Pure Sim is not roleplaying

[Zak Arntson]

I was just reading Jared's Beeg Horseshoe Theory and thinking about my talks with him about Sim as a myth (correct me if I'm wrong, Jared!).

It got me thinking about how each of the GNS widgets are made of two components: Entertainment and roleplaying. I'm defining entertainment as: A means to pass the time with no benefit to one's physical survival. (things like bouncing a ball, reading for pleasure, watching a film). I'm defining roleplaying as: Participants control, at a minimum, a Character's role in a continuous and joint effort.

I'll keep running with definitions to keep myself clear:
Gamism - Competition, either against self or other.
Narrativism - Telling a story.
Simulationism - Simulating a reality (not necessarily our reality).

Without the roleplaying aspect, you have these in their pure form. Gamism includes soccer, chess and Pictionary. Narrativism includes novels, films and plays. Simulationism includes model building and SimCity.

When you add roleplaying, you add the element of role. Gamist RPGs include Rune and D&D, Narr include Sorcerer and InSpectres, Sim include Blue Planet (1st ed., don't know about 2nd) and Rolemaster.

Each of these is a valid form of roleplaying because of choice. In a Gamist game, you are free to choose your strategy. Narrative games allow everyone to influence the story in different directions. Simulationist games present a number of realistic options and allow the participants to choose one.

I think this is why Sim is such a contentious thing. There is a sense of "if this was the most realistic option, it will be chosen everytime, thus removing free will." This is what makes it a game.

A Roleplaying game, be it G, N or S, requires unknown outcomes hinging on participants' choices.

Leaving the realm of RPGs, SimCity is a Sim video game because there are so many variables that to a human the outcome is unknown. Candyland is not a Gamist boardgame because you MUST draw a card and you MUST do what it says; the goal of Candyland is to get to the end of the board, but there is no choice on how to get there.

Going back to RPGs, D&D is a Gamist RPG because your choice is strategy in combat, the unknown is how well your strategy works. Dying Earth is a Narr RPG because your choice is where you will spend your resource (in order to improve your odds of "success"), the unknown is what direction the story will lead. Rolemaster is a Sim RPG because your choice is "what options are open to my PC in this situation," the unknown are the choices and their results.

So this post is a long exploration of how Sim can be considered roleplaying. As long as you have choice and the unknown, it's an RPG. As soon as you Simulate so much that there is no choice, poof! It's not a game anymore.

(Note on next paragraph: Pure refers to the play goal in its most undiluted sense. Gamism = competition, Narrativism = storytelling, Simulationism = simulating a reality)

This leads to a question: Can Pure G,N or S be a viable RPG? Pure Gamism would still work because you can offer viable and different strategies. Pure Narrativism also works because there is no "right" way to tell a story; it's an entirely subjective thing. Pure Simluation, however, would allow for no deviance against realism. In a Pure Simulation, if you ran a game with the same initial conditions (same PCs, situation, etc), the outcome would be exactly the same.

So does this mean there is no Pure Simulationism? Or would providing equally likely outcomes allow for a choice even in Pure Simulationism?

Answering this question, if there are equally likely outcomes, and the choice is left up to the Player, you immediately leave Simulationism. You head towards:
Gamist - Which outcome is most advantageous?
Narrativist - Which outcome tells the best story?
Subjective - Which outcome feels the most realistic?

We have to rule out:
Simulationist - I can't decide, because there's an equal chance of each outcome and humans are terrible randomizers. I must use a randomizer (a die, for example), thus removing any Choice.[/list]

Do I have Simulationism all wrong, here?

[Valamir]

Well, I think perhaps in the rarified field of never obtainable theory you might be on to something...if you believe in predestination.  But in reality "doing the most realistic thing" is a far cry different from "having no choices"

Since the root of simulationist gaming is the wargame, and the wargame is a simulation of warfare, lets look at war.  Set up a situation, provide every single measureable piece of data that can possibly be collected, provide said data to 100 different generals, and what you'll get back is a 100 different plans (or at least a couple dozen allowing for similiarities).

If we assume each of these generals is a legitimate "expert" in his field, than each is doing "the most realistic thing" yet each is arriving at different choices.  So doing what is realistic is not the same as not having choice.

