Guess who's finally read the FAQ

[Jack Spencer Jr]

I'll probably have to read it a few times before I post anything actually worthwhile, but anyway....

Part of the problems I've always had with any of the three-fold models has been confusion over what was being talked about.  Players' goals game designers' goals.  In quite a few of the 3-fold discussions I've participated in or seen have boiled down to a misunderstanding on this level: "What exactly are we talking about?"

The fact of the matter is that these goals can be applied to many situations, correctly or no.

The simulationism secontion needs work, but it seems to be an ongoing debate right now.  I'm going to suggest something radical, take it as you will.

There is no such thing.

Well, not exactly.

I've always said I was simulationist.  I'm starting to believe what I've always been is a narrativist trying to tell stories using gamist means.

Not to deny the existence of any real simulationists out there, but to my way of thinking, most sims merely *think* they're sims.

It seems to me that simulationism is an outgrowth of Gamist, dropping most of the pretense of "winning" as it were (while clinging fiercely to some of the gamist concepts, like character advancement) and replacing it with a pretense of "what would really happen" sort of feel.  "Really" being highly subjective (e.g. Toon).  This sort of game is open-ended in what can happen.  Challenges can abound as in the most gamist of games or tales can be woven with the best of the narrativists.

I suppose in one sense simulationist are greedy, wishing for the best of both worlds, or just both worlds anyway.  I know I am.

The problem can arise when the various members of the group wish for something different.  Compare this to a pure gamist or narrativist group where all the players focus on one goal or the other.  The game moves along smoothly and everyone is, for the most part on the same page.  In a simulationist game, it works on a "take it as it comes" sort of mentality.  This make the cinematic action a character executes a little more special since it is appropriately difficult to do, but since it is so difficult all but the most gung-ho players will use more conservative tactics.  And most of the time, said players will fail.

I guess I'm suggesting that Simulationist is actually a combination, to an extent, of Gamist and Narrativist goals.

But even I have problems with this.  A model with three branches is simplistic to my way of thinking.  And here I am suggesting that it's actually only two, simpler still.  How ludicuos!

ANd there may indeed be real honest to God simulationists out there.  I'm just willing to bet that many who think they are are like me.  They merely think they are.

[Le Joueur]

Did you notice the can said "worms" on it before you opened it?  Neither did I.

We just gotta talk.  I came to a different conclusion, but for many of the same reasons.

pblock wrote:
The simulationism section needs work, but it seems to be an ongoing debate right now.  I'm going to suggest something radical, take it as you will.

There is no such thing.

Well, not exactly.

Heh.  My idea, in your terms, would contrarily be that everything is simulation.  I have been pouring over the FAQ for about a week now and no matter how I slice it, everything is comes out simulation.  (Though it might be because the FAQ has such a hard time defining simulationism outside of exclusively.)

It seems to me that simulationism is an outgrowth of Gamist, dropping most of the pretense of "winning" as it were (while clinging fiercely to some of the gamist concepts, like character advancement) and replacing it with a pretense of "what would really happen" sort of feel.  "Really" being highly subjective (e.g. Toon).  This sort of game is open-ended in what can happen.  Challenges can abound as in the most gamist of games or tales can be woven with the best of the narrativists.

I can see this point of view in the historical context, but constructively, I believe it is more of a problem than a starting point.  It is true, modern role-playing games seem to come from a wargame root, but I have noticed a few other things that most people never consider the potential of being role-playing games.

My classic example is civil war re-enactment.  Many of the re-enactors themselves on many occasions clearly say that what they do is not theatre (some actually dislike being watched by the public) or wargame (the end result is far from in doubt).  This says to me that what they practice is actually a naïve form of role-playing game.  While some are amateur history experts trying to replay the events of the lives of specific people, many others are simply there to be in the civil war (period).  On that level much of it turns into a live-action role-playing game with very non-traditional rules.  (I am not going to go on at length here, I am just citing an example to suggest that there are other historical roots to role-playing than just wargames.)

Primarily, my point is that, as far as I can tell from the FAQ, there are no situations where you play gamist or narrativist at the expense of simulation entirely.  Certainly you can shift simulation to the back seat, but you can't leave it on the curb.  To me that makes gamist and narrativism subsets of simulationism.  (It is true that, by mechanics, you can bring gamism and narrativism together, by making story goals into victory conditions, but they are not necessarily overlapping in all cases.)

For discussion's sake, if you want to help me understand something I might be missing, it should take an example of a game that has no simulationist side whatsoever and is yet clearly a role-playing game.

The problem can arise when the various members of the group wish for something different.  Compare this to a pure gamist or narrativist group where all the players focus on one goal or the other.  The game moves along smoothly and everyone is, for the most part on the same page.  In a simulationist game, it works on a "take it as it comes" sort of mentality.

I believe this is a mischaracterization.  I see no reason that a player could not adopt an 'aggressive' tourist mode and really put the simulation to the test.  ("See 15 fictitious countries in just under a half an hour with Impswitch Chronairlines.")

