Pure Sim is not roleplaying

[Jared A. Sorensen]

Regardless of what you call them, "games" are a very particular thing. One commonality (uh) is that all games have goals.  Sure, that's not listed on dictionary.com but man, don't be pulling semantic games here. This ain't that other forum. Oh...and RPGs don't have winners/losers? That's a major assumption that probably belongs in that other thread.

So let's approach it from a purely atypical POV.

I'm at home. Let's say I'm writing out a poem or something...on paper. I write some lines, they suck. I crumple up the piece of paper and toss it in the wastebasket (which is at the other end of the room). If I make it a conscious decision that "the goal is to make the shot," then it's a game. It's not necessarily "fun" or a way to pass time (it's really just an off-shoot of the poetry-writing debacle). It's just something I decide to do. If I just decide to throw crumpled-up paper over my should, that's not a game. Arguably I'm doing the same thing: throwing paper. But one is clearly a game I've presented to myself. The other is not.

The old guy who waves at cars? Is he playing a game? Well, is he trying to wave to twenty yellow cars...or is he just waving?

So now we're talking about Role Playing Games. Simulationist play (however you define it) doesn't have a goal that the player is conscious of. And no, I don't accept "being my character" as a valid goal, any more than I could accept "throwing paper" or "waving at cars" as being a goal.   Those are activities.

By itself, saying "RPGs need goals" is like saying "Mars needs women." It doesn't really mean anything ("Hey, who cares if it's a "real" game, right?"). But when this concept of game=goal dovetails into all sorts of other game design concerns, it starts to matter.

Anyway, like I've said before. I'm not here to debate or argue my ideas, hoping you'll see the light. I can only explain how I see the world working, if only to give people something else to stick in their toolbox (or discard, as I suspect many of y'all are doing).

[Le Joueur]

Anyway, like I've said before. I'm not here to debate or argue my ideas, hoping you'll see the light. I can only explain how I see the world working, if only to give people something else to stick in their toolbox (or discard, as I suspect many of y'all are doing).

Yeah, okay.  You believe pure Sim is not role-playing.  That was said as much in the title of this thread.  Nothing you've added has advanced beyond that.  People disagree, I'm either way (depending on the wind).



So do you have a point or are you just sounding off?

Fang Langford

[Edited to correct the attributions.]

[xiombarg]

I'm just trying to understand you, here, Jared. I'm not quoting dictionary definitions at you to argue semantics. I'm quoting them because it's like you're talking a totally different language as far as I can tell. It sounds a lot like English, but a lot of the words seem to mean ideosyncratic things. I don't mean that to sound harsh. I mean that I find your concepts genuinely confusing, and at odds with my basic understanding of the words you're using.

So now we're talking about Role Playing Games. Simulationist play (however you define it) doesn't have a goal that the player is conscious of. And no, I don't accept "being my character" as a valid goal, any more than I could accept "throwing paper" or "waving at cars" as being a goal.   Those are activities.

So, okay, for it to count as a goal, it has to have a stopping point? Is that the distinction here? "Throwing paper" isn't a goal because it doesn't end? You can't tell if you've succeeded, since you *always* succeed?

In that case, "being my character" is a valid goal. It stops when the character dies/is retired from game. If I portrayed the character in an interesting and realistic way up to that point, I succeeded. If not, well, I failed at my goal. And that, my friend, is Simulationism.

[Walt Freitag]

And that, my friend, is Simulationism.

Ah, but it's not "pure" Simulationism because it's now tainted with an element of challenge ("can I portray my character in a way that's interesting and realistic up to my own standards?") or competition ("can I portray my character better than I did last session, or better than the other players portray theirs?").

I think this is a non-issue simply because it's a definitional tautology between "pure simulationism" and "game." How do we tell if the simulationism is "pure?" It's "pure" when it has no goal beyond the performance of the activity itself. How do we tell if it's a "game?" It's a "game" only if it has a goal beyond the performance of the activity itself. Ergo the main assertion follows trivially.

But I still have to ask, so what? "Pure" simulationism, if it can exist at all (which is doubtful on a sort of quantum uncertainty level; see congruence), is such a rare and specialized beast that whether or not it fits the technical definition of role playing game is manifestly irrelevant.

- Walt

(And speaking of irrelevant, I guess it would be no great loss if this post gets dropped in the server changeover.)

[contracycle]

And that, my friend, is Simulationism.