If you start to throw in elements like emotions, personal grudges, politics, grandstanding and other assorted realistic but non quantifiable elements you really start to realize that choice is hardly limited at all.

(for a great example of the impact of such factors concider General Custer and how much different the Battle of Little Big Horn would have been with a general not concerned with running for office on the reputation of a war hero)

Now whether its possible to tabulate every possible choice and incorporate ever conceivable modifier and personality quirk and then construct a table that accurately depicts such probabilities is a question for philosophers.  I don't believe it for a second.

[Ron Edwards]

Hey,

Somehow, this whole thread feels out-of-date to me ... and I realize I'm back at GO a couple of years ago, contending various points with M. J. Young, based on my System Does Matter essay.

The problem is that since then, along came the Scarlet Jester and Exploration, and a whole lot of things changed in the way I was looking at the big picture, or perhaps, I now had the vocabulary to say what I "meant."

There's a section in my essay, in the GNS chapter, that sums up my take on the matter now, called "Controversy: is that third box really there?"

Some elements of Zak's post really need revision, even to address the question properly. First, as I've been at great pains to clarify lately, "tell a story" is a rotten definition for Narrativism. Narrativist play concerns addressing Premise (as defined in the Egri sense) as the prioirty. Second, "realism" is a rotten summary for Simulationism, even with the proviso of an imaginary reality. "Plausibility" might be better, with the proviso, but I prefer "in-game-world causality" as the defining priority.

It seems to me as if Zak has offered a non-question. Our experience of Cause is one of probabilities, not of determinism - this may well be a product of our inadequate perceptive and cognitive faculties toward a deterministic universe, or it may be a product of unassailable stochasticity in the universe at some level. No one knows. But since our experience of Cause is probabilistic, our simulations of Cause are most satisfying and interesting in those terms as well.

Therefore I see no particular reason to think that Simulationist play is "purest" when it relies on non-stochastic determinism.

Best,
Ron

[J B Bell]

Arguably, totally pure Narrativism is no longer a game, either.  Just because it appears that physical sciences of some sort might be able to lock down all the Sim variables doesn't make the other corners un-lock-downable.

In Narrativism, if you were driven by some super-theory of story (just as Sim could conceivably be driven by a super-theory of physical reality, down to character's decisions), you could lock everything down so that the story could only go one way.  (Memory fails me summat, but I think Egri and other writers have said that a "perfect" story can't be modified without wrecking it, implying there's only one way for certain stories to go, at least given a certain cast of characters.)

Ultra-completeness could happen to Gamism too, just as tic-tac-toe is what mathematicians call a "known" game.  There is a single strategy that will always lead to a tie if both sides use it.

I guess what I'm saying is that while this is sort of interesting, I don't see how it's a special problem for Simulationism.

--JB

[Le Joueur]

Two "Beeg" problems here.

Simulationism - Simulating a reality (not necessarily our reality).

Buzz!  That answer is incorrect.  Simulationism is probably the most misleadingly named of the GNS.  It doesn't simulate anything, never has, never will.  Although the author will not change the title, this group has been most clearly described as exploration¹ of some aspect of the game like setting or character (there are others, the 'full list' is still being debated).

While the GNS talks about everything being about exploration¹, it says that in a case where the goal of exploration¹ is raised above any other is called Simulationism.  This brings us to the second problem....

This leads to a question: Can Pure G, N, or S be a viable RPG?

The GNS has been defined as only applying to a single decision made by a person during the actual play of a game.  A Simulationist player is therefore a person who usually makes Simulationist decisions (choosing 'plain' exploration¹ over competition or exploration¹ of premise).

A "pure" Gamist, Narrativist, or Simulationist game is incredibly unlikely because it requires singular goal choices at every instance.  No system exists totally in absence of any two of the GNS, I'm not sure it's even possible (or desirable).  And even if there were, I doubt that would say very much on the validity of exploration¹ as a goal unto itself.  I certainly don't think your definition of what is role-playing is at cross purposes with exploration¹, even if it could be practiced to the exclusion of Premise and competition.

[Edited in late:] A pure Gamist game (using your definitions) would have to be something like tic-tac-toe or checkers because even chess has some 'simulation of reality,' the pieces carry the names of real things.  (Knights, bishops, and et cetera, we are talking 'purity' here aren't we?)  Likewise how would you 'tell a story' with purely no 'simulation of reality.'  That's the problem with approaching this discussion in terms of 'purity.'

Another thing, where did you get the idea that simulation of every kind is about the prediction of the future?  Wouldn't simulating 'what I would do in that situation' every bit as simulative even if I don't know the answer until all the variables are in place?  (And then the next event, reflecting my last choice, would be unpredictable until it impacted me 'in that situation' when the result of the last choice is 'calculated.')  [End edit.]

Do I have Simulationism all wrong, here?

Ah...yeah.

Fang Langford

¹ That would be exploration like 'taking a pen for a walk' and exploring an idea or concept on paper.  This is not directly related to doing things like exploring dungeons in a game.

[Zak Arntson]

Thanks, all! I'm glad everyone helped me to better understand this. I'm constantly shifting between "getting it" and "forgetting it."

Ron, thanks for letting me know that the definitions in my head aren't up to date. Narr = Premise above all else, Sim = Exploration above all else. Is that right?

Choice is not the same as Cause. Probability occurs at the D/F/K (Unknown Factor) stage. Choice is what leads up to those probabilities. When Sim is explained as Exploring X, well, there goes the whole argument on Pure Sim = Purely Simulating In-Game-World Causality.

My whole post is moot. Serves me right, not rereading Ron's essay before posting a ton. (I've read it several times over, just not recently enough :)

And Fang, yes, GNS occurs at the point of decision making. And that's what I was having trouble with, with the Sim = Simulate model (the wrong model). If you are making a decision for pure simulation of "realism," you aren't making a decision at all. But with Sim = Exploration of X, you make a decision based on exploration/experience over plausibility.

[Le Joueur]

If you are making a decision for pure simulation of "realism," you aren't making a decision at all.

You see the problem I have here is, what if you are creating a simulation of what your decisions would be?  In reality you'd make a decision, therefore in the 'realistic' game you make a decision.  Unless you have excellant 'second guessing yourself' skills, you will still be making 'real' decisions at game time, not just 'predicting what would be realistic.'  (The only thing that would be 'realistic' is you choosing what you choose and that can't be guessed until the situation is created and then you don't simulate it, you don't 'figure it out,' you choose it.)

Just a small point about 'playing yourself.'

Fang Langford

[Jack Spencer Jr]

A Roleplaying game, be it G, N or S, requires unknown outcomes hinging on participants' choices.

I rather like this statement because it goes along with some concepts I've been fiddling with lately. Blame Lao Tzu for that because he wrote the Tao Te Ching. Besides, the passage that I keep looking at, #11 Tools, starts by talking about a wheel, which is the name of my game so that's understandable. Seems like fate.

Anyway, what seems to be going on here is one of those limitations I mentioned in another thread. I didn't note this particular limitation, but then I am an idiot.

The modes described under GNS are fairly broad. They have to be or else they wouldn't be ery useful or we'd need about fifty more mode, which would be equally useless. Looking at Simulationist from the broad level, it seems to be just represent the world, style of fiction, whatever and do whatever you want in this. Very very Zen. Sort of an anti-priority. In actual use, Simulationist play requires certain decisions on what is being explored. Various flavors or styles of Simulationist all fit under the S yet are not the same, and may even conflict with each other, to be honest.

Trying to pull examples out of my hat so you can see what I mean:

Suppose one player enjoys slice-of-life Sim. In this style, the nuance of the world is represented almost in exacting detail. He may not deal with his character using a lavitory. Then again, maybe he does.

Another players enjoys genre Sim. He feels that a RPG should accurately represent the conventions of a particular style, such as Anime or, let's say Hentai since the blanket of Anime is like saying "television show" or "genre," but I digress. He's not interested in any premise or other Narrativist concern, unless it helps him in his goal of genre Sim. In this case, what we actually have is a hybrid S/N player, but he could play for decades with just S until he discovers how N can help improve his satisfaction in play.