On the other hand, how can a narrativist have a compelling game without a consistent background?  Certainly things in the background can be 'moved about' or 'discovered' during play, but a can-opener is still a can-opener and be used for that purpose regardless.  There don't even need to be rules to support this kind of simulation, it just is.

Likewise, how could a gamist pursue their agenda if not in a simulated world?  While the rules provide an excellent framework around which to build a 'victory,' without the world they describe, it could only be an abstract one.

I am sure many can suggest that I am implying that gamism and gamism-simulationism are the same thing and then go on to point out that conventionally gamism-simulationism is known as wargaming, but I say that would only hold if 'pure' gamism included boardgames.  (Since we are talking singularly about role-playing games here, I think that is not possible.)

Let me take a moment and explain how I separate role-playing games from all others.  I call it the 'behind the bar' effect.  Let's say you're playing in a game set in a bar, the referee has described the patrons, the tables and their contents (the tables or the patrons?), and let's also say a fight has broken out.  At this point, I ask people what the difference is between this as a role-playing game and as, say, a boardless wargame.

It all happens in that instant when a character goes behind the bar to get a specific item.  (Say you decide that, because your character has a staff-fighting technique, not unthinkable in a personal combat wargame, you will go behind the bar and find the broom.)

The assumption that the bar will have a broom behind it says a few things; 1) you are going outside the description of the 'playing field' and improvising, and 2) you are making basic (and very reasonable) assumptions about the setting.  At the wargame level, you have violated the clear limitations set on the playing field (the description already given).  At the role-playing game level, you have thought specifically within the context of the game.

Even if a different one of the participants has to 'make up' this detail, it takes the play into 'role-playing game only' territory.  Acting within the context of incompletely described setting is what makes it role-playing gaming.  The reason everything is simulation is exactly because you don't need rules for every contingency.  When rules fail, the conventions of the diegetic world take over.  (Diegetic: Having to do with the actual world of the game being played; as opposed to the formal elements which are part of the game, but not of the world depicted by it.)

This is why gamism-simulationism isn't a wargame.  Its because role-playing games aren't wargames by definition.

I guess I'm suggesting that Simulationist is actually a combination, to an extent, of Gamist and Narrativist goals.

To me, this is about as far from the truth as I can imagine.  I see a narrativist game including a fair amount of the conscious use of literary tools in a non-diegetic fashion in a simulationist game.  I feel that gamists (per the FAQ) seek competition (and frequently measure victory by the non-diegetic structures offered by the game) also within the simulationist game.

The mistake I see being made is that a so-called 'simulationist' is merely a gamer who chooses not to put accent on literary elements or competition.  A 'general practitioner' of gaming as opposed to a 'specialist.'  (In the band metaphor, one who plays because they like music, not to make a statement or 'be the best.'  But they all still play music.)

And there may indeed be real honest to God simulationists out there.  I'm just willing to bet that many who think they are like me.  They merely think they are.

The reason I see so many of these discussions turn into arguments is because some people just don't want to be a gamist or a narrativist.  For some reason they fall into the trap of believing they need to have their own '-ism' when I don't think that could be farther from the truth.

I see the reason you don't see simulation existing is because it is always present in every form, stance, or what have you.  You don't think about air getting in your way until it's either really windy or gone entirely.

Before I go, I had better turn this into something other than a GNS model argument.  (I have no problem with GNS as a model, and see no reason to attempt to change it; it got me this far after all.)  Let me propose the CLS or "Impswitch Model."

First of all, this model is not a triangle, if you'll permit, I will use set theory to describe.  First a diagram (and I hope this comes through for everyone):

Gratification                      Gratification
               ,,ggddY""""Ybbgg,,
          ,agd""'              `""bg,
       ,gdP"       Contextual      "Ybg,
     ,dP"                             "Yb,
   ,dP"  _,,ddP"""Ybb,,_,,ddP"""Ybb,,_  "Yb,
  ,8"  ,dP"'         "d8b"         `"Yb,  "8,
 ,8' ,d"           ,d"   "b,           "b, `8,
,8' d"            d"       "b            "b `8,
d' d'            d'         `b            'b `b
8  8             8           8             8  8
8  8  Literary   8  Fusion   8  Structural 8  8
8  8             8           8             8  8
8  Y,            Y,         ,P            ,P  8
Y,  Ya            Ya       aP            aP  ,P
`8,  "Ya           "Ya   aP"           aP"  ,8'
 `8,   "Yb,_         "Y8P"         _,dP"   ,8'
  `8a    `""YbbgggddP""'""YbbgggddP""'   a8'
   `Yba                                 adP'
     "Yba          Contextual         adY"
       `"Yba,                     ,adP"'
          `"Y8ba,             ,ad8P"'
               ``""YYbaaadPP""''
Gratification                      Gratification


Then some terminology:
Gratification – Hey! It's the reason we all play (and it is more
                than just about fun).
Contextual    – Gamers and games in general, where contextual
                elements work with or beyond any explicit
                structural elements.
Structural    – Gamers whose gratification gets measured with the
                structural elements of the game whether diegetic
                or otherwise.
Literary      - Gamers whose gratification comes in attending
                the potential literary elements of the game.
Fusion        - That nether realm where Literary elements become
                the Structure of the game.  (Or, when stories are
                scored.)

Structural and Literary devices are twin towers (like Gamism and
Narrativism), that can sometimes overlap.  They rest upon a firm,
consistent bed of Contextual gaming (as Gamism and Narrativism appear
to depend upon Simulation) that exists upon the sea of Gratification
(like GNS is for fun or social reasons).

I hope you like it (though I may change the names if I find better).

Fang Langford

[ This Message was edited by: Le Joueur on 2001-07-24 17:57 ]

[Ron Edwards]

Well, it's time I went and revealed something that's been on a back burner for a while.

It arises from my observation that I cannot think of any act of role-playing which is NOT "Explorative" in the sense of the Scarlet Jester's term.

A little background for the newcomers - a very incisive and well-known contributor to the Gaming Outpost and other sites calls himself the Scarlet Jester. He has proposed that the term "Simulationist" be replaced with "Explorative," as well as a slight re-arrangement of priorities in the entire purpose of the model. He calls his construction, humorously, the GENder model (G = Gamist, E = Exploratory, N = Narrativist).

His ideas are extremely well-articulated, but I have been reluctant to agree ... because "Explorative," based on his definition and examples (as well as Seth Ben-Ezra's, who is more or less an advocate of the Jester's model), seems all-inclusive to me.

So for some time I have been thinking much along the lines of what Jack and Fang have been saying recently. Here is my conclusion.

It's all about boxes again. The biggest category is "role-playing," and it may as well be synonymized with "Exploration," which I define as "imaginative commitment" of any kind. So if you imagine the setting, the situation, a character, an action, or whatever, with any degree of commitment at all, you are "exploring."

Then within that, we see three boxes. Two of them are easy to understand - they put real-life player/group goals  out for all to see. They are Gamism (competing to win) and Narrativism (create a tangible capital-S Story). But one of them is pretty odd-looking - it has no added goal! The resulting goal is to "increase the volume" of the imaginative commitment. I call this Simulationism.

Of course, this means that Simulationism is much, much broader than the original GDS definition. It also splits up according to what aspect of role-playing is getting the commitment:
- setting = degree of detail and consistency of the setting
- situation = justification of the immediate problem; at its most extreme, we see metaplot
- actions = resolution system step-by-step methods, based purely on causality within-game
- character = several sorts, ranging from highly quantified characters with lots of nature/nurture combinations, to more "lite" characters with a lot of emotional identification going on (Turku/Elayjitist)
- and more, but by now you get the idea

(Now I also claim that Narrativism and Gamism are incredibly broad as well, and that their possible diversity remains largely untapped by role-players thus far. So no, I do not think we have two li'l tiny boxes and one big trash-box. Think in terms of priorities and decisions and you'll see that we have three very distinct alternatives, behaviorally speaking, each with many sub-sets.)

So my thinking is as follows: Gamism and Narrativism are Exploration (pretty much "role-playing" in the broadest sense) with group goals, Simulationism is "uncolored" Exploration, but intensified according to the specific aspect receiving the commitment.

And now we'll go into hideous debate frenzy, I am sure.

Best,
Ron

[Epoch]

I pretty much agree with Ron on this matter.  You can (and some have) phrase Simulationism as a negative desire -- to reduce meta-world influences (ie, gamism and narrativism/dramatism (on a goals level, dramatism and narrativism are the same, I think.  On a technique level, they're different, insofar as dramatism talks about techniques)).

However, I think that the negative-definition of Simulationism is a subset or a more extreme edge of the general just not having a meta-world goal.

[Supplanter]

It arises from my observation that I cannot think of any act of role-playing which is NOT "Explorative" in the sense of the Scarlet Jester's term.

I see the point. There's a lot about Jester's model that I like, but it does seem like "explorative" can apply to any of them, even gamism. If one is the sort to read chess journalism one encounters quite serious talk of a player "exploring" a particular variation in a tournament game, frex.

Jester has his Explorative subtriad of Setting, Situation and Character, which hives off a particular territory from the Narrative part of his model, which might otherwise be stated as "Exploration of Premise" or "Exploration of Plot." His model can work for me on the sublevels pretty well: I can say that my play style is exploration of character and my current campaign is built around exploration of situation in the initial phase and feel comfortable describing myself. But I'm sometimes inclined to think that underneath his Narrativist/Explorative distinction is the familiar drama/simulation one. (I'm sometimes not inclined to think that too. Frex, a popular style can be described as either "exploration of character" OR "simulationist, but with script immunity." A hardcore simulationist will argue that "simulationist, but with script immunity" really means "not simulationist.")

Then within that, we see three boxes. Two of them are easy to understand - they put real-life player/group goals out for all to see. They are Gamism (competing to win) and Narrativism (create a tangible capital-S Story). But one of them is pretty odd-looking - it has no added goal! The resulting goal is to "increase the volume" of the imaginative commitment. I call this Simulationism.

I think I can put a name to what simulationists are after - what the "imaginative commitment" is for: Flavor. Or, as someone put it in more heated times, the fundamental simulationist question is "What's it like?"

This says to me that what they practice is actually a naïve form of role-playing game. While some are amateur history experts trying to replay the events of the lives of specific people, many others are simply there to be in the civil war (period). On that level much of it turns into a live-action role-playing game with very non-traditional rules.

I wouldn't call it "naive" at all. A buddy of mine has been bitten by the reenactment bug this year - they seem to understand just what they are doing, which is answering the "What's it like?" question. My friend, who is a legitimate intellectual and articulate about what he is doing, averred that he was seriously thinking of ditching his three-rivet bayonet in favor of a single-rivet bayonet for an upcoming event because they didn't have the three-rivet bayonets early in the war.

There can be gamist elements to reenactment too - one of the events he was describing was one where the outcome would be determined on the field - a LAWG as it were. (Live Action Wargame.) Since he lives in Virginia and has taken up arms with a northern unit, his side can have trouble "representing." His commander's e-mail about the event pleaded for "all Northern boys" to show up and give the rebs a fight.

But reenactment strikes me as, when you get down to it, a prop-heavy simulationist LARP. The appeal is to people who need more sensory data than RPG enthusiasts require to answer the "What's it like?" question. (Around here they do Revolutionary War too, and I hear they do All The Wars over in Europe. Oddly enough one never hears of Rwandan Civil War reenactors, though.)

Best,


Jim

[GreatWolf]

I think I can put a name to what simulationists are after - what the "imaginative commitment" is for: Flavor. Or, as someone put it in more heated times, the fundamental simulationist question is "What's it like?"

Or to quote Jester, "Exploration isn't rooted in wargaming.  It's rooted in daydreaming."

The Explorative player is looking for "What's it like?"  That's the common root between Rolemaster and Amber, for example.  On the surface they seem at the extreme opposites but underneath I'd maintain that (at least as normally played) they are two attempts to get at "What's it like?"

Remember, Exploratives have group goals, just like Gamists and Narrativists.  They just happen to look different.  In fact, it has been noted that many forms of LARP are mostly Explorative.

[Epoch]

Seth,

I think that you're right that many/most forms of LARP are mostly Explorative (or whatever -- call it what you will).  Most forms of MU*ing are, as well.  That's because in a large group like that, it's difficult to find a meta-world goal that everyone agrees with, and even more difficult to herd everyone for it.

Which is why I think that Ron's got the right idea that Exploration (/imaginative commitment) is "underneath" narrativism and gamism.  We've actually seen this argument before -- quite a bit.  How many times in the last few weeks have you read someone suggest that while you might have an RPG with literally no gamist elements or literally no narrativist elements, you'll never see one without simulationist elements?

That, I think, is what Ron's talking about when he suggests that he keeps seeing Exploration everywhere -- because it is everywhere.  You can't roleplay without engaging in it.

So, getting back to my first paragraph, I think that not only is Explorative gaming the predominant form of MU*ing and LARPing, I think it's, to a lesser extent, the predominant form of all RPGing.  While there certainly are some people who are predominantly Narrativist or Gamist, I think that most people don't clearly see those meta-world goals well enough to be anything other than predominantly Explorationist.

This whole "layering" thing really clicks for me, particularly in a sense that I'm not sure made it into Ron's post in this thread.  I think it really works to regard Exploration as an intensity that's higher or lower for some people (and also that's higher and lower in the particular areas that Scarlet Jester and others have described), which Narrativism or Gamism overlays.  Particularly, I think it makes a lot more sense of my own gaming style to suggest that I've got a rather high intensity Explorative style overlain with a medium-level commitment to Narrativism or Gamism, depending on the game and my mood (usually the former).

Now, if we took this refinement to the GNS and added some of Scarlet Jester's concept of a seperation between goals and techniques, I think that the end result might be a model that I would be comfortable using for classifying people -- which would be a first, for me.

Up past my bedtime posting this.  Gotta drop back into the real world of buggy upload processes in the morning.  Night, all.

[Le Joueur]

Ron Edwards wrote:
It arises from my observation that I cannot think of any act of role-playing which is NOT "Explorative" in the sense of the Scarlet Jester's term.

His ideas are extremely well-articulated, but I have been reluctant to agree ... because "Explorative," based on his definition and examples (as well as Seth Ben-Ezra's, who is more or less an advocate of the Jester's model), seems all-inclusive to me.

So for some time I have been thinking much along the lines of what Jack and Fang have been saying recently. Here is my conclusion.

It's all about boxes again. The biggest category is "role-playing," and it may as well be synonymized with "Exploration," which I define as "imaginative commitment" of any kind. So if you imagine the setting, the situation, a character, an action, or whatever, with any degree of commitment at all, you are "exploring."

Then within that, we see three boxes. Two of them are easy to understand - they put real-life player/group goals  out for all to see. They are Gamism (competing to win) and Narrativism (create a tangible capital-S Story). But one of them is pretty odd-looking - it has no added goal! The resulting goal is to "increase the volume" of the imaginative commitment. I call this Simulationism.

(Just for clarity then, what is outside all three boxes, yet inside "exploring?")

Okay, I guess I am just not getting it.  How are the 'volume levels' of imaginative commitment related, in any way constructively, destructively, exclusively or otherwise, to Narrativism or Gamism?  I can't see how any variation of volume would impact on Gamism (from what I read in the FAQ).  I don't see how 'loud' imaginative commitment could 'drowned out' Narrativism.

I can't really see it as a separate box at all.  It looks more like a variable level that can happen independent of the presence of the Gamism box or the Narrativism box (or in their absence).  Can you help me understand this point?  I seem to just not be 'getting it.'

(To reiterate, in your 'box' terminology, I think that the Gamism box and the Narrativism box are both inside the Simulationism box and nothing that is gaming is outside the Simulationism box.  Can you describe anything substantive that does not fit this model?  That would be anything Gamist or Narrativist that are not Simulationist or anything that is gaming that is not Simulationist.)

Of course, this means that Simulationism is much, much broader than the original GDS definition. It also splits up according to what aspect of role-playing is getting the commitment:
- setting = degree of detail and consistency of the setting
- situation = justification of the immediate problem; at its most extreme, we see metaplot
- actions = resolution system step-by-step methods, based purely on causality within-game
- character = several sorts, ranging from highly quantified characters with lots of nature/nurture combinations, to more "lite" characters with a lot of emotional identification going on (Turku/Elayjitist)
- and more, but by now you get the idea

These still don't seem like they exclude or necessarily include either Gamism or Narrativism in any way.  It looks like apples and tubs of water from here.

(Now I also claim that Narrativism and Gamism are incredibly broad as well, and that their possible diversity remains largely untapped by role-players thus far. So no, I do not think we have two li'l tiny boxes and one big trash-box. Think in terms of priorities and decisions and you'll see that we have three very distinct alternatives, behaviorally speaking, each with many sub-sets.)

I still believe that choosing Simulationism is Hobson's choice.  You're either doing it or walking.  (I guess that would put the two "incredibly broad" boxes inside the "big trash-box," wouldn't it?)

And all this talk about boxes reminds me of the story of the tailor and the giant.

So my thinking is as follows: Gamism and Narrativism are Exploration (pretty much "role-playing" in the broadest sense) with group goals, Simulationism is "uncolored" Exploration, but intensified according to the specific aspect receiving the commitment.

This sounds pretty much like what I was saying before.  Is it?

(One last thing, as an aside (and because I like the "imaginative commitment" idea so much), from my experience when there is "imaginative commitment" and 'emotional commitment' (one of the things using literary techniques is exceptionally good at), the games are even better.)

Fang Langford

p.s. Where in the Forge should I go to discuss the Impswitch model?

[Le Joueur]

Supplanter wrote:

Fang Langford wrote:
This says to me that what they practice is actually a naïve form of role-playing game. While some are amateur history experts trying to replay the events of the lives of specific people, many others are simply there to be in the civil war (period). On that level much of it turns into a live-action role-playing game with very non-traditional rules.

I wouldn't call it "naive" at all. A buddy of mine has been bitten by the reenactment bug this year - they seem to understand just what they are doing, which is answering the "What's it like?" question.

But reenactment strikes me as, when you get down to it, a prop-heavy simulationist LARP.

The reason I said it was naïve, is because they did not come to it from role-playing games, (as far as I know) they don't think of it in role-playing game terms, and many of them don't equate it with role-playing games.  Basically it seems like a completely separate (yet parallel) evolution.

My likening it to role-playing games is so that I can steal ideas from it.  I guess that means it's not so much 'naïve' as it is 'innocent.'

Fang Langford

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

Let's lay some serious ground rules.

1) GNS is about OBSERVABLE BEHAVIORS. Yes, behaviors. It applies to game design only in terms of facilitating certain behaviors, and it applies to people only in terms of individuals' tendency to produce them. At one point, I believe it was Peter Seckler who described GNS as being about decisions, and I agree with that.

2) "Exploration" is not about observable behaviors but about an internal experience. Therefore it cannot "replace" any aspect of GNS. It is foundational.

3) Given a group of people experiencing any degree of exploration (Jester's use, meaning during role-playing), now we look to see patterns of observable behaviors. Here's where GNS comes in.

My point: "Simulationism" does exist. It means, actual behaviors that maximize the exploration specifically to the exclusion of other metagame goals.

This is important. It means that the Exploration underlying Gamism and Narrativism is not a goal, but a given. It means that Simulationism is not "just" Exploration, but observable behaviors that are distinctive and recognizable, above and beyond the necessary foundation of Exploration that we call role-playing.

I therefore see three boxes in the big Exploration box. If we were to look at the space in the Exploration box, but outside any of the three boxes, we see individual daydreaming, and not role-playing at all (no group social activity). By taking Exploration into the realm of role-playing, you must enter a box, which means DOING something (behaving) with others.

