Split from "long and brutal"

[Evan Waters]

I might be misreading the model entirely when I say this, but one game that seems "Simulationist" to me that hasn't been described as such (in this thread at least) is Classic TRAVELLER. Think about it- so much of the appeal of the game is building parts of the world. From running characters through the career system to designing subsectors to putting together robots and starships and encounter tables... not to mention a supplement like "76 Patrons" which has the system introduce adventure elements without the GM having to craft the entire story in advance.

So perhaps a good comparison for Simulationist RPGs would be MMORPGs, like EVERQUEST, ULTIMA ONLINE, etc.- places where you've got a high level of programming in regards to the external world, encounters, NPCs, etc., but with a bunch of human controlled elements that flit back and forth within this constructed environment, react to it, cause the system to react, etc.

Certainly I don't see anything "fearful" in this style, or necessarily "reactive" to the other two styles- rather it's a style that focuses on the setting as a self-sustaining, internally consistent thing, and the PCs as unpredictable elements introduced into it. From a design and GMing stance it works more or less as described, from a PC stance it's a bit more like "let's see what we're in the middle of".

[AndyGuest]

Forgive me for jumping in in the middle of this and probably gettng everything wrong.

I just recently got a copy of Sorceror. I love it, I think it is great. However I read it after learning about GNS and by the time I fiinished the book I found myself thinking 'what makes this narrativist ?'. It's mechanics are wonderfully light and simple and they certainly don't get in the way of narrativism, but I could happily run it the way I run vampire (I create a setting, players create characters, introduce the characters to setting and see what happens). I'd say my way of running Vampire was simulationist, I'd probably run Sorceror the same way.

All of which is largely irrelevant to the original purpose of this thread. I do play using all three styles of play (at least I think I do). I like a dungeon bash where the aim is to level up, beat the dungeon and collect the treasure. I like playing as part of a group that is focusing on a premise and story (though we'd never called it this, we've done it).

Sometimes, however, I just like to play a character, have the character react based on what the character knows, not caring about the outcome, purely on the process. (That's not completely true, I do care about the outcome, I'd prefer it to be a 'win' or thematically satisfying, but when playing this type of game the sim aspects is more important).

I can see the arguments in this thread from both sides. Simulationism does, most often, seem to be defined as not gamism and not narrativism. To me that suggests that sim needs a better definition and, potentially, that any model based on three styles may be inherently wrong. That is to say, perhaps simulationism is badly defined because it is a catch-all which actually contains more than one style of gaming. I must admit this seems likely to me, gamism and narr are both incredibly narrow compared to sim, maybe that means that sim is too wide ?

[As an aside, I also agree that demon summoning isn't inherently nar in Sorceror. It is done in such a way that it doesn't play against nar and, indeed, can be used to actively support nar, but there is nothing there to prevent it being used for gamist or sim purposes. I'd point to the demon summoning rules in the old Stormbringer rpg as being similar to the Sorceror rules, yet I'd consider Stormbringer a sim game]

[Clinton R. Nixon]

From the "Etiquette at the Forge" policy:

III.F. Thread "resurrection"

If you find an older thread (not on the first page of the forum) that you wish to discuss, we ask that you create a new thread and link to the old one instead of "resurrecting" the thread. This helps everyone in terms of researching threads, and seeing where a discussion started and stopped.

I'm not jumping on anyone, and I'm sure you weren't aware. Anyhow, I pronounce this thread closed (especially seeing as it had major flamage a year ago when it ended), but Andy and Evan's thoughts as interesting, and if anyone wants to comment on them, start a new thread.

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

Evan, please read the Site Guidelines at the top of the Site Discussion forum.

Everyone, do not resurrect old threads - most especially year-old threads. It is perfectly all right to extend the discussions you find, by starting new threads.

These posts were split from the old discussion All-out dissection (LONG AND BRUTAL). For the record, this represents an instance (one of many) in which my own views were radically changed through the process of discussion here. Just in case anyone suspects that never happens.

Best,
Ron

[AndyGuest]

Apologies folks, I though that thread had sprung up quickly while I wasn't looking...

[xiombarg]

Apologies folks, I though that thread had sprung up quickly while I wasn't looking...

And I'd like to publically repeat my apology as well, because I was under the same impression, that the thread had sprung up over the weekend while I was visiting my father...