My point is, S, as well as G&N are varied and it my be tempting to look at them and think, maybe this doesn't really exist at all. It does by the diversity can hide it, especially in S which is fairly open-ended by it's nature.

[Jared A. Sorensen]

Another players enjoys genre Sim. He feels that a RPG should accurately represent the conventions of a particular style, such as Anime or, let's say Hentai since the blanket of Anime is like saying "television show" or "genre," but I digress. He's not interested in any premise or other Narrativist concern, unless it helps him in his goal of genre Sim. In this case, what we actually have is a hybrid S/N player, but he could play for decades with just S until he discovers how N can help improve his satisfaction in play.

He's wanking off.

Seriously. I'm glad he finds it fun...and more power to him, but this kinda play isn't "playing a roleplaying game." I dunno what it is.

If you're "simming" a movie genre...like, oh...let's say the creepy, trapped underwater with a monster genre (Abyss, Deepstar Six, Leviathan, Sphere, etc. etc.), then you're going to go in one of three directions. Handily, these seem to align themselves with Ron's GNS theory.

One path uses the genre as a form of competitive play. The most obvious example of this is the "Grave & Watery" game from Pantheon (is Pantheon really 5 different RPGs? You betcher sweet tuchus it is). Points are awarded by following genre conventions (as per the "Narrative Cage Match" rules). You play a certain way, you get points. The characters and setting are just part of the "board" -- Pure Gamism.

Another path uses genre as a platform for "deeper issues." Let's take The Abyss. A buncha miners trapped underwater during a big storm. Enter crazed SEAL Michael Biehn. Enter nuclear missle. Enter alien lifeforms. What's all this color do? Just that; it provides color. The real "game" is about the characters and their relationships and how the whole premise is introduced and resolved. Pure Narrativism.

So if you're not going the first thing, and you're not doing the second thing, all you're doing is exploring. You're not playing a game. There is no goal. There is no structure. The genre appears as though it's creating a kind of "corridor" but it's illusory. At best, you're aping the genre conventions...duplication rather than creation. At worst, you're flailing around and probably hating the experience.

You may all hate me now.

...a few seconds after hitting "Submit" it hit me: this is roleplaying, but strictly in the psychological/sexual sense: adopting an alternate persona. So I guess you could be dealing with psychological issues through a proxy but still...definitely not a game. And definitely leave me out of that kind of "play." I'm not into that whole leather and whips thing (okay, but only from an aesthetic angle).

[Laurel]

Another path uses genre as a platform for "deeper issues." Let's take The Abyss. A buncha miners trapped underwater during a big storm. Enter crazed SEAL Michael Biehn. Enter nuclear missle. Enter alien lifeforms. What's all this color do? Just that; it provides color. The real "game" is about the characters and their relationships and how the whole premise is introduced and resolved. Pure Narrativism.

Immersive Sim is all about characters and their relationships and the scenario above would work well for it.  

What you have here could go Sim or Narrative- its all in the player's motive, which will be revealed in observable behaviors, according to Ron.

Is the player clearly prioritizing the introduction and resolution of the Premise in the decisions he/she makes and conveys through the medium of the character?   That's pure Narrativism.

Is the player clearly prioritizing the character's own motives and choosing solutions based on what the character knows/believes/values and the reality of the game world?  That's pure Simulation.

#1 has the player making decisions "for the good of the Premise" irregardless of their character's personal perspective or needs.

#2 has the player making decisions based on the internal reality of the game itself as perceived by the character- completely based on the character's perspectives and needs and what the player knows to be "true" for the game world.

Both approaches could make a good story centering on character relationships with lots of good RP.  But the player will need to have either #1 or #2 as their priority for every instance of play, they can't do both "equally" at the same time.

[Walt Freitag]

But what's the issue here?

Pure simulationism cannot have a metagame goal so it is not a "game." I'll buy that. I can also point out (along JB's lines) that pure narrativism doesn't admit any interactivity (no "playing") and that pure gamism completely nullifies the concept of "role."

A martini can be more dry (less vermouth) or less dry (more vermouth). If there's no vermouth whatsoever it's not a martini any more. Neither is a glass of pure vermouth. This is suppoed to be controversial?

