Simulationismn and overpreperation

[Eric J.]

Just a quick reminder to thoes who forgot or don't relise I exist.  I'm working really hard and soon I should return as a regular on the forge.  This should be a satisfying note on thoes who value my presence and enlightening criticismn on the forge {comical sinicismn implied}.  Well better get to my main point...  Anyway...

I am doing a bit of research on the net and I am going to try my first raw simulationismn campaign (insperation morrowind).  I am working in Star Wars D6 {will be getting a new system soon, after I'm not broke}, and I started by selecting three regulars for my campaign who would enjoy it most and asking them to vote on one of 4 eras of play:  0 for my own Colonization era; 2 for the Rise of the Empire era; 0 for the Rebellion era; and 1 for the New Republic era.  If you have read any of the New Republic novels, you would have no idea how my New Republic era would be for me, because I kinda have a small (well large actually) contempt for the New Republic era, and I have redone it.  So I have set to work on constructing a large galaxy for the Rise of the Empire era. (If you don't know anything about Star Wars, this will deal more with GNS in the following, and this preface is not meant to discourage thee).

Well I am now I'm designing the galaxy to be multifunctional in the way that it can (or should) be usefull, in referance at least, to multiple campaings.  I'm designing dozens of NPCs, locations, and gathering material of hundreds of sorces online.  I'm planning on putting all of this crap, including maps into a large binder and getting a six sheet laminated copy of the galaxy.  What's the purpose of this thread?  I'm getting to it.

This, as I hope to have conveyed, requires much effort and I have only have begun.  As I have limited understanding on GNS, I would hope to gain a greator understanging if this is overboard and if any one has personal experience to relate.  I also wonder how dynamic to make each location.  Should their existance revolve around the PCs in some way?  This would seem to take away from the simulationism as well as make each location less dynamic.  Should I make places of little interest to anything?  This could easily be answered by the question of: What are your goals with creating this?, but I am asking this in the context of how you would do this and in relation to your personal experiences.  How much of my work would be wasted.  I think that if it provides a sense of realismn and the feeling that you can go other places, that information that isn't used isn't really wasted.  How strict should I make my prerequasites for what planets get onto the map.  How should I deal with player involvment.  Is this feasable?  If so, how much time would it take, for an average discription.   Could this be used as a tool to facilitate narativist play?  What would you use such a finished recource for (if at all)?  I can be penalized for making a thread to broad, but I am just giving sample topics.

I felt that these questions relate to simulationismn in general, and that it shouldn't go into actual play (especially since this hasn't been actually played), and would like whatever feedback you could give.  Especially enlightening criticicmn.

[Valamir]

A big part of the answer to your question is a) how deeply familiar are your players with SW arcane trivia, and b) how obnoxious would they be if your version of Gantooine conflicted with issue 4 of the 6 part Dark Empire meets Godzilla comic (as a tongue in cheek example).

If your answers to both of these are "very" then my advise would be to select a small corner of the galaxy, give the players a compelling reason to stay there and then concentrate on getting the details for that small corner very precise (you'll never be able to be that precise for the whole SW universe).

If your answer to a) is "not very", and/or b) is "wouldn't care much" then I would take a different approach.  Settle on a tone, or flavor for the campaign as your primary area of concentration (dark and gritty, light and fun, heros against the word...that sort of thing).  Don't stress too much on getting the details canonically accurate in this case, instead make up want you want, use available sources to get you started or for inspiration, and just concentrate on delivering a consistant tone.

From a personal methodology I recommend being 1) broadly familiar with a lot of high level types of "facts" and 2) able to make up the scene to scene details when needed (as opposed to makeing a lot of scene details in advance that will never get used).

To that end I recommend developing generic locations and NPC...make a "seedy spaceport" but don't necessarily make it "the space port of Dankarta on Gantooine".  Have it ready to use for what ever seedy space port your characters wind up at.  Similiar make up some generic NPCs and some generic hooks and then be prepared to throw them in to whatever location the players wind up going.  Its a rather illusionist technique but far easier to pull off than creating a galactic encyclopedia.

[Eric J.]

As a fan of illusionismn, I can easilly see your point.  But first let me clarrigy some points:

1.  My players are infamilliar with much of Star Wars trivia.  They aren't the type of hard-core gamer that I am, and usually enjoy what I do.

2.  One part of this is to try and enrich them with culture, and give me some satisfaction.  I am designing it as a refference tool to place plot relavant locations.  I am simply giving a foundation for which seedy bar one might place NPCs and plot critical locations.  It could be cool to try out.


Also, it would be usefull to know everyone's stance on simulationism as a base of refference when reading your posts.  Not a requirement but a recommendation.

[Andrew Martin]

2.  One part of this is to try and enrich them with culture, and give me some satisfaction.  I am designing it as a refference tool to place plot relavant locations.  I am simply giving a foundation for which seedy bar one might place NPCs and plot critical locations.  It could be cool to try out.

I would be against this: "try and enrich them with culture". Running a game that forces things upon people is just bad manners and offensive. Instead, make the game reward those players that choose to have their characters (and themselves) find out more about the culture.

Also, don't bother to punish players who fail to do this or that choose not to. The simple act of providing rewards is enough to induce change in players and their characters, while still providing freedom for players and their characters to act in other ways.

Also, it would be useful to know everyone's stance on simulationism as a base of reference when reading your posts.

I believe I prefer simulation -- I like to make sure that the games I design simulate the genre/setting and that characters will behave consistently.

[Ron Edwards]

(winces)

This is a quick aside for clarification, regarding Andrew's point. He wrote,
"I believe I prefer simulation -- I like to make sure that the games I design simulate the genre/setting and that characters will behave consistently."

In my "Seven major misconceptions about GNS" thread, one of the most important misconceptions is that people mistake Simulationism for any value placed on genre/setting or on consistent character-role-playing. These things are central to Exploration, in the terms of my essay, and hence central to all role-playing of whatever GNS emphasis. Placing value on them does not "make" one's play Simulationist. That requires a metagame priority that I describe at some length in the essay, with examples.

Best,
Ron

[damion]

I'm pretty neutral on simulationism, I've played a fair amount of it, and like it well enough.

As for 'enriching them with culture', I assumed you meant the places, not the players, which sounds simulationist and cool in my book.

I think this depends on your view of it. Do you like accumulating all this info and corrolating it and making detailed locations ect? It can definatly help your game, and if it makes you happy, good. You should probably realize that the players probably won't use most of it. You said 'if it provides a sense of realism, it isn't wasted', which indicates you don't mind, so go with it.

[Eric J.]

I would never force culture ON a person.  That would be as anti-simulationist as you can get.  On another note that may be off topic: What kind of conflict would any one advise to put into the Rise of The Empire era?  It's just not too epic.  The Jedi counsal is too controlling, with linear mission style play.  There's only one government, and none of them are even creative enough to make their own characters, after over 2 days.  Am I giving newbies too much freedom?  One of the players decided to completelley ignore the simulationismn part every time I mentioned "my simulationismn campaign" and told another player that it meant gamismn (the defenition of).   So, I'm doing several things at once without any player involvment, and in doing so am becoming a little resentfull.  Mabee they'll cooperate better tomorrow.

[hyphz]

I would never force culture ON a person.  That would be as anti-simulationist as you can get.  On another note that may be off topic: What kind of conflict would any one advise to put into the Rise of The Empire era?  It's just not too epic.  The Jedi counsal is too controlling, with linear mission style play.  There's only one government, and none of them are even creative enough to make their own characters, after over 2 days.  Am I giving newbies too much freedom?  One of the players decided to completelley ignore the simulationismn part every time I mentioned "my simulationismn campaign" and told another player that it meant gamismn (the defenition of).   So, I'm doing several things at once without any player involvment, and in doing so am becoming a little resentfull.  Mabee they'll cooperate better tomorrow.

Remember, you can do a LOT within a mission - just send the players to do something and THEN hit them with the simulationist environment when they get to where they're supposed to be going.  The protagonists in Ep.2 do lots of proactive stuff even though they're on a mission the whole time.

Your players voted for the Rise genre, didn't they?  Why not ask them what they liked about the genre and what they'd want to play?

I suppose you could always have them play equivalents of Palpatine and Sidious etc. and tell them to go found the Empire themselves, but the level of simulation required to get the manipulation down would be heavy, and they might need to break simulationism to gain a foothold.  (Or you could delete Palpatine and Sidious from the equation (so the Empire won't be forming around the players) and show the Senate and the Jedi Council becoming weak and slow towards threats, invite the players to try and fix it, simulate the process and see how much the result looks like the Empire - but from the sound of your players I'm not sure they'd be into it, especially since it might be a bit low on action and have the same problem as above)

The only worry about Star Wars would be that even the FILMS don't feel simulationist.  (Why are whole areas of planets covered in solid desolate buildings that belch columns of fire into the sky?  Why do the Jedi keep bookshelves full of blue neon lights when their library is computerised?  Etc..)  

When you get not broke, you might want to look into Blue Planet, as it is VERY based on proactive simulationism, is hard sci-fi, and doesn't have those pesky films as clubs for players to beat you over the head with.

[Eric J.]

Especially good advice from Hyphz.  I had already asked them "Why would you want to do a simulationist campaign in the Rise of the Empire Era?"  Their answers were something like, "I guess it's because I know about it the most..."  This was about the time I conjured my Fist of Death...  The very point of simulationismn is out of exploration, and once that's been eliminated in a campaign that strives for it, your essentially doomed.

As for the films, I'd say that on the prequals, I'd agree.  However, I'd have to say that Star Wars uses simulationsismn to a limited degree.  Narrativismn is primary, because it was a good movie, and I don't see how anything can overstep narrativismn in any form of literature, (well there are exceptions, but they wouldn't be true literature most of the time. DBZ, choose your own adventure... ect.).

I will look into blue planet.  Could you please give me a link?

[hyphz]

Especially good advice from Hyphz.  I had already asked them "Why would you want to do a simulationist campaign in the Rise of the Empire Era?"  Their answers were something like, "I guess it's because I know about it the most..."  This was about the time I conjured my Fist of Death...  The very point of simulationismn is out of exploration, and once that's been eliminated in a campaign that strives for it, your essentially doomed.

Nay, the very point of *roleplaying* is exploration.  But, I don't think that statement necessarily eliminates exploration - it just means you have to explore stuff that wasn't in the films.

I will look into blue planet.  Could you please give me a link?

http://www.bpv2.com/bpindex.html

Best of all, it has the maps available for download.  I am not normally a very simulationist player, but the SECOND I saw those maps, my reaction was immediately "Cool!  I want to see what's THERE (point)".

[Balbinus]

Why is it important to you to ask what they want from a simulationist star wars game?  Why not ask what they want from a star wars game?

Anyway, to answer your questions.  Firstly I am to the extent it means anything to describe individuals in such terms strongly simulationist.

Secondly, that's a lot of work there, it may crush your players.  How will you feel if in week 2 of your game they decide star wars wasn't such a cool idea anyway and they'd rather do some fantasy?  All that work wasted, no?  Start small, with a few locations.  As the game expands make more.  Why make work for yourself?

Also, star wars I would argue is definitely not about highly detailed starcharts and set locations.  It is about broad, epic themes.  Drama, passion, loyalty and the price for power and a whole bunch of other stuff.  It's about issues, not places, places are just cool backdrops where stuff happens.

Make the game about fixed and precalculated locations and it won't be star wars, it won't have that feel, it won't be epic.  

So, start with a planet, a mysterious message or crashed ship or something which ties them into an epic adventure, let them do stuff with style and go.  Then you're talking star wars.

[jdagna]

I don't think any one game style necessarily requires more or less preparation than any other - it's more of a campaign kind of thing.

It sounds to me like you want your emphasis to be on different cultures (and perhaps the conflicts between them?)  This kind of emphasis does tend to require a lot of preparation, since a culture is a very complicated and often arbitrary kind of thing.  However, a simulationist wanting to explore these cultures would need to do as much work as a narrativist wanting to develop a themed story out of them.  And a gamist who wanted to use these cultures for their relative merits and strengths would probably have to do even more work.

But you could easily reduce the scale, even if the emphasis is on multiple cultures.  Think about New York and all of its ethnic and social neighborhoods.  Or think about California during the gold rush of '49 where people from many countries swarmed into an area that wasn't prepared to handle the growth.