"Where'd you go, psycho-boy?"

[Tim Denee]

1) Simulationism has the goal of exploration; experiencing moments through a character.
2) A person who lives only for themself and to experience the moment is a sociopath.

Therefore 3) Simulationism is the experience of being a sociopath.

Other evidence:
- sociopaths often progress well and advance quickly; they are not irrational or mentally flawed. However, when the achieve their goals (good job, good relationship, etc) they will screw things up on purpose. They get bored with success. Does the simulationist go in wanting to live in a land without monsters, or go in to experience the killing of monsters?
- the reason a sociopath gets bored with success is because there is no meaning to their life; they live for the moment. They live for the means, not the ends. Simulationism is also about the means, not the ends. Healthy people/gamism/narrativism have a meaning to their existence.

[Clinton R. Nixon]

I've seen a lot of, frankly, anti-Simulationist talk here lately. A lot of it is opinion and not backed up by good argument.

Ron has spoken in the earlier thread, started by Zak and added to by Jared, and seems to be okay with it. I personally felt that thread was one of our first "troll" posts here and was disappointed in its participants.

This thread is very, very flammable. Be extremely careful where you take it - it threatens to be offensive now, and contains very spurious logic.

[Tim Denee]

Sorry. Won't happen again.

It wasn't really serious; I thought it'd be nice to be able to refer to Gamism/Narrativism/Sociopathy... Just one of those weird thoughts that pops in there sometimes. I'll keep 'em to myself in future.

[xiombarg]

Ron has spoken in the earlier thread, started by Zak and added to by Jared, and seems to be okay with it. I personally felt that thread was one of our first "troll" posts here and was disappointed in its participants.

Well, in an attempt to move this thread in a more constructive direction, I'd like to state for the record that I ain't anti-Simulationist (I enjoy all three modes of play, for different reasons, plus several modes ot play that aren't possible in RPGs but possible in wargames, board games, and card games), and that I have to admit I sort of agree with you that there seems to be, in some of the theory you refer to, an attempt to give an objective reason to treat Simulationist play in a pejorative fashion -- and I'm not sure what purpose such an act would serve.

[Clinton R. Nixon]

Tim,

I did not tell you to stop the thread or silence yourself, and I absolutely will not allow that sort of impression to be made of the management of the Forge. I did, however, tell everyone to be mindful of how they pursue this topic, and to back up any overly controversile statements they make with real argument.

In the morning, when I am less tired, I will start a thread on immersion, heavy psychological Simulationism, and another social goal to roleplaying besides Exploration.

(Note: edited to include a link to the new thread.)

[Gordon C. Landis]

Yeah, it's easy to get a little TOO flippant - especially since most folks here know better than to take such things too seriously.  Not everyone is so inclined though, so to be clear - as far as I can tell in ALL this Sim stuff, no one is denying that there's a very common play style that folks enjoy associated, somehow, with the label "Simulationism".  It has plusses and minuses, just like N and G do.  Fundamentally, it's a valid thing, but NOT the be-all end-all of RPG possibilities.

This sociopath thing did get a thought crystalized for me, though - it goes something like this:

A BAD Simulationist thinks that everyone/thing - the game, the GM, other players, whatever - exists only to provide them with the experience they desire.

A GOOD Simulationist knows that they are responsible for helping create that experience.  That's why Sim play is still a goal and a creative act - you do things to help the sim.

The keys in Simulationist theory/design lie in figuring out just what that "helping" is supposed to look like, in terms of systems, behaviors, and etc.

How I got there from "sociopath" . . .  you figure it out.  I'm not sure I can.

Gordon

[Mike Holmes]

The problem, Gordon, with Tim's argument is that he's using poor, poor logic.

1) Trees need water.
2) Tim needs water.
3) Therefore Tim is a Tree.

Would you like to see other absurd proofs?

Mike

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

Mike pegged it.

Clinton is also right, and I can't see any reason for this thread to continue. In the previous threads, I think people were able to stick to the issue of clarifying Jared's position; in this one, I don't think that will be possible.

This thread is closed.

Best,
Ron