Turn it toward authorship, you get Narrativism.
Turn it toward competition, you get Gamism.
Emphasize the Exploration alone (which DOES require specific, group behaviors) and you get Simulationism.

Again, and I repeat, any of these three goals/behavior sets are divisible into tons of different subsets.

I hope this post answers some of the questions above about my categories and also about what Simulation "is" (as opposed to what it isn't).

Best,
Ron

[Le Joueur]

I hope you don't mind, but some of what I am hearing in this is self-contradictory.  I would appreciate a little clarification, please.

Ron Edwards wrote:
1) GNS is about OBSERVABLE BEHAVIORS.

2) "Exploration" is not about observable behaviors but about an internal experience. Therefore it cannot "replace" any aspect of GNS. It is foundational.

And I am trying to say that Simulationism is not about observable behaviors or internal experiences.  I am saying it is omnipresent.  I am saying that (as far as the FAQ describes it) I think all gaming is Simulation to some degree.

My point: "Simulationism" does exist.

[Emphasis mine.]

You are missing my point if you think I am saying simulation does not exist, quite the opposite.

What I am trying to say is that all the modes, techniques, practices, and et cetera that have been sited to 'make Simulationism a goal' (by the FAQ) can be practiced to the fullest extent without impeding making Narrativism or Gamism the ultimate goal.

Like the practice or avoidance of 'script immunity,' heightening Simulation, in this way, cannot take anything away Narrativist goal seeking, it simply does not appear to compete.  (id est, script immunity is frequently considered 'anti-Simulationist,' but it isn't pro-Narrativist either.  For example, it can be used to get Gamist characters to the final challenge.)

It means, actual behaviors that maximize the exploration specifically to the exclusion of other metagame goals.

But you said, "'Exploration'...cannot 'replace' any aspect of GNS," doesn't that make 'exclusion' impossible?  This is primarily what sounds contradictory.

This is important. It means that the Exploration underlying Gamism and Narrativism is not a goal, but a given.

That is what I have been saying about the whole field of Simulationism.

It means that Simulationism is not "just" Exploration, but observable behaviors that are distinctive and recognizable, above and beyond the necessary foundation of Exploration that we call role-playing.

I therefore see three boxes in the big Exploration box. If we were to look at the space in the Exploration box, but outside any of the three boxes, we see individual daydreaming, and not role-playing at all (no group social activity).

Now this does not fit the argument at all.  Weren't we discussing a model that only applies to gaming?  And now you extend the model outside of this?  Please let's keep the discussion within the bounds of gaming.  (and I think you mean "all of the three boxes" not "any of the three boxes," right?)

To wit, I still do not understand what you see inside the 'role-playing gaming box' (or perhaps the role-playing gaming 'exploratory box') that does not fall inside of the 'Simulationist box' (just for the moment overlooking the contents of the 'Narrativist box' or the 'Gamist box').

And to counter my suggestion, can you suggest any aspects of 'making Simulation the goal' (and that means only the aspects and not the overall concept of 'goal') that must be sacrificed in any part of the 'Narrative box' or in any part of the 'Gamist box?'  (This should be relatively easy, simply cite one concrete example of either and I renounce my premise.)

By taking Exploration into the realm of role-playing, you must enter a box, which means DOING something (behaving) with others.

Turn it toward authorship, you get Narrativism.
Turn it toward competition, you get Gamism.
Emphasize the Exploration alone (which DOES require specific, group behaviors) and you get Simulationism.

Again, let me reiterate, under what conditions do you see it as impossible to "Emphasize the Exploration" while 'facing' authorship or while 'facing' competition, meaning "get[ting] Simulationism" while 'facing' towards those other vertices?

I no longer really have a point of my own any more (see an upcoming thread I am planning), but I do want a little clarification of your core beliefs Ron.  If you can resolve the apparent contradiction and suggest a counter example to my point above, then I think you will have exactly what you need to improve the FAQ when it comes to Simulationism.

Ultimately, my only problem is the FAQ and not the model.  While employing Aristotelian dialogue, I never once failed to like the GNS model.  All I am attempting is to 'put you on the spot' for the nugget of information lacking in the FAQ (this is largely because 'on the spot' is where I feel I think the best).

(You may not realize it, but I am a Senior Field Director on the Devil's Advocacy Staff, Generation X Division.)

Fang Langford

[Jack Spencer Jr]

Gee, this has grown into an interesting discussion.  Go fig.

Anyway, I still have my doubts that Simulationism exists, per se.  Fang & I seem to agree & disagree on this.

The way I see it is it's like Bruce Lee's martial art.  I don't know what it's called or how good it is but I remember the line from the Dragon bio pic:

"Like water it is formless and as such can assume all forms."

So it is with simulationism.  I have my doubts that anyone actually plays this way, and even if there is such a person, I doubt their whole group does.

I suspect that most are like me, *thinking* they're simulationist but actually lean heavily toward either gamist of narrativist.

