Guess who's finally read the FAQ

[Le Joueur]

Ron Edwards wrote:
I will open by saying that I generally dislike the form of internet interaction expressed by line-by-line picking apart of others' threads.

My apologies.  My use of such is based on my idea that I do not usually get someone's point very clearly (losing it somewhere in their text).  Since I have been seriously dressed down for restating the points of other people in altogether too colored a fashion, I instead attempt to glean their meaning in a line-by-line manner.

I take your distaste and will attempt to refrain from doing so in regards to your missives, provided I am not seeking specific linear clarification in the future.  [Whoops, did it again anyway, didn't I?]

I did not understand that the FAQ was still a 'rough' draft.  While it says it is an evolving document, it does not give the 'feel' of roughness in its drafting.  I truly only wish to aid in the upcoming drafts with this commentary.

One thing I must say is that my own meaning was not terribly clear.  The premise I am working from is not that Simulationism is only a foundation.  What I have been offering is that Simulationism is a foundation and that as a foundation it is not a 'level' one, it can have peaks and valleys of intensity.  What I have also been proposing is that there are two realms that exist on top of this foundation, Gamism and Narrativism.

What seems to be being missed is that I am also saying that they do not 'cover' the whole foundation; there are still many exposed parts.  Further, what I tried to explain is that the two realms (which only cover part of the foundation even taken together) are virtually immune to the aforementioned peaks and valleys of intensity according to the FAQ.

I take your examples with some pleasure, because I was confident you had some way of elucidating what you meant (compared to the FAQ).  However your first example fails because by making certain things out-of-bounds in the rules it only enforces Gamism, not contradicts it; it also has very little (that I can see) to do with simulation.  (Likewise random creation of starting point is no more 'ungamist' than the deal in poker.  You play what you get; that's the challenge.)

Conversely (that's a play on words), you have provided the counter-example I requested (the common goals thing) and therefore I gratefully withdraw my premise.

One thing does become clear, the Simulationism as described in the FAQ can definitely use some work as you clearly have an idea of what you mean by it now.  (I might suggest tying some of your thoughts on immersion and subjectivity into it, instead of having it suggest examples where it more resembles the other two goals then voids them.)

And yes, I believe we have reached accord.  See you at Gen Con.

Fang Langford

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Fang,

Whew. In accord after all. I won't address the Gamism example here, mainly because that branch of GNS has been sadly neglected both historically and theoretically. I do agree with you that random starting-point vs. perfectly-balanced starting-point may both be found within the venue of Gamism. I think that my basis for that example would be a huge essay and evolving topic of its own, to rival (say) the role of Premise in Narrativism in terms of importance and scope. Definitely later.

Yes indeed, see you at GenCon. I believe a beer or other beverage of your choice is in order, after this exchange.

Best,
Ron

P.S. I didn't tell you how to compose YOUR posts, by the way. If you want to use line-by-line, go ahead (free speech and all that), although I think it tends to dilute arguments and cause a lot of trouble. I appreciate the essay style in the latest post.

P.P.S. Jack - what do you think, so far? Have we effectively explained by Simulationism appears to be nowhere to some and everywhere to others?

[Valamir]

Hmmm.  Out of action for a couple of days and look what pops up...

Let me see if I understand whats going on here...there's been an awful lot of text to digest.

The idea that's currently being bandied about is that Exploration exists on a level above the three fold?

Essentially, Exploration = all manner of imaginative endeavors seeking to answer the "what would it be like question"

G / N / S are then boxes floating on a sea of Exploration, and it is the act of climbing out of the "water" and into one of these boxes that differentiates "Role playing" from "day dreaming and make believe".

Am I summarizing the hypothesis correctly as far as this is concerned?

What isn't so clear to me is how the definition of Simulation has been / is potentially being modified to account for this new layer to the model.  What is the defining feature now that differentