Sim Oneshot System; First Playtest and Partial Dissolution of System

[David Bapst]

Session Report

First Playtest and Incomplete Dissolution of System

Last night, I tried to run the first playtest session of a system I'd been working on for the past year or so. What happened wasn't what I would have expected in my wildest dreams, and I'm uncertain how much use it has as an actual test of system. It has led me to some interesting thoughts on the nature of Sim, so maybe it will serve some useful educational purpose for myself and others.

First, a rough group synopsis. We're all college students, around twenty/twenty-one. Everyone knows each other, we've hung out together a lot before this. It's a rough mix of four longtime gamers (mostly DnD, but we've also played PTA, MLWM, Exalted, BESM and Adventure) and two other friends who were newer to gaming (a girl who'd played a BESM campaign with us and a guy who'd once been in a Vampire oneshot).

They knew coming into the game that it was a oneshot, (the system was designed towards running oneshots), that it was supposed to be most like Adventure! or BESM (in other words, Simulationist) and that their characters were all premade. I'd decided the scenario would be a vagrant rip-off of Star Wars (and a few other Space Opera genre works), with the mission of storming the capital and killing the Emperor in his palace.

Essentially, I was trying to create a system that would intensify whatever I'd found enjoyable in Sim games. As a GM, it always seemed to be getting to describe crazy, out-of-the-world settings and characters, and as a player, it seemed to be all about playing your character as clichéd and true to the genre as possible. Getting to do something wild and flashy totally in bounds of the GM's big story. It's a bit like cosplay, I guess. I just wanted to get rid of all the complicated Illusionist system bits that got in the way. I call it the Oneshot System, meant to just run oneshots, because in general, my enjoyment of Sim barely lasts more than one or two sessions before even I get bored.

So, it was pretty simple. Roll some d6, count success and see if you beat the challenge or not. I had two system currencies, Jazz and Theme Music. Theme Music was like Gift Dice or Fanmail, to be given out when another player impressed you. They got refreshed throughout the game. Jazz was your usual "spend 1 to add 1 die" currency. Every character had several Niches (areas of skill where they got more dice to roll) and Cliches.

Cliches (which became more and more important as play went on) were these sort of stereotypical little things a player could do to get a point of Jazz. They were based on what I thought represented the best articulations of Sim reward systems: TSOY's Keys, Unknown Armies's charge-gaining, NWOD disadvantages, etc. For example, the Obi Wan ripoff character had a Cliché where he gained a point if he tried to give another player advice, or defuse a situation. The brutal space pirate got a point for torturing a defeated enemy. The alien warrior got a point for defending his honor. The psychic got a point for muttering to himself.

So, I started the game, and immediately the veteran gamers started using Cliches. They seemed to love this part of the system. The system seemed to be holding up, so I sent them into battle against some lackey "Seedtroopers". There was not combat system, so I thought it would work smoothly.

Ten minutes later, the troopers were finally dead and the players were looking at me confused. One of them told me that didn't seem about exploring the genre at all: characters in Star Wars never have trouble taking down a few faceless stormtroopers. He was right, and suddenly I questioned why anyone ever had to roll at all to kill extras in a Sim game. It seems silly now.

The group began to discuss, while I was trying to figure out if I should increase their dice or decrease the challenge ratings or what. "Why can't we just meet them and then describe what happens?" one said. Another player opinioned that he'd rather have a more detailed combat system, but he changed his mind a few minutes later.  I raised my head from my system notes and asked if maybe they just wanted to go full freeform then (run it like a Sim game where I just decided what happened but they more or less controlled their characters and could add color). Once upon a time, in high school, online freeform RPGs had been my sole passion, until I'd discovered face-to-face roleplaying in college. I'd never combined the two, however.

And we played, like that. I told them the environment, told them what they had to do, roleplayed my cool little NPCs with their funny voices, handheld them through the whole story (utter pastiche really). They continued to just play along, and when they ended up in combat or whatever, I'd ask them how they took the opponents out. The players pointed out that the Niches should now constitute some sort of automatic, effortless success. The master pilot should be able to do anything involving flying, the master gunfighter should never miss.

At one point, I asked if they wanted to get rid of the Theme Music, since they didn't seem to be using it. That's when one of the players suggested I look at the table, and I was shocked. They'd been giving their currency away to each other the whole time, without me realizing it. I also suggested if maybe they wanted to give up the Cliches entirely (as gaining Jazz had stopped having meaning) or maybe just consider the person who gained the most Jazz the best roleplayer or something. The players unanimously disagreed with me, saying they loved playing out the Cliches and they wanted the points to still matter. And they continued like that, with the veteran gamers roleplaying their Cliches the whole time as the story continued. All I can guess is that the "fun" received playing the clichés from these premade characters was reward enough.

The freeform didn't really get in the way of the Sim too much. Some problems did arise. There weren't many "hanging on by their teeth" moments of tension, or whatever, because they would just succeed eventually and continue on. What was I going to do? Have them get killed before the end? How was that in-genre for a Space Opera? I guess despite this lack, it still seemed exciting to them.

It became really obvious whenever I was presenting them with something just to slow them down. I gave up pretty soon after, so the game moved pretty fast. It's not like I could challenge them in that way anyway. The game just sort of settled into me describing stuff as it happened, and them acting out their Clichés. The IIEE of the game was similarly hard to determine or describe; I think it was defaulting to the social hierarchy of us as friends.

Finally, they got to the end, and I told them now was the time to finally roll dice. They used all that Jazz they'd built up the whole game, and utterly destroyed him (very in-genre, I guess). They players mostly told me they'd enjoyed it, and I believed them except for one of the newer gamers.

It's important to note the girl is probably a result of Gamer's Girlfriend syndrome. Her boyfriend was in the BESM campaign, but not in this game. He was around, but said he wasn't feeling well and spent most of the time in the other room playing video games (WOW). She seemed distracted/bored most of the time. One of the more veteran gamers tried to get her more interested (helping him rob a food market while on a space station), but it didn't seem to get her more interested. The other new gamer (playing a cyborg) seemed to get rather into the game (I think he genuinely enjoyed the experience unlike the girl), but neither of them ever used any Cliches.

It's made me think. It wasn't what I expected at all. I didn't even know freeform roleplaying could work well between a group of people around a table. It maintained it's Sim aspect the whole time, but I have to think that's due to the pre-existing social contract.

All I can guess is that (like almost all of Sim) enjoying this limited playing of a character's ticks is a behavior that has to be learned. It may constitute whatever it is veteran Sim GM's refer to as "good roleplaying" (try saying that phrase out loud without a hint of sarcasm).

The "rolling to kill henchmen" problem keeps returning to my mind over and over again. It's true: heroes in genre works don't get wounded or have much difficulty fighting henchmen generally. Maybe we should separate the idea that "system success" equates "character's success in SIS" in Sim? That makes sense for Gamist games, but maybe not Sim. In some Narr games, it seems like that "system success" is more about deciding which player gets to decide the result of a story conflict rather than the success of the characters. What is the corresponding conflict for the Simulationist game, for what is basically a pre-scripted exercise in genre exploration?