Ah, but it's not "pure" Simulationism because it's now tainted with an element of challenge ("can I portray my character in a way that's interesting and realistic up to my own standards?") or competition ("can I portray my character better than I did last session, or better than the other players portray theirs?").

No it isn't.  All xiombarg said was In that case, '"being my character" is a valid goal. ' - and that is absolutely correct.  How the character is portrayed to other players is NOT necessarily a concern (and boy does that piss me off), and competing with yourself or others is equally unnecessary.  The goal of the game is exactly the same as that of fancy dress - the event itself is an excuse to get into the fancy dress.  What you do once you are in the fancy dress is not necessarily germane.

It being a game, in which the participants have little or no real stakes from the real world, there is much greater latitude to explore situations and circumstances that the player would not be directly exposed to in person.  There is no need for an abyss RPG to be about the relationships among the characters, or to be a survival challenge - the colour CAN BE the point.  The players are able to be there to explore the colour and let the rest of it go hang.  Survival and inter-character relationships may occur - partly as colour, partly as obstacle, partly as Exploration of human interaction - but they need not be a goal, or even important.

[xiombarg]

No it isn't.  All xiombarg said was In that case, '"being my character" is a valid goal. ' - and that is absolutely correct.  How the character is portrayed to other players is NOT necessarily a concern (and boy does that piss me off), and competing with yourself or others is equally unnecessary.  The goal of the game is exactly the same as that of fancy dress - the event itself is an excuse to get into the fancy dress.  What you do once you are in the fancy dress is not necessarily germane.

It being a game, in which the participants have little or no real stakes from the real world, there is much greater latitude to explore situations and circumstances that the player would not be directly exposed to in person.  There is no need for an abyss RPG to be about the relationships among the characters, or to be a survival challenge - the colour CAN BE the point.  The players are able to be there to explore the colour and let the rest of it go hang.  Survival and inter-character relationships may occur - partly as colour, partly as obstacle, partly as Exploration of human interaction - but they need not be a goal, or even important.

I think you said that better than I could, Gareth. Bravo.

I think part of what I find odd about Jared's assertion is why he feels the need to define away styles of play he doesn't like, when it would be just easier to say, "Okay, yeah, this is a valid style of play, but it doesn't interest me at all, so I'm ignoring it." With no offense to Jared, I don't understand why he has such a chip on his shoulder about this issue that he feels the need to start discussions about it, when he could just vent on his Livejournal about it or something.

Also, as I said before, if Jared honestly believes what he's saying, I'm still not sure I fully comprehend it. Call me stupid. I mean, there are many cases where I disagree with people but I understand their argument and why they feel that way, but in Jared's case, I don't even understand the argument, because he seems to be defining "game" "play" and "RPG" way far outside even the most abtruse way those terms are used here on the Forge.

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

Let's clarify some things about this thread.

1) Zak, correct me if I'm wrong, but the concern you've raised in your first post has been dealt with in some detail, from several different angles.

2) Jared, correct me if I'm wrong, but you have provided your point of view without the intent of debating it (just making it clear).

If I'm correct in both of these, then there's no need to continue the thread. In fact, if #1 is correct, then there's no need to continue this thread; if #2 is incorrect, then the topic (Jared's point) should be the basis for a new thread.

Best,
Ron

[Walt Freitag]

EDIT: Post deleted after seeing Ron's simultaneous post.

- Walt

[Zak Arntson]

1) Zak, correct me if I'm wrong, but the concern you've raised in your first post has been dealt with in some detail, from several different angles.

No corrections here. I had the "pure sim" thought and was silly to not reread your essay (I keep thinking that with the nth reading, I'll have it memorized). I'm glad there's a forum where I can post a wonky thought and get discussion, clarification and critique.

[Jared A. Sorensen]

2) Jared, correct me if I'm wrong, but you have provided your point of view without the intent of debating it (just making it clear).

Just me causing trouble again.

I guess it can just be disregarded...I have no interest in speaking about it anymore and just wanted to get it off my chest. Next time I'll keep it off the Forge.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Jared,

This might surprise people, but I think your point bears considering and may represent a "closet view" held by more than one person. Therefore I will be the first to say that expressing it is not counter to the goals of the Forge, and you shouldn't think that it was inappropriate to post. But since we're talking about a value judgment, and acknowledging it as such, there's no point in a medley of "I agree" and "I disagree" developing from there.

Anyway, given Jared's and Zak's responses, I think it's time to bid this thread Good Night, Sleep Tight, and enjoy all the links to it, in later discussions but no need to add more posts.

Best,
Ron