- Walt

[Gordon C. Landis]

And here we see (I guess) Jared's bomb explode.  But what I really want to do is expand upon Laurel's comment:

#2 has the player making decisions based on the internal reality of the game itself as perceived by the character- completely based on the character's perspectives and needs and what the player knows to be "true" for the game world

And there is NOT (except perhaps rarely) only one way to make those decisions.  That is (I think) why Jared's charges of 'merely' aping genre conventions and etc. don't always hold up.  I mean, he IS right that that can happen, and maybe even often does.  But anytime there is a variety of possibly-valid decisions to make, in a vareity of situations, over time, there's an opportunity for 'creative' play.  The reason this is Sim and not Nar is (under the theory) as others have described - at "push come to shove" time, it's more important that the decision be appropriate within the environment than it is for the decision to create a good story (or game).  In fact, if a decision is consistent with the environment, and previous decisions - if it seems almost inevitably 'correct' (to steal Jack's line - "Seems like fate", indeed) - Sim-folk (as I can be, sometimes) will get pure joy from making that decision "real" via the game no matter the story/competitive/ANYTHING payoff it might involve.

There is an art to making Sim-decisions in this fashion.  It is a creative act.  It's just not a creative act primarily oriented around Nar Premise.

At least, that's the conclusion my mind (as influenced by this thread) reaches.

Gordon

[Mike Holmes]

Right on, Gordon my man, right on.

Mike

[xiombarg]

...a few seconds after hitting "Submit" it hit me: this is roleplaying, but strictly in the psychological/sexual sense: adopting an alternate persona. So I guess you could be dealing with psychological issues through a proxy but still...definitely not a game. And definitely leave me out of that kind of "play." I'm not into that whole leather and whips thing (okay, but only from an aesthetic angle).

Why isn't that play? Why isn't that a game? You admitted that some people enjoy pure explorative play. Is this connected to the "RPGs != having fun" thing?

What about the argument that RPGs aren't games because there is no winner? Aren't you making a similar comment, here?

Let's go to basics, here, kids. Perhaps we need to understand the basic definitions of English words before we start making up our own RPG-specific terms. From dictionary.com:

play  (pl)
v. played, play·ing, plays
v. intr.
1. To occupy oneself in amusement, sport, or other recreation: children playing with toys.

Is someone who "apes genre conventions" not playing, assuming they enjoy themsleves? I think that they are. No offense, Jared, but I think you're confusing your personal preferences with reality. Just because you wouldn't enjoy it doesn't mean it ain't play. It occupies one's time and it's an amusement.

Okay, so is exploring a world, with no set goal but to do interesting things with your character, is that not an RPG? Well, you're playing a role. And why isn't it a game? Let's go back to dictionary.com

game
n.
1. An activity providing entertainment or amusement; a pastime: party games; word games.

Hmmm. Since the people who like Sim play are playing a role and engaging in an activity that involves their entertainment and amusement, I think, by definition, they're playing a "role-playing game."

If you don't think they are, you need to explain your definition of "game" and your defintion of "play", because, again, no offense, you're not speaking the same language as anyone else.

Ironically, I think you said it best in your iSystem Manifesto, Jared. Like your own preferences, Sim play is what role-playing can be, but not neccessarily should be. Just because you don't like a certain style of RPGs, Jared, doesn't mean it's not an RPG. If you want to exclude Sim players from your favority hobby, you need to invent a new term for those subsets of RPGs that don't condone Simulationist play.

Or, at the very least, you'll need a thread where you re-define "play" and "game".

[xiombarg]

And there is NOT (except perhaps rarely) only one way to make those decisions.  That is (I think) why Jared's charges of 'merely' aping genre conventions and etc. don't always hold up.  I mean, he IS right that that can happen, and maybe even often does.  But anytime there is a variety of possibly-valid decisions to make, in a vareity of situations, over time, there's an opportunity for 'creative' play.

Right on. My thoughts exactly. "Pure" Simulationism, if any such thing can exist, is not Calvinism. It ain't deterministic. Even in non-RPGs Simulationism ain't deterministic: Anyone who's ever played a wargame knows there's more than one way to win.