I don't know. Looking cool? Having a snappy wisecrack? Those things feel more like stuff you should be rewarded for in Sim instead of rewarded with. Anyone have any idea here? I'm a bit lost. Maybe I can rewire the subtle IIEE issues I was having so that WHO gets to look cool is decided with my system? That might lead to some sort of endless loop where the "coolest" player-characters overshadow the rest. I do feel like I've learned a lot about Sim and how it works in this playtest. This was ultimately a side project to a Gamist game I started a long time ago (I've posted about it here before) so, maybe it's time for me to put this to the side and let it simmer while I look back at my Gamist project.

Anyway, sorry if I'm a little behind on the terminology; I've been busy doing paleontology research for the past year. (Graptolites rock.) The Forge looks great, really love the new changes in structure.

Thanks for reading!
-Dave Bapst

[Filip Luszczyk]

Few months ago I designed one-shot simulationist game focused on genre emulation, more limited in scope than what you write about, but I think a bit similar in design goals (Crystalicum Lite, link in my signature - but the game is in Polish, so I assume you probably won't be able to read it). This is how I handled some of the issues you mention:

-mook fights are treated just like any other kind of check. If the chararacters lose, they are either subdued, wounded or killed, depending on the intentions of their opponents. If they win they can spent their successes to achieve some tasks despite being attacked, or dispose of the opponents entirely. It's fairly possible to "kill the army" with good enough roll, but often characters facing overwhelming oddswill get only as many successes to be able to achieve some of their objectives (e.g. capture/release someone guarded, steal an item, destroy key facilities of enemy base or something), and escape using their last successes. One roll, and then players decide what they achieve with their successes, and they can do one "thing" per success - the same mechanic is used in any non-combat situation.

-when players deal with some uber-important NPC, conflict resolution similar to TSoY BDtP kicks in. This is handled by a series of opposed checks, surceasing in one such opposed check means that the stake of the winner is realised in the story. Stakes can involve killing or wounding, so one failed roll can kill or disable characters.

-there is a resource called Luck, regained by acting according to genre cliches, and doing things connected with character's chosen niche in the story (e.g Leader, Friend, Scoundrel etc.). Spending one point in conflict let's you negate opponent's roll entirely, by describing some dramatic shift of the situation (so, in practice the conflict is seldom resolved with one roll). Also, players can use Luck to boost their rolls and use special abilities (one point is spent whenever character does something that would be out of reach for a normal human being).

-now, killing and wounding works in a different way than in most games. Player can spend one point of luck to avoid certain death, e.g. after a ship's explosion it turns out that the character somehow managed to get into an escape pod. In conflicts, when death stakes are involved, spending one point of luck allows the player to decide whether he prefers to negate opponents efforts and stay in the conflict, or take the blow and miraculously come back later. Thus, setting killing stakes in conflict is used mainly to make the opponent "run" from the scene, not to kill him. Also, there is an option of wounding the opponent - this can be avoided only by negating opponents effort, and wounded character suffers from a non-cumulative penalty. Such wounds never accumulate and never cause death - they only make things tougher for the character.

-the effect is that players have to decide whether they care enough for achieving something in a given situation to spend valuable resources, or they are willing to accept minor failures and setbacks. They are also constantly conscious that using too much of their resources now might mean being threatened by death later.

-also, I have blatantly stolen Exalted stunt bonuses. Well, I changed what is rewarded a bit to emulate the genre more accurately.

Now, what I see in your game:

-notice, that combat does not always have to end with one side dying. Losers can be captured, or suffer from other kind of setback or consequences. Resolving mook fights makes a lot of sense if character's survival is guaranteed by the rules, but losing the fight means that the story goes in less favourable way (notice how in Star Wars, in the Death Star the heroes start "losing" with the waves of incoming stormtroopers and have to escape into that pit with trash, were another complications await).

-generally, you could use conflict resolution that decide on the direction of the story - heroes never die, but they can achieve their goals, or stumble upon some additional complications. Notice that in stories you often know that the protagonists are going to succeed, by the tension is built by complicating their lives.

-so, you have this jazz thing and stuff. Maybe assume that characters succeed automatically in most situations, unless there are possible setbacks for them. In such situations, they would have to spend some of their resources in order to avoid the setback (say, one point for a setback), or accept complications, saving resources for later use. Also, using niches could cost some jazz or theme music, or what have you, and be the only way to succeed in some very important situations. E.g. only the character with "pilot" niche is able to escape enemy ships by flying through the asteroid belt, or only "Jedi" character can strike the killing blow in a climactic fight, etc. That way, you make sure that genre's stereotypical situations get realised during the session. It would work especially well for a tailored adventure, if you provide players with the list of niches that will play some role in the story (note - not can play, but will play). If no one chooses some of the key niches, they simply won't be able to do some things later in the story, and will have to look for ways of circumventing such problems or give up completing some of their goals.

(notice, that all those solutions are strictly Sim - nothing Nair in there, since such rules support genre emulation and playing out cliche scenes, not addressing the premise)

Also, one thing that comes to my mind:

All I can guess is that (like almost all of Sim) enjoying this limited playing of a character’s ticks is a behavior that has to be learned.

No, it is not a behaviour that can be learned. It is a preference, and it's impossible to learn enjoying something if one is simply not able to enjoy it. At most, preferences can shift over time.

For the same reason I can't really help you much with this Girlfriend syndrome, or passive players problem. Some people simply enjoy such things, e.g. being in the story without any real influence over its course - and I'm not sure if G, N and S Creative Agendas actually take into account some of similar preferences (it's probably arguable whether such participationist modes of play fall under "Sim by default").

[colin roald]

What is the corresponding conflict for the Simulationist game, for what is basically a pre-scripted exercise in genre exploration?

That's an awfully harsh description of Sim.  Are you sure you really believe that playing through a "prescripted exercise" sounds like fun?  I'm stuck with the feeling, at least from that report, that you're trying to design a game for a style of play you don't like, and am wondering why you're doing that.

He was right, and suddenly I questioned why anyone ever had to roll at all to kill extras in a Sim game. It seems silly now.

I think you've gotten "Space Opera" confused with "Sim" here.  Call of Cthulhu, for example, is a classic Sim system, and that's a game with no such thing as a mook to mow down.

-there is a resource called Luck, regained by acting according to genre cliches, and doing things connected with character's chosen niche in the story (e.g Leader, Friend, Scoundrel etc.). ...
Notice that in stories you often know that the protagonists are going to succeed, by the tension is built by complicating their lives.

You guys have a very different idea of "Sim" than I do.  If you're worried about the Story-as-story enough to be classifying characters' roles, I'd have said that's more Nar -- see PTA's "Screen Presence".  Sim is Live the Dream -- it's creating a world and people that live in it, and taking seriously the question "what would it be like to live there"?  And I would have classed things like Theme Music and regaining Jazz through acting out cliches as an intrusion of metagame mechanics antithetical to Sim.

[Filip Luszczyk]

Colin,

Sim is Live the Dream -- it's creating a world and people that live in it, and taking seriously the question "what would it be like to live there"?

Yup, just like in the games we're talking about. "What would it be like to live there (in a world ruled by the laws of a given genre)". And the question is taken deadly serious, believe it or not. This is not Nar, it's a simulationist pastiche. Classification of roles etc. doesn't serve creating and addressing the premise in any way, so such features do not support Nar play. Instead, these things help to emulate source material.

On the other hand, I could argue that some of the games commonly identified as Narrativist are in fact Simulationist. I'm not sure how it is with PTA, since I haven't seen the game yet, unfortunately.

[David Bapst]

Hey guys, thanks for your responses. Sorry for my slow reply, it's been a busy week thanks to computer troubles. Anyway...

Few months ago I designed one-shot simulationist game focused on genre emulation, more limited in scope than what you write about, but I think a bit similar in design goals (Crystalicum Lite, link in my signature - but the game is in Polish, so I assume you probably won't be able to read it). This is how I handled some of the issues you mention:

(list snipped)

The parallel features of our games is very interesting, although I must admit in your case you have clearer thinking than me. It makes me wish I could read Polish! I think one of the bits we may separate on is that my game is effectively "on rails". It's an entirely frontloaded adventure I've written up beforehand to minimize any need of mine to improvise. Having the players be captured wasn't part of the adventure, so there wasn't room for that to occur as a result of conflicts. I'm guessing your Sim oneshots had more room to move around in?

I think I get what your system does towards deciding levels of success/failure, but how do the stakes get decided? Who decides what one success or three successes mean? Who or what decides what counts as "one thing"? I think you are probably quite right in using conflict resolution/task resolution switching like TSoY. Task resolution builds tension better...

Could I hear more about this "chosen niche" thing and the genre cliches? I always find the details of reward systems important.

Also, tell me about the genre this was being played in. You mention Luck being used to power actions beyond human capability...

-now, killing and wounding works in a different way than in most games. Player can spend one point of luck to avoid certain death, e.g. after a ship's explosion it turns out that the character somehow managed to get into an escape pod. In conflicts, when death stakes are involved, spending one point of luck allows the player to decide whether he prefers to negate opponents efforts and stay in the conflict, or take the blow and miraculously come back later. Thus, setting killing stakes in conflict is used mainly to make the opponent "run" from the scene, not to kill him. Also, there is an option of wounding the opponent - this can be avoided only by negating opponents effort, and wounded character suffers from a non-cumulative penalty. Such wounds never accumulate and never cause death - they only make things tougher for the character.

Wow, that's interesting. I don't think I mentioned it but I had a similar system in mind: the players could get killed, but would come back after a scene or two of being "out". Wounding gave wounded characters small penalties, although it was the attackers choice of what to wound (for example, you could get into into a nasty debate, lose and get your "ability to argue effectively" wounded. Dying had the slight tactical advantage of removing all your wounds. I never really got to see this implemented in play, however, because of how events worked out.

-also, I have blatantly stolen Exalted stunt bonuses. Well, I changed what is rewarded a bit to emulate the genre more accurately.

Ah, see, I meant for the Gift Dice/Fanmail like mechanic to take the place of that.

Now, what I see in your game:

-notice, that combat does not always have to end with one side dying. Losers can be captured, or suffer from other kind of setback or consequences. Resolving mook fights makes a lot of sense if character's survival is guaranteed by the rules, but losing the fight means that the story goes in less favourable way (notice how in Star Wars, in the Death Star the heroes start "losing" with the waves of incoming stormtroopers and have to escape into that pit with trash, were another complications await).

True enough, but like I said, the whole system was based around playing a frontloaded scenario, practically handholding the players through a precise series of story events. No one at the table, me especially, had the freedom to have them get captured. It would risk sidetracking or derailing the whole game. The mooks (and pretty much any other antagonists) were there to get killed, and once I realized there was nothing about anyone disagreed about concerning that, I lost sight of any criteria we were in conflict about.

-generally, you could use conflict resolution that decide on the direction of the story - heroes never die, but they can achieve their goals, or stumble upon some additional complications. Notice that in stories you often know that the protagonists are going to succeed, by the tension is built by complicating their lives.

The problem with conflict resolution is that it generally suggests a mechanic that allows the players and the GM to sort of haggle out what the stakes are for both. My scenario didn't allow any freedom about what the stakes were, and we all sort of realized the stakes weren't really important at all.

-so, you have this jazz thing and stuff. Maybe assume that characters succeed automatically in most situations, unless there are possible setbacks for them. In such situations, they would have to spend some of their resources in order to avoid the setback (say, one point for a setback), or accept complications, saving resources for later use. Also, using niches could cost some jazz or theme music, or what have you, and be the only way to succeed in some very important situations. E.g. only the character with "pilot" niche is able to escape enemy ships by flying through the asteroid belt, or only "Jedi" character can strike the killing blow in a climactic fight, etc. That way, you make sure that genre's stereotypical situations get realised during the session. It would work especially well for a tailored adventure, if you provide players with the list of niches that will play some role in the story (note - not can play, but will play). If no one chooses some of the key niches, they simply won't be able to do some things later in the story, and will have to look for ways of circumventing such problems or give up completing some of their goals.

(notice, that all those solutions are strictly Sim - nothing Nar in there, since such rules support genre emulation and playing out cliche scenes, not addressing the premise)

Neat sort of idea: we have an already premade scenario with premade characters, so why don't we tailor the various conflicts precisely to who is interacting with them? Interesting idea. It's really only that or escape the semi-prison I've setup by having an entirely frontloaded scenario (which seems to be the biggest limitation I've forced myself to hold to in designing this). I may have to consider whether I want to adopt a game that is more GM-improvised (and allow conflicts with declared stakes, thus allowing conflicts to always be pertinent, or keep the frontloaded scenario and adopt your suggestion that I pretty use each character like a very specific tool for very specific events, instead of each one being a swiss army knife.

(Yeah, I see they are all Sim. It's pretty obvious.)

No, it is not a behaviour that can be learned. It is a preference, and it's impossible to learn enjoying something if one is simply not able to enjoy it. At most, preferences can shift over time.

For the same reason I can't really help you much with this Girlfriend syndrome, or passive players problem. Some people simply enjoy such things, e.g. being in the story without any real influence over its course - and I'm not sure if G, N and S Creative Agendas actually take into account some of similar preferences (it's probably arguable whether such participationist modes of play fall under "Sim by default").

