Pure Simulationism is Not a Game: Come Out of the Closet

[Mike Holmes]

What Walt said.

I agree about the potential for dysfunction. I admitted to that in the long debates about Illusionism. But that doesn't mean every Sim game is dysfunctional. And a tight focus does not insure completely against dysfunction either.

It's the same thing I say about Generic games which are probably some of the most unfocused games available. They are good for providing a minimal structure so that a game can get off the ground if there is no other more specific game available that covers the GMs needs. But if a game that has the specific focus that you're looking for can be found, that will be superior. This also, BTW, means that for a GM who wants to take the game lots of disparate places, that a somewhat less focused game may be superior.

It's a spectrum, in any case, and people will choose their level of focus to fit. On the far end of the spectrum from the completely unfocused game (which doesn't exist, the rules alone create some structure), is the (equally unknown) totally focused game where it plays out identically every time you play. Since neither exists, nor is anyone really very interested in either, I suggest that we view all games as ranging from slight focus to lots of focus, and realize that they are all potentially entertaining to different people under different circumstances.

And if they are entertaining, they're not broke.

Mike

[Gordon C. Landis]

I have many paragraphs of unposted text on this subject, trying to puzzle out just what Jared means, explain Sim as perhaps not a goal, but an outcome of play (including, but not limited to, roleplay), and some similar thoughts.

But it all comes down to this, I think:  Jared sees Sim as kinda an "odd man out" in GNS theory - one he's not particualrly interested in.  We've talked about that before, I believe - Jared adds the focus that this "odd man out" status (if you accept it), particularly in terms of finding a realizeable, supportable-by-mechanics GOAL for Sim, is especially problematic when you're trying to put together a focused game design.

Folks who are interested in Sim . . . know that they enjoy RPGs and don't much care if there's a Nar Premise or a Game Challenge involved.  And no matter how hard I try, I haven't come up with anything more insightful on the subject than the "Controversy: is that third box really there?" section of Ron's essay.  Sim as a "goal" is a bit different than Nar and Game, but not fundamentally so.  At least SOME Sim games (and Sim game design) DO have a point - they are not about "doing nothing".  I think Jared confuses the fact that he doesn't LIKE that point - and that there are certain problems with making game designs that fascilitate acheiving it - with the idea that there is no point.

And that's where I'm going to leave it at the moment - gettin' a little busy at work again . . .

Gordon

[AndyGuest]

Hmm, curious thread, I've had similar thoughts myself, only directed towards Narrativism rather than Sim. (My thoughts tend to go "huh ? you want a satisfying story ? well get together and write a satisfying story, why are you faffing about with rules ?").

(and yeah I know Narr isn't just about the story, it is about premise and goals and stances, etc., the same logic can still be applied)

(that said I can see that playing Narr and the rules involved can be fun, not dissing it, just doesn't seem very RPG to me)

[Balbinus]

The vast majority of games on the market are sim.  By any useful definition, Blue Planet, Fading Suns, Vampire are rpgs.  Whether or not they are considered games seems to me academic to the point of absurdity.  I would note, however, that their designers and players clearly all consider them to be games.

Definitions can be twisted however people want, after a while however they become so far from normal experience that they become useless.

To say that when I sit down with my players and play, say, Fading Suns we are not playing a role playing game is simply silly.  That is what the hobby is.  That is what people actually do.

Jared may not see the point of such games, that's fine - we all have different tastes, but if you were to ask the participants what they were doing I suggest that very few of them would not consider themselves to be playing a game.  My group, unabashedly sim, actually refers to our weekly meet as The Game.  We all consider ourselves to be meeting up to play games, games such as the extremely sim-my Runequest.

GNS can be an extremely useful tool.  I refer to this thread http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2056 which to me shows how valuable an understanding of GNS can be in enabling actual play.  However, theories which start to exclude whole swathes of actual activity, actual play, seem to me to be losing this utility.

Theories are tools.  They are devices to reach an end, not an end in themselves.  I'm not quite sure where this particular theory is going or what the desired end is.  Improved play does not appear to be that end, as most people's play is excluded from the discussion.

Finally, this quote from Jared "Because to my eyes, there's no difference between Blue Planet, Talislanta, Fading Suns, Ars Magica, etc. and you might as well just use GURPS."   These games, to me, have very little in common.  Fading Suns could not be done just as well in Gurps.  To suggest that indicates to me not that these are not games but that they are games so far from Jared's personal taste that they have all become mutually incomprehensible for him.  As I said, his taste is as valid as anyone's, but I am not persuaded there is any larger conclusion to draw here than just noting that some people don't enjoy sim rpgs.  Nobody ever claimed that everyone did.

[Paganini]

I'm coming in late on this discussion, but it's something I have been thinking about, and reached a semi-conclusion about, so I'll go ahead and drop a few lines here.

I think the root of the conflict stems from the fact that the goals of simulationist play are focused on a different area of play than those of other styles. That is, in narrative and gamist play the goals focus on the ends: a compelling narrative in narrativist play, posing a challenge in gamist play, for example. In simulationist play the goal is not on the ends, but on the means. The ends are really unimportant, so long as we *reach them a certain way.* In other words, the goal of simulationism is upheld as long as the ends are reached by a certain method, regardless of what those ends are.

I've seen a lot of online arguments springing from this fundamental difference of goals. Simulationists are unhappy if the method doesn't match their expectations (which is why design discussions with a simulationist often involves terms like accuracy, precision, and verisimillitude <sp?>)  while a narrativist, for example, couldn't care less *how* the end is achieved, as long as it's satisfying.

So, the bottom line is, I think that such simulation *is* in fact gaming. There is a goal, even though the goal lies in performing the act in a certain way, rather than the more familiar goal in result.

Ob. disclaimer: Yes, of course, I am speaking in hypothetical absolutes. There's no such thing as a pure form of any one of these gamers... most narrativists do care somewhat about the means used to achieve the ends etc.

[Eric J.]

Holy Cow, Batman!  This is all coming together....

What simulationism really is.... Why my friends don't get it... Why Jack is incesently asking what you do in my RPG... I finally understand! Thank you! Thank you! THANK YOU!

I am a true simulationist.  I once said that,  "RPG's should only transfer what happens in reality into mechanics." This was before I ever heard of GNS.  You see.  I think that simulationism is no different than the other two branches of GNS.  It is simply misunderstood.  For example, when Ron stated that GNS is about exploring, I didn't understand, for I always took upon an organised quest when playing in a simulationism game. Now I understand that he meant.   Simulationism is about interacting with the environment.  It's about learning.  It's about having a simple effect on the environment and learning something for it.  An objective is found in the PROCESS instead of the PREMIS.  That is how I'd define it. So is simulationism a game? In the name of my great immature friend, "Hell yeah!"