greyorm]

As Clinton the forum poster, I reply, "Not really." Seriously. This ties in directly with Valamir giving me a dressing down about ignoring a Explorative discussion over at GO.

Additionally, I wanted to point out that assuming we all have the time to read more than one board is an unrealistic expectation.  I certainly don't.  Reading both here AND at GO or RPGNet or wherever else they might be discussing the model is simply not possible for me, and I'm certain, many others.

A lot of people have been throwing around the word elitist recently. No one's owned up to that so far, but I will. I am elitist. I think a small group of people can come up with a better theory than the soupy morass created by many.

WHOO!  GO CLINTON, GO!  Seriously!
I agree whole-heartedly: The ability of a small group to create something worthwhile and long-lasting far outweighs the ability of a large group to do the same, *especially when the level of understanding and launch-point varies between those individuals.

To the first part of this, I know there are arguments already that this is not true, but simply, "Too many cooks in the kitchen spoils dinner."  It has been proven time and time again within numerous fields -- software programming, for example:

There's an entire book by Fred Brooks on the subject called "The Mythical Man-Month"...it is about how large design departments and huge teams of programmers cost companies more money and result in less desirable products, increased time to produce and so forth, how throwing more people at a project does nothing but slow it down.

As to the first part of the second part (understanding), not everyone can be knowledgeable in or understand or contribute to, say, quantum physics or software design or medicine; and even among those who can contribute, they can't all contribute EQUALLY.

This is not dirty-word elitism, this is just a fact of the differences in comprehension, education and knack among individual humans.

If Joe Wannabe tries to discuss medicine with Joe Diploma, PhD, and Joe Diploma won't consider him an equal in the discussion, is it because Joe Diploma is an 'elitist snob' or some such silly thing?
Heck no...the minute you get sick, who do you go to for their opinion?  Joe Diploma, PhD!

(everyone, please, before responding to this out of a sense of righteous indignation, please count to ten and note the disclaimer further below)

Allowing the unstudied to participate in discussion is akin to the folks on the physics boards who aren't professional physicists trying to tear apart theories they don't fully grasp.  They THINK they do, but they're working from an incomplete understanding.

Are the folks who won't discuss the problems these individuals 'find' with those individuals 'elitist'?  No, because it is often (not always) a waste of time to do it.
You have to explain why that isn't so, how it actually works, and then deal with any resultant huffiness as they try to defend their point and prove it really is valid.

Eventually you end up rehashing the same points over and over and over and the discussion NEVER moves forward as intended, it stagnates on the discussion of singular points.

Trying to remove the teacher-student relationship via a discussion forum where everyone, regardless of training or understanding, is considered equal is ruinous to the development of any idea, because teacher and student are NOT equal and the goals of a discussion between the two types are different than they are when the two are equal.

But before anyone overreacts and starts shouting that I'm saying no one can discuss anything unless they are "approved", I'm not; I'm saying there's a place for discussion between student and professional, and debate between professional and professional...the two should NOT be mixed because it dilutes the ability of both types of of conversation to achieve their intended results. [1]

This leads into the second part of the second part (launch-point), and more relevant here: not everyone has the same launch point or goal in mind when discussing a subject, and this I think is what Clinton is really getting at -- forgive me for putting words in your mouth if I'm wrong -- if you aren't all working from a common viewpoint with a common goal, there are going to be conflicts and divisions because the time and energy of the discussion will be split.  Eventually it is nothing but argument about HOW to proceed instead of actual procession forward.

Hence Clinton's comment about desiring discussion among like-minded individuals, not conflicting viewpoints.

Debate is fine, but lately this board has been nothing BUT debate.  There has been NO advancement of the model, teaching about the model or clarification of the model AS PRESENTED for too long.

I imagine it would be the same as attempts by Catholic priests to discuss theology among themselves with atheists putting their two cents in at all times...the original reason and exploration would be diluted, if not completely prevented.

BUT I have a suggestion that will perhaps make everyone happy below, so read on...

I think this 'everybody jump in the GNS discussion and define our own version of GNS' madness is infuriating

I agree.  This discussion is boring to me...I have seen the model discussed to death, picked at, dissected and argued over for long enough.

I understand what it's saying (more or less), it works for me, I can use it...continuing dissection of the current model (with intent to show how it does not 'work') or alternative models does not interest me.  I'm interested in learning the current model, NOT splitting my time and energies on more than one.

That said, some folks obviously ARE interested in that debate, and in deference to that, I suggest a topic group be created for that specific purpose.  "Alternate Models" or some such, where this sort of thing can be debated by those interested in the topic, and this board can be saved for its orginal purpose: discussion and understanding of current GNS (related to exploring and advancing it).

Frankly, I tend to believe much (not all) of the opposition to or attempts at redesigning the the current model amount to people making assumptions and running with them...fixing problems that aren't there...problems based on an incomplete or rather "different" comprehension of the model than intended.

As I said, I find that counter-productive here for the proposed use of the forum, but I also recognize that there is value to doing this; regardless, personally I'm more inclined to fully understand the current model and why it is said to be complete before I try to tear it apart.

The same thing was suggested in one of my physics classes: understand why it is done this way first, then, once you can see the validity of the viewpoint of the theorist, if you still want to take it apart, go ahead.

As well, since I don't fully understand the reasoning and use of the model yet, to go off half-cocked with some vague notion that it doesn't work and try to find support for that notion would be counter-productive to my purposes here.
As is reading debate about how the model should be changed or how it doesn't work, since I can't judge the validity of any of these arguments until I understand why the current model does it the way it does.

Finally, I hope this post was a constructive and understandable effort on my part, and helped clarify the position for all involved parties.

[1]: It is not my intention to single out anyone here as a student and others as professionals, though I'm quite aware through sentiment elsewhere who people will assume I place in what group.  All I can say is: Don't assume.

The statements provide support to why discussions involving people of varying levels of subject-knowledge don't work, so stating that I am talking about anyone here is taking my words and reasons out of context.

I'm also incredibly perturbed that I even have to include the above statement, but I don't wish a flamewar to erupt over unintentional slights.

_________________
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 2001-06-01 15:32 ]

[Valamir]

I just want to query one thing here.

How does one establish who a professional game player is?

I understand the analogy with regards to medicine, and quantum mechanics and such...but there are very clear differentiators there...degrees, thesis papers, etc.

How does one identify a professional game player?
Years of experience in playing?
Number of different systems tried?
Actual professional publishing?
The E.F. Hutton Effect?
What?

What establishes one person as an authority who worthwhile of including in discussion vs a non authority whose efforts at discussion are merely dilutive?

Without an objective way to identify who is an authority and who isn't I don't see how this differentiation can work.  If there is no such objective measure than it merely becomes an excercize in personal preference as to who is the student and who is the master.

Do you have criteria that you suggest be used for this differentiation?

[Zak Arntson]

I have to agree with how to define an authority.

I would say a (Forge) authority is someone who:

a) Has read the upcoming FAQ,
b) Plays RPGs,
c) Thinks about RPG theory
d) Debates & Discusses politely
e) Posts to the Forge

I could see the idea of "Published = Authority" but what about _players_?