Ah, well, I wasn't expecting help with that, but thank you. I do think Sim is more of a taste you learn to like than one that comes naturally. I'm pretty certain if Sim hadn't been the game style I was exposed to the most before finding the Forge, I probably wouldn't enjoy it much at all ("Why do A when I can do B or C?"). I do have fond memories, though, of playing and running Sim games. If it makes it seem like I take a harsh attitude towards Sim, well, that's probably true enough. Each fond memory is balanced by a memory of the sting of realizing the limits of illusionism (even the GM's seemed to think I could control the story; they believed their own illusionism). The only thing that's let me run Sim at all is telling players they just don't have control of the story in this sort of game. To me, it's a hard truth of what Sim is. Some don't like it and don't play, others don't mind and do play.

As for participationism and it's relation to Sim, I'll just leave it that I'm interested at the moment in that which involves Sim attitudes.

That's an awfully harsh description of Sim.  Are you sure you really believe that playing through a "prescripted exercise" sounds like fun?  I'm stuck with the feeling, at least from that report, that you're trying to design a game for a style of play you don't like, and am wondering why you're doing that.

Oh, no, I certainly like it. I just don't think handling sim with "nice" terms helps anyone involved. I actually really enjoyed running the playtest session, my only point of discomfort came from seeing the system I'd meant to playtest come apart at the seams. Despite my criticism of it, I actually do get pleasure from describing the player's journey through fantastic worlds (which is also why my Sim tastes run towards the visual-extreme genres like space opera, surreal fantasy, pulp heroes, etc).

There was a game I wrote called "Tourism" that I posted on here once that tried to concentrate the idea of this "journey" but I think the idea was maybe too simple to work.

I think you've gotten "Space Opera" confused with "Sim" here.  Call of Cthulhu, for example, is a classic Sim system, and that's a game with no such thing as a mook to mow down.

Apologies, you're quite right in my slip there. I see Sim as being centrally defined by the genre used (I think that's the thing that's really being explored). So, moments where the system seemed to fail the genre (like not being able to cut a swathe through stormtroopers), also seemed to fail the CA to me.

You guys have a very different idea of "Sim" than I do.  If you're worried about the Story-as-story enough to be classifying characters' roles, I'd have said that's more Nar -- see PTA's "Screen Presence".  Sim is Live the Dream -- it's creating a world and people that live in it, and taking seriously the question "what would it be like to live there"?  And I would have classed things like Theme Music and regaining Jazz through acting out cliches as an intrusion of metagame mechanics antithetical to Sim.

No, not at all. New World of Darkness, Unknown Armies (look at how you gain charges!), The Shadow of Yesterday, Adventure!, Exalted... all simulationist games with genre-based reward systems. The point of my system was to try and remove the things extraneous to this "genre-exploration" and create a game that wasn't confused by misintended Narr intentions due to illusionism.

Niche based reward systems don't (in general) build towards the exploration and resolution of a character's personal issues. That's why they aren't Narr.

Yup, just like in the games we're talking about. "What would it be like to live there (in a world ruled by the laws of a given genre)". And the question is taken deadly serious, believe it or not. This is not Nar, it's a simulationist pastiche. Classification of roles etc. doesn't serve creating and addressing the premise in any way, so such features do not support Nar play. Instead, these things help to emulate source material.

On the other hand, I could argue that some of the games commonly identified as Narrativist are in fact Simulationist. I'm not sure how it is with PTA, since I haven't seen the game yet, unfortunately.

I'm entirely with you here, Filip.

PTA isn't immediately clear, because its reward system mostly supports you doing what the other players find groovy (which isn't really CA-based). In the sort of structural confines of PTA, however, and taking into consideration the importance that a player's personal Issue has in game, it is almost unmistakably Narr.

That said, this isn't a thread about Narr/Sim differences. That's not the Forge anymore, from what I can tell. Filip, I'd love to hear about your system and the precise particulars of it. Is it described in any threads here on the Forge? We can take this to PM if you want.

Also, I'm still interested in the following situation:

Players meet mooks while exploring an enemy complex. Everyone (players and GM) knows due to the necessity of the frontloaded story, the mooks will be beaten. Genre suggests this will occur effortlessly. This is meant to be resolved very quickly. Considering no one is really in contention about the fact the mooks will be beaten, could anything else possibly be in contention? It doesn't seem to fit the Sim CA well to say "well, we roll to see if you get wounded or not doing this". Maybe that's part of it, but it seems like there should be something more significant in conflict here.

It seems to me, there really isn't anything else I can put into contention and retain a Sim CA. That means I have to go back and change the frontloaded scenario: either allow enough freedom in the story for players and GM to argue out a set of stakes for conflict (so that the players could get captured) or design the scenario so that the conflict cascades into more conflicts if they fail (like what Filip suggested, ex: having them end up in a trash compactor if they fail).

Anyway, thanks for your responses, guys. Got me thinking about this from some new angles.
-Dave

[colin roald]

Players meet mooks while exploring an enemy complex. Everyone (players and GM) knows due to the necessity of the frontloaded story, the mooks will be beaten. Genre suggests this will occur effortlessly. This is meant to be resolved very quickly. Considering no one is really in contention about the fact the mooks will be beaten, could anything else possibly be in contention? It doesn't seem to fit the Sim CA well to say "well, we roll to see if you get wounded or not doing this". Maybe that's part of it, but it seems like there should be something more significant in conflict here.

Okay, so your objective is to bring alive a space opera feel, if I understand rightly, so you want to characters to pull off spectacular stunts -- a mook fight should be a chance to show off how awesome they are.  As to what could be in contention, perhaps it's more of a chance to recharge -- earn some Jazz to use later by beating up the mooks in suitably genre-fulfilling style.

[Filip Luszczyk]

Filip, I’d love to hear about your system and the precise particulars of it. Is it described in any threads here on the Forge? We can take this to PM if you want.

I think I mentioned Crystalicum Lite in some threads, but there was not much information. I'll answer your questions here if you don't mind (although I start to feel like thread hijacker ;)).

Some background - Crystalicum is a Polish project involving a number of games and other products tied to the same setting. Think 7th Sea + Exalted + Spelljammer (with the emphasis on 7th Sea - basically it's an Anime style 7th Sea in space with fantasy races). The setting has some strong inspirations in jrpg (like Skies of Arcadia or Final Fantasy), Anime and the Treasure Planet movie. Here you can find more universally understandable gallery. Currently available products include trading card game, a novel (being a kind of tourist's guide to the world) and free "intro" rpg Crystalicum Lite. Normal version of the game and its d20 conversion are to be published soon. I'm an author of Crystalicum Lite and Crystalicum d20, main game being written by other people.

Crystalicum Lite serves as a "demo" but in fact has only little mechanical connections to the main Crystalicum RPG (which is a typical incoherent mainstream game and doesn't really support any particular playstyle well, if you ask me ;)). I designed Crystalicum Lite as an autonomous game, using a bit modified and simplified dice-rolling method from Crystalicum RPG and the same four main stats, and doing the rest practically from the scratch. My aim was to create a game that would support the genre and the setting, but provide completely different play experience than the standard system of Crystalicum (high enough time to introduce something Forge-like to Polish audiences ;)). The goal was to create a system that would require as little pre-game preparations as possible, and produced dramatically intense play.