Even now I still think of myself as simulationist.  My current narrativist bend I look at as simulating stories.

I'm actually reminded of the thread over in Actual Play and the problem Jesse had with one of his players.

The guy said something to the effect that all the player can have different goals and it's the GM's challenge to satisfy all of those needs.

This is sort of what simulationism does IMO.  Not necessarily bringing any goal to the table aside from simulating a world or setting, etc. so that the players can bring their own, possibly conflicting goals and try to have them all satisfied at the same time.

This sort of thing has been happening for years and many people seem to be able to make it work, but we're currently trying to create games with a specific goal built in and, as such, are not for all people and may lead to new groups with common goals to be formed.

This can be problematic but the resulting capaigns should be suitable "better" so as to be worth the effort and tears.

[GreatWolf]

1) GNS is about OBSERVABLE BEHAVIORS. Yes, behaviors. It applies to game design

only in terms of facilitating certain behaviors, and it applies to people only in terms of

individuals' tendency to produce them. At one point, I believe it was Peter Seckler who

described GNS as being about decisions, and I agree with that.

2) "Exploration" is not about observable behaviors but about an internal experience. Therefore

it cannot "replace" any aspect of GNS. It is foundational.

3) Given a group of people experiencing any degree of exploration (Jester's use, meaning

during role-playing), now we look to see patterns of observable behaviors. Here's where

GNS comes in.

Let us test this, then.  Below are a few roleplaying situations.  None of these are hypothetical,

BTW.  All are drawn directly from actual gaming sessions.  I would like to see identified the

behavior at hand.

The Game:  Mage
The Situation:  The characters have just struggled through the Labyrinth, where each has faced

his deepest fear.  Some have succeeded, some have failed.  The successful characters are

standing at the top of an "arena".  Below them the Big Evil Bad Guy is performing his dark

ritual.  Tied to the altar are the PCs that failed in the Labyrinth.  The Big Evil Bad Guy sends

his acolytes against the PCs.  The acolytes begin striding up the stairs.  I ask the players,

"What do you do?"  Some stammer one thing.  Others scratch their head.  Then my wife pipes

up.  "I scream at the top of my lungs and charge."

Was my wife's decision based on

1)  Gamism
2)  Simulationism/Exploration
3)  Narrativism


The Game:  Alyria
The Situation:  Greg is playing Magog, a mentally-retarded man with the strength of an ox has

been tricked by Mephisto, a dragon cultist.  Magog has been promised a new doll to replace

his old torn doll if he will climb to a small hut atop the Web, take the little girl in the hut, and

throw her away "like an old doll".  Magog is too dumb to know better, and he wants the new

pretty doll, so he climbs up to the hut.  He then picks up the young, beautiful girl, who

awakens and starts screaming.  Magog looks at her.  He looks at his old doll, which he

carried with him.  He hears Mephisto's voice in his head.  "Throw her away like an old doll."  

He looks from one to the other and then....he throws away his old doll.  "New doll", he

proclaims, and makes off with the child back to his lair.

Was Greg's decision based on

1)  Gamism
2)  Simulationism/Exploration
3)  Narrativism


The Game:  Puppetland
The Situation:  The characters are huddled in a tunnel under Puppet Town, just around the

corner from where the last bubble in Puppetland is being kept.  The puppets are supposed to

retrieve it and bring it back to Judy.  However, a nasty clockwork monster is guarding the

bubble.  The puppets are quietly whispering to each other, making plans, when my wife's

character decides that she has a plan.  She thinks that if she sings, she will be able to put the

clockwork to sleep.  However, her character actually cannot sing to save her life.  This does

not deter her.  She steps around the corner, bellowing her song as loudly as possible.  Of

course, the clockwork strikes.

Was my wife's decision based on

1)  Gamism
2)  Simulationism/Exploration
3)  Narrativism

I'm not trying to create trick questions here.  I am honestly trying to provide all of the relevant information necessary.  If you feel that more information is needed, I will try to provide it.  However, I am curious as to what people think.

(BTW, I have personal commentary from the players on either their overall philosophy of play or actual commentary on these specific decisions on which I will judge the "correct" answer.)

Seth

[Ron Edwards]

Fang,

I will open by saying that I generally dislike the form of internet interaction expressed by line-by-line picking apart of others' threads. This post is built on the essay letter model instead.

My opening point is that the FAQ is a rough draft. It is not the reference; there is, unfortunately, no central reference beyond "System Does Matter" which is pretty archaic. At this time, GNS is a lot like the English constitution in that a lot of it is spread across multiple documents (threads). Even worse, some of that spread-out material is not valid whereas others is crucial, and much of it is in pure dialogue form so that no one post is really "it."

This state of affairs is atrocious - but the first FAQ is a start, and the slow and painful working-out of the new FAQ is going on now. My comments on this thread represent some of it. You'll appreciate, I'm sure, that the responsibilities of work and family, of attempting to publish an RPG of my own, and of GenCon next week are not helping.