I think one of the bits we may separate on is that my game is effectively "on rails". It's an entirely frontloaded adventure I've written up beforehand to minimize any need of mine to improvise. Having the players be captured wasn't part of the adventure, so there wasn't room for that to occur as a result of conflicts. I'm guessing your Sim oneshots had more room to move around in?

Crystalicum Lite was designed so that it required little or no preparations (making it suitable for spontaneously starting games, conventions and online play). GM should be prepared for improvisation, and system makes it very difficult to use illusionist techniques (e.g. everyone can initiate a conflict at any time or demand for task-res, players can edit plot by spending Luck etc.). Consequently, it's better if GM follows direction chosen by the players instead of trying to control the plot. There are even optional rules for random adventure generation on the fly by using decks from Crystalicum CCG, and characters from CCG can be used as ready to go NPCs with only a bit of mechanical conversion (normal version of the game does not have this feature, at least not the version I was provided by the publisher) - reducing required prep time to mere minutes.

My aim was to create a game that would be as prep-less as possible and generated in-genre situations in the course of play, without the need for pre-scripted adventure. So yes, this is a major difference in our design goals.

I think I get what your system does towards deciding levels of success/failure, but how do the stakes get decided? Who decides what one success or three successes mean? Who or what decides what counts as "one thing"? I think you are probably quite right in using conflict resolution/task resolution switching like TSoY. Task resolution builds tension better...

In conflict resolutions, everyone involved simply states what will happen if he wins. Of course, this can lead to unexpected dramatic twists, and it supports the genre - stories in Crystalicum should be full of surprises. Also, conflict resolution comes into play only when the characters deal with very important NPCs, so not extremely often - and the importance of those situations is highlights by potentially greater impact of the effects.

When it comes to task resolution, every success allows to make one specific change in the world/story, gain one information (one question to the GM) or achieve one very specific goal. When there is any doubt, GM has final word, but guidelines for interpreting the most common situations are provided (like what can be achieved with one success in combat, espionage, interstellar sailing, item creation/repair, etc.). The same guidelines can also be used to interpret the effects of conflict resolution, if players see such a need.

Could I hear more about this "chosen niche" thing and the genre cliches? I always find the details of reward systems important.

The basic reward is renewing one point of Luck per scene when character does something strongly connected with his role in the story (I used the same rules in Crystalicum d20, and its an important difference from normal Crystalicum, where players are rewarded for consistent acting of the character's psychology, and roles are only descriptive, with no mechanical effect outside of the character creation). There are 10 roles/niches available to the players:

-Lover - regains Luck when doing something very romantic in spite of potential consequences.
-Smart - regains Luck for demonstrating intellect (e.g. solving riddles, good planning).
-Jinx - regains Luck for falling into trouble.
-Bruiser - regains Luck for dealing with physical challenges.
-Bossy - regains Luck when domineering others.
-Friend - regains Luck when he gains others friendship or settling conflicts.
-Leader - regains Luck when the group deals with problems thanks to his guidance.
-Loner - regains Luck for rejecting propositions of help given to him, despite possible consequences.
-Rascal - regains Luck for doing bad thing with good intentions.
-Daredevil - regains Luck when he takes risks with good results.

It's also possible to regain whole Luck once per session for succumbing to the character's weakness or heroically overcoming it. As you see it was very NWoD-inspired.

There is also an optional long-term reward system for those who would like to play more than one session - players gain one advance simply for being there and additional advances for famous deeds (fame is strongly connected with power in Crystalicum). It doesn't work very well, but that was not the focus of my design and the game wasn't really intended for long-term play.

Also, tell me about the genre this was being played in. You mention Luck being used to power actions beyond human capability...

In Crystalicum, Luck is connected with heroism, since heroes are obviously chosen by Fortune. Consequently, they can achieve feats that go beyond capabilities of normal humans due to their skill and luck (those tricks are not connected with any kind of magical energy like charms in Exalted, they are rather amazing cinematic feats; magical powers are also present in the game, but that's different case). Reputation can also be used that way - the more famous the hero is, the more likely he is to demonstrate heroic feats. In Crystalicum I simplified and generalised rules for such heroic feats, and stronger tied their usage to Luck (in normal Crystalicum there is essentially a long list of d20-like feats, in Crystalicum Lite spending one Luck allows character to perform an over-human feat tied to his or her descriptive traits, but no Luck needs to be spent if the same benefit could just as well be achieved in normal way).

Ah, see, I meant for the Gift Dice/Fanmail like mechanic to take the place of that.

Oh yes, that should also work well.

Ah, well, I wasn't expecting help with that, but thank you. I do think Sim is more of a taste you learn to like than one that comes naturally. I'm pretty certain if Sim hadn't been the game style I was exposed to the most before finding the Forge, I probably wouldn't enjoy it much at all ("Why do A when I can do B or C?"). I do have fond memories, though, of playing and running Sim games. If it makes it seem like I take a harsh attitude towards Sim, well, that's probably true enough. Each fond memory is balanced by a memory of the sting of realizing the limits of illusionism (even the GM's seemed to think I could control the story; they believed their own illusionism). The only thing that's let me run Sim at all is telling players they just don't have control of the story in this sort of game. To me, it's a hard truth of what Sim is. Some don't like it and don't play, others don't mind and do play.

Just to be on the same page - I advice you to take a look at this article concerning gamemastering stances. I kind of like the terminology presented there. Notice, that illusionism can be used in connection with any CA, and using illusionist techniques doesn't have to automatically indicate at Sim. I think Sim games can just as well be run using different methods, including bass rpg (like my Crystalicum Lite), and still stay Sim.

That said, I understand your approach - I too was exposed mainly to illusionist Sim for my first years of gaming, and I started hating it once I discovered gamist D&D and then Forge-style games. But then, I think that what I like in Sim play comes to me rather naturally, from my own preferences, rather than old, not really satisfactory experiences (accidentally I also demonstrate Sim tendencies connected with emulation of visually-extreme genres, and it was not possible for me to explore them in RPG some years ago, since traditional Polish sim involves a focus on down-to-earth grim'n'gritty "realism").

It seems to me, there really isn’t anything else I can put into contention and retain a Sim CA. That means I have to go back and change the frontloaded scenario: either allow enough freedom in the story for players and GM to argue out a set of stakes for conflict (so that the players could get captured) or design the scenario so that the conflict cascades into more conflicts if they fail (like what Filip suggested, ex: having them end up in a trash compactor if they fail).

The restriction of frontloaded scenario seems very limiting to me. But then, I can think of some things that can be put into contention in mook situations you mention.

-AFAIK in WotG when such unimportant mook fight happens, players have victory guaranteed, but they make one "style roll" to check how cool their characters look while disposing of the enemy.
-You can treat it as an opportunity for resource refreshment, as colin suggests.
-It's possible you may be interested in "collateral damage", which would probably have only visual impact on the session anyway. E.g. the group can defeat mooks quickly and without making much mess, or completely demolish the area in progress. Think about Slayers and compare scenes in which the heroes get rid of mooks in a standard way, and those in which Lina uses Dragon Slave with abandon.

But then, it's really difficult for me to think about a mechanic that would be used for a game in which everything important is decided beforehead. Since players probably contribute only colour in such a play, it would probably make sense to weave the mechanics around colour creation and not much else.

[David "Czar Fnord" Artman]

What is the corresponding conflict for the Simulationist game, for what is basically a pre-scripted exercise in genre exploration?

I do not think that this is what a Sim game tries to do for its players. Further, I would be inclined to argue that a pure vanilla Sim game could not have a pre-scripted anything: it would present the genre, the world, and a situation and leave it to the players to act. And the game's system would, ideally, only serve to determine if an action succeeds vis a vis "appropriateness" to the world and genre (and maybe physics).

If anything, I'd argue that Sim is MOST open to freedom of action, as world simulation leave a huge range of potential hooks and points of engagement for characters. Nar will try to build Story "at all costs," including--one must presume--verisimilitude with the game world and genre; Gam challenges players to go for it--which might not be anywhere near plausible in the game world and genre--and that challenge might well be a do or die "choice" for the character. (Yes, these are both extreme examples of force... but they conform to the Agendas).

Therefore, this comment...

the whole system was based around playing a frontloaded scenario, practically handholding the players through a precise series of story events.

...leads me to say that you have drifted from Sim into a sort of Sim/Nar: your "precise series of story events"--though perhaps properly enmeshed into the game world "reality"--has clearly taken precedence over any goals of "exploration of a world" or playing a character that is appropriate to the genre. Play has been bent to serve the story, regardless of the verisimilitude of potential actions and results (ex: attempting to fight fifty mooks and being captured).

Take this all with a strong pinch of "just tryin' to help," but I don't think you need to be very surprised that your ostensive Sim goals were not served. You are using a potentially Sim system to run a clearly (to me) Nar game agenda.

But I'd rather bring light than curse the darkness....

Perhaps you should try to structure your scenarios more like "event sequences" which, if unchecked by the players, will come to pass "naturally" as is appropriate to the genre. Then, the players can engage them (or not) and enjoy their own path to success (or try to survive failure and aftermath). This could still be one-shot, and the focus (and agenda) could still be highly Sim. But recognize that the players might just as well choose to run off track, ignore the Emperor, and become smugglers. All within genre, all appropriate choices, all OK--unless you have some Story to serve that they are "undermining."

You could even attempt some subtle force: make it cost each character a LOT to leave the Emperor alive--maybe the Emperor has some dirt on each of them or holds their families (or entire home worlds?) under his thumb, as hostage. Sure, you can go be a smuggler... and let your planet die! Somewhat forceful--but at no time is the playing group required to choose one thing over the other. But their choices have real impacts in the game AND on their characters ("villainous scum" and "cowardly traitors" could become annoying sobriquets).

And as you have by now realized, I suspect, any of those events sequences that MUST happen or that CAN'T be avoided are probably trouble spots in your scenario design. In general (maybe this is High Theory?) a Sim scenario can not have a strict story arc or mandatory events, because no "real world" (other than, perhaps, Never-Neverland and Oz) has a thematic imperative operating "behind the scenes"--there is no "scene" behind which to be, nor is there a "behind," really....

HTH;
David

[David Bapst]

Hey guys, thanks for the responses, now let me get to responding back to them. I'm thinking there may not be much more left to this particular topic, though.

Okay, so your objective is to bring alive a space opera feel, if I understand rightly, so you want to characters to pull off spectacular stunts -- a mook fight should be a chance to show off how awesome they are.  As to what could be in contention, perhaps it's more of a chance to recharge -- earn some Jazz to use later by beating up the mooks in suitably genre-fulfilling style.

Interesting... I seem to remember the first developer of Exalted claiming that fights against extras were meant to be recharging events by using the stunt system (didn't really work in practice, as I saw during a year of running Exalted). Hmm. Maybe turning the mook fights into some sort of contest over who can describe the coolest visual image...

Thanks, Colin, that was pretty helpful!

In conflict resolutions, everyone involved simply states what will happen if he wins. Of course, this can lead to unexpected dramatic twists, and it supports the genre - stories in Crystalicum should be full of surprises. Also, conflict resolution comes into play only when the characters deal with very important NPCs, so not extremely often - and the importance of those situations is highlights by potentially greater impact of the effects.

When it comes to task resolution, every success allows to make one specific change in the world/story, gain one information (one question to the GM) or achieve one very specific goal. When there is any doubt, GM has final word, but guidelines for interpreting the most common situations are provided (like what can be achieved with one success in combat, espionage, interstellar sailing, item creation/repair, etc.). The same guidelines can also be used to interpret the effects of conflict resolution, if players see such a need.

Huh, interesting. I had something similar (for all the dice rolls) but a lot more vague, but it sort of fell apart as to what counted as one change/statement/action. It felt like some sort of criteria was needed.

The basic reward is renewing one point of Luck per scene when character does something strongly connected with his role in the story (I used the same rules in Crystalicum d20, and its an important difference from normal Crystalicum, where players are rewarded for consistent acting of the character's psychology, and roles are only descriptive, with no mechanical effect outside of the character creation). ...

...It's also possible to regain whole Luck once per session for succumbing to the character's weakness or heroically overcoming it. As you see it was very NWoD-inspired.

There is also an optional long-term reward system for those who would like to play more than one session - players gain one advance simply for being there and additional advances for famous deeds (fame is strongly connected with power in Crystalicum). It doesn't work very well, but that was not the focus of my design and the game wasn't really intended for long-term play.

One last question about Crystalicum Lite, Filip. How often do each of these different reward mechanics get used? (Just PM me about this instead of responding here)

Just to be on the same page - I advice you to take a look at this article concerning gamemastering stances. I kind of like the terminology presented there. Notice, that illusionism can be used in connection with any CA, and using illusionist techniques doesn't have to automatically indicate at Sim. I think Sim games can just as well be run using different methods, including bass rpg (like my Crystalicum Lite), and still stay Sim.

Ah, I read that a while ago and forgot all about the terms. Thanks for bringing it up again so I could refresh myself. If I can just clearify what I've said for the record.

My early Sim experiences were varied: I was exposed to bass fishing Sim (in oneshots), participationist Sim (in oneshots) and illusionist Sim on a long campaign level. Eventually, after running campaigns and oneshots using different stances with Sim CAs, I decided that I just didn't enjoy Sim CAs in a campaign. Sim oneshots I'd run with bass fishing seemed unfulfilled, as if I'd had cool ideas for what the players could do or see, but we'd never gotten around to them and instead gone straight for this sort of random, improve comedy pastiche. Oneshots of participationist Sim is the most satisfiying way I've found of fulfilling the CA for me, hence I designed this game.