A minor issue: Yes, we are addressing only the field of role-playing. In my construction, if one leaves all of the three boxes but continue to Explore, one ceases to role-play. I agree that my previous post could be read otherwise.

Another minor issue: my comment about Simulationism existing rather than not existing was directed to Jack's initial post, not to any part of Fang's.

The biggest issue between us at present is whether Simulation(ism) is a foundation or a focused behavior on a common foundation. I am suggesting the latter, such that Exploration, as I understand it, is a foundation and Simulationism would be the focused behavior. To paraphrase, so that I can be checked on this, Fang is saying that Simulationism is the foundation, period.

There are two parts of this issue, terminological and conceptual. I'll focus on the latter, because the former is not a big deal to me.

I'll quote Fang for clarity:
"What I am trying to say is that all the modes, techniques, practices, and et cetera that
have been sited to 'make Simulationism a goal' (by the FAQ) can be practiced to the
fullest extent without impeding making Narrativism or Gamism the ultimate goal."

And further passages reinforce this, suggesting that Simulationist activity to whatever extent does not impede Narrativist or Gamist activities. He calls for an example of Simulationist behaviors that so impede the other goals. If such exists, then my Three-in-One stands; if it doesn't, then his Two-in-One stands. (More on this later.)

I quote again, not to pick apart, but because it's a direct question.
"But you said, "'Exploration'...cannot 'replace' any aspect of GNS," doesn't that make
'exclusion' impossible? This is primarily what sounds contradictory."

I understand your reading of my post, and that means I was unclear. The following is meant to be EXACTLY what I am saying. I am drawing attention between (1) the necessary minimum of imaginative commitment necessary to role-play at all, and (2) behaviors that focus that commitment to the exclusion of other metagame goals. So this issue returns us to the problem - do such behaviors exist?

The following examples are often couched in terms of game design, but I am really describing the preference for, accordance with, and enforcement of such rules. Therefore I am still talking about behaviors.

Also, these are historical examples and are not intended to cover the full range of any of the goals' potential. E.g. some of the Gamist behaviors mentioned do NOT DEFINE Gamism but are rather associated with that goal, historically.

CONCRETE EXAMPLES #1: SIMULATIONISM OVER-RIDING GAMISM.
Any text which states that role-playing is not about winning; correspondingly, chastising a player who advocates a PC action perceived as "just trying to win." [This example assumes that the text/game does not state story-creation as an alternative goal.]

Using probability tables in character creation to determine appearance, profession/class, or race, based on demographics of the community of the character's origin. (See the original Stormbringer.)  

CONVERSE: GAMISM OVER-RIDING SIMULATIONISM.
Characters teaming up for a common goal with no disputes or even attention regarding differences in race, religion, ethics, or anything else.

Improving character traits (e.g. damage that may be taken) based on the amount of treasure amassed.

CONCRETE EXAMPLES #2: SIMULATIONISM OVER-RIDING NARRATIVISM.
A weapon does precisely the same damage range regardless of the emotional relationship between wielder and target. (True for RuneQuest, not true for Hero Wars)

A player is chastised for taking the potential intensity of a future confrontation into account when deciding what the PC is doing in a current scene, such as revealing an important secret when the PC is unaware of its importance.

The time to traverse town with super-running is deemed insufficient to arrive at the scene, with reference to distance and actions at the scene, such that the villain's bomb does blow up the city. (The rules for DC Heroes specifically dictate that this be the appropriate way to GM such a scene).

CONVERSE: NARRATIVISM OVER-RIDING SIMULATIONISM
Using metagame mechanics to increase the probability of task resolution, with NO corresponding in-game justification. "Apply my bonus die to increase my Charm roll," in which the bonus die is not "will" or "endurance" or anything but an abstract pool unit.

A player is chastised for claiming a PC motive that "stalls out" story elements (conflict, resolution etc). Example: player A is pissed off at player B, who has announced "I say nothing," in certain interactive scenes, when player A is aware that the PC's knowledge would be pivotal in the scene.

Using OOC dialogue and knowledge to determine character action, then retroactively justifying the action in terms of character knowledge and motive. "You hit him high and I'll hit him low," between PLAYERS whose characters do not have the opportunity to plan the attack. [could also apply to Gamism over-riding Simulationism; the two are quite similar]

I would appreciate any other members of the Forge chiming in regarding these or other examples, on either side of the current debate.

Best,
Ron

[Ron Edwards]

Gee, Seth, I bet they're all "Explorative."

That is not actually my answer. I am providing no answer, and here is why.

The question is not to the point of the thread. The point is being addressed by Fang and myself, and anyone else who wants to comment on Jack's original post.

To review, I am presenting a way to reconcile GNS with the proposed term "Exploration" (as I understand it). My argument curiously agrees both with Jack's proposition that "Simulationism doesn't exist" and Mike's (epoch's) that it exists everywhere. I'm pretty sure that Fang and I are angling toward an accord.

Seth's post derails that discussion and I would appreciate its removal to its own thread. For the record, I don't think it's a valid test, but I'll deal with it on its terms elsewhere.

Best,
Ron