I've seen illusionism and participationism in Gamism (wasn't a big deal; for example, the story in most DnD games I've been in are almost color), and it's hard to imagine illusionism or participationism existing in a Narr game and it not going incoherent. Personally, I think the widespread use of illusionism in Sim makes illusionism an issue mostly for those concerned about Simulationism rather than those concerned with other CAs.

That said, I understand your approach - I too was exposed mainly to illusionist Sim for my first years of gaming, and I started hating it once I discovered gamist D&D and then Forge-style games. But then, I think that what I like in Sim play comes to me rather naturally, from my own preferences, rather than old, not really satisfactory experiences (accidentally I also demonstrate Sim tendencies connected with emulation of visually-extreme genres, and it was not possible for me to explore them in RPG some years ago, since traditional Polish sim involves a focus on down-to-earth grim'n'gritty "realism").

I don't think the basic desires behind the Sim CA are unnatural. I do feel the ephemera and structures that have created the Sim-oriented systems (the Sim tradition of game design, if I may refer to it as such) through an RPG may require introduction to the already existing systems. If you didn't know about other RPGs and you were told to create a Simulationist-oriented roleplaying game, I don't think we'd see most of what's been made for Simulationism.

And as far as realism goes, I have to wonder what the connection between realism and Simulationism really is. Maybe "realism" is just another genre that Simulationism is trying to explore? Hmm...

But then, it's really difficult for me to think about a mechanic that would be used for a game in which everything important is decided beforehand. Since players probably contribute only colour in such a play, it would probably make sense to weave the mechanics around colour creation and not much else.

Yes, sadly, I think a well designed participationist Sim game would require lots of thought about how to turn manipulating Color into a game. That may be very easy or very hard.

I do not think that this is what a Sim game tries to do for its players. Further, I would be inclined to argue that a pure vanilla Sim game could not have a pre-scripted anything: it would present the genre, the world, and a situation and leave it to the players to act. And the game's system would, ideally, only serve to determine if an action succeeds vis a vis "appropriateness" to the world and genre (and maybe physics).

If anything, I'd argue that Sim is MOST open to freedom of action, as world simulation leave a huge range of potential hooks and points of engagement for characters.

Dave, you seem to be describing an extreme version of realist Simulationism. I've encountered it only a few times in games, mostly very short-lived DnD games. In my experience, Simulationism normally answers the Impossible Thing Before Breakfast by giving the GM full story control, which would certainly stop any players from having freedom of action. The only other model I've seen is improvising the story as it goes along (bass playing) and control of the story there is still really left up to the GM.

Plus, vanilla and pervy are pretty subjective terms...

You are using a potentially Sim system to run a clearly (to me) Nar game agenda.

But it wasn't Story with the big S. It was utter pastiche. I know, cause I wrote all of it but the player's lines. It had nothing to do with the players in particular, or resolving any possible premise, there was no sequences played for dramatic effect, no intention on the players part to take an emotional value in the sequence of events, and they didn't involve an issue particularly personal or complex. It was attack the imperial home planet and kill the evil emperor. Total pastiche!

Perhaps you should try to structure your scenarios more like "event sequences" which, if unchecked by the players, will come to pass "naturally" as is appropriate to the genre. Then, the players can engage them (or not) and enjoy their own path to success (or try to survive failure and aftermath). This could still be one-shot, and the focus (and agenda) could still be highly Sim. But recognize that the players might just as well choose to run off track, ignore the Emperor, and become smugglers. All within genre, all appropriate choices, all OK--unless you have some Story to serve that they are "undermining."

You could even attempt some subtle force: make it cost each character a LOT to leave the Emperor alive--maybe the Emperor has some dirt on each of them or holds their families (or entire home worlds?) under his thumb, as hostage. Sure, you can go be a smuggler... and let your planet die! Somewhat forceful--but at no time is the playing group required to choose one thing over the other. But their choices have real impacts in the game AND on their characters ("villainous scum" and "cowardly traitors" could become annoying sobriquets).

And as you have by now realized, I suspect, any of those events sequences that MUST happen or that CAN'T be avoided are probably trouble spots in your scenario design. In general (maybe this is High Theory?) a Sim scenario can not have a strict story arc or mandatory events, because no "real world" (other than, perhaps, Never-Neverland and Oz) has a thematic imperative operating "behind the scenes"--there is no "scene" behind which to be, nor is there a "behind," really....

Well, thank you for your thoughts, Dave, but I really think the two of us are seeing Simulationism in two really different manners. Like I said above, these forays into Sim are making me really doubt the connection between realism and Simulationism... this game was a strong attempt at trying to remove mechanics unneeded for exploring a visually-extreme genre using a frontloaded pastiche. It made a game very separated from ideas of realism, but still about exploring a setting and color, with a story that consisted only of pastiche. There was no mechanics that could be used for competition or challenges.

If you're right, then that throws some doubt on nature of the current popularity of "stunt" mechanics and genre-based reward systems, which have become the norm for Simulationist design in the last five years. TSoY, Feng Shui, WoD, Adventure!, Exalted, Buffy, WotG, even UA and BESM partly... they all have elements that mark them as Sim, but certainly make them differ from previous Sim (like HERO or Ars Magica). Considering that the purpose of these mechanics is "better matching the expectations of the genre" and that the games in question seem more concerned with "genre exploration" than expressing the game world as realistically, as detailed and as logically as possible, then I think it's possible the later isn't a requirement to have the former. You can have a system that deals with the game world in abstract and vague terms, and yet still retain the Simulationist CA.

At least, that's my current thinking, based on a playtest that was a great session but not a great playtest.

I think this topic has pretty much run out of steam at this point and it's probably high time to let it die. Colin, Dave, I'd like to thank you for forcing me to think more clearly on the nature of Simulationism. Colin, your recharge idea may be the most valuable thing I got from this thread. Filip, the second most valuable thing was seeing many of the parallelisms with Crystallicum Lite and my game. You also got me to clear my head about the illusionist/participationist/bass playing/etc. I really hope we can discuss that game and any playtesting you've done with it more over PM.

Thanks guys,
Dave Bapst

[David "Czar Fnord" Artman]

Glad I could sort of help--though now I am a bit confused in general about what happened in this thread. I see you want it closed, but I feel obliged to clarify two points that might have been misinterpretted:

1) I read your "pre-scripted exercise in genre exploration" line and interpretted that as a "script" that you arrived at before ("pre") the play commenced. As it involved genre exploration, I figured that script was supposed to help show off the genre--I suppose something like going on a tour bus ride through a theme park, rather than wandering the park on foot, at will. Sorry if I didn't understand your use of those terms.
2) I don't think I ever used the term "realism." If I did, I apologize for being misleading. I meant to only use the term verisimilitude, and should have really tried to also use the phrase "internal coherence." Recall that I even said that physics itself would only "maybe" be an appropriate thing for the system to engage--not required at all. So, no "realism" here; just an assessment of Sim play as being focused exclusively on world coherence, modelling, and consistency.

I am beginning to doubt that many folks really knows what "Sim" play is or, at least, how to recognize it in situation structure or game rules--I am coming to believe that it is an "everything else" category in the GNS structure.

And that could explain why I am very confused when you say, "In my experience, Simulationism normally answers the Impossible Thing Before Breakfast by giving the GM full story control, which would certainly stop any players from having freedom of action. The only other model I’ve seen is improvising the story as it goes along (bass playing) and control of the story there is still really left up to the GM."

My reading of The Big Model does not even have the term "story" in the same Venn Diagram circle as "Sim": story is a meaningless term, vis a vis Simulationist play, because (as I said at close of last post) there is no "story" lurking behind the physics or nature of a world (other than extreme cases like Oz and NeverNeverLand, whose "sim" elements--paradoxically, it seems--ought to enforce some nature of "moral" or "story" or "theme." But special cases do not define general categories.)

Thus, I don't believe that a GM can't attempt The Impossible Thing in vanilla Sim, because the game system will always be the final adjudicator. Yes, the GM sets up situations and, yes, he could certainly set them up to all-but "autofail" or "autosucceed" and become a railroader--regardless of where his tracks lead, story or competition or whatever. But there's always a roll, there's always a chart or table to consult for the general situational category, or there is always a system in place that tries to model world-plausible results from initial conditions (if in any way a thorough sim system). A GM that forces his way past such Sim systems isn't really playing Sim, though, eh? He's got some other agenda which he is obfuscating with a Sim system--a system that must be hamstrung to keep it from undoing his force with contrary resolutions.

Anyhow, you may let this thread die, if you like; but I think you are taking away a view of my points which is quite the opposite of my intentions. Again, my apologies if I wasn't clear enough, and I hope this reply removes any further confusion.

David

[David Berg]

My reading of The Big Model does not even have the term "story" in the same Venn Diagram circle as "Sim": story is a meaningless term, vis a vis Simulationist play, because (as I said at close of last post) there is no "story" lurking behind the physics or nature of a world

I think this is entirely a matter of what you're trying to simulate.

If the original poster here is trying to simulate an environment with certain story-related attributes (the nature of the world is that do-gooder adventurers always slaughter the minions of their opponent!), then in his case, "Sim" and "story" do belong in the same diagram.

I've already run into some problems describing my own game as "Simulationist" -- things seem to go much smoother when I just say "my game is an adventure game which attempts to simulate medieval realism".  Using the shorthand has led some people to respond to both broader (simulating something) and narrower (simulating what they think Sim is usually about) ideas than what is appropriate to my game.

If I now understand the "Sim" term correctly, you've been guilty of the latter.  And if I don't, well... that label may be even harder to make good use of than I thought.

you want to characters to pull off spectacular stunts -- a mook fight should be a chance to show off how awesome they are. 

I've played this way and found it to be fun.  "Cinematic Points" were earned for shooting while doing backflips, kicking while sliding down elevator cables, etc.  Most such attempts involved rolls, to add a little drama of potential failure, but the odds were always very much in the PCs' favor.  (The Cinematic Points never actually got used for anything... I think they were intended to function as some version of XP...)

[David Bapst]

Glad I could sort of help--though now I am a bit confused in general about what happened in this thread. ...
...Anyhow, you may let this thread die, if you like; but I think you are taking away a view of my points which is quite the opposite of my intentions. Again, my apologies if I wasn't clear enough, and I hope this reply removes any further confusion.

David

No, Dave, although you are right that I made a few wrong assumptions about your views (I was too zealous about the whole realist thing, I just assumed that's what you'd meant), I think the two of us have such different ideas of what Sim is that we are unlikely to reconcile them in this thread. As far as I understand theory, story (meaning the sequence of events) exists in all games regardless of CA, and that the Impossible Thing refers to this. Narr is concerned with the difference between two types of "story"... big Story and pastiche. A game that explores pastiche is simulationist, but you'd claimed I'd introduced a Narr CA into the game. When I said prescripted, I meant I had all the scenes and settings already written out, every encounter basically dreamed up.

I think we have a slight difference in philosophy about what a Sim system would do. You think a sim system would create an environment that would simulate the intended genre/reality for exploration. I see a simulationist system as more of a vehicle designed for hitting the Sim CA: a system that is all about exploring the Dream (so, my design focuses on rewarding the Dream, on how to better explore the Dream, etc).

I'm also pretty cynical, and having played a lot of Sim done in the same way, I've always seen GM's have control of the sequence of events. It's something I consider a hallmark of the CA, and even in bass playing, the GM only improvises things from player's suggestions and hints if he decides they're good enough. For example, I can't really imagine any Simulationist group where the GM couldn't fudge any or even all of his rolls. That includes every Sim game, played under bass playing, illusionism and participationism. Your experience may value, I guess. The closest I've gotten to Sim games where the dice were taken at face value, like I said, were some DnD games that ended abruptly (GMs also wanted to make the world feel as real as possible). To me, that's "realism", although I realize now that's far too vague of a term for me to have used. In attempting to remove illusionist tendencies, I was also trying to deal with this, using the power of a frontloaded scenario to remove the desire to fudge dice rolls (a module seems like an authority greater than the GM). Unfortunately, in practise, it removed dice rolling completely in play...

Dave Berg, thanks for the comments.

Anyway, considering the Forge has generally strict rules on remaining on topic and this thread really isn't about what the nature of Sim is (although what CA my game is directed for was once part of the topic) I think it would be best for the thread to be closed as we aren't really discussing my playtest specifically anymore. If anyone wants to discuss the nature of Sim more through PM or email, that's fine.
-Dave Bapst

[Paul T]

It seems like a shame to leave everything pre-scripted, nothing unknown. What if each character had a goal (that was in-genre) and a failure (also in-genre) that were the only two possible outcomes for that characters?

For instance, the Hotshot Pilot could end up saving the girl and destroying the villain's space station, or he could end up as a traitor, or an unlikeable jerk who the girl rejects to go off with some other character, or something similar (maybe he destroys the space station but dies in the process).

Or each character has a possible "ending" that they try to make happen. In each scene they can "collect" points toward that goal. All the goals can be pre-scripted, if you like.

So, for instance, our Hotshot Pilot ALWAYS looks cool and pilots like a daredevil, but each scene either means that he's impressing the girl more, or scaring her away, and something the player does determines which is more likely to win out in the end.

Likewise, you could write a scenario (given your desire for everything to be set up beforehand) with a possible and in-genre ending for each character defeating the final Villain. Whoever collects the most points along the way (or whatever) will get to have his ending narrated by you, or take place in some other way.

So, you're choosing from pre-scripted options, all of which are perfectly in-genre, but the players can still compete to get the one they want to happen.

Maybe something like that would suit your game, and lend some purpose to each die roll (yes, the heroes defeat the stormtroopers, but meanwhile does one of them impress another, or gain a store of courage that will help him later?).

Best,


Paul

[David Bapst]

Paul-

By Jove, that's really interesting. Could probably drift to Gamism (Pantheon comes to mind, although different), though the result would certaining be fun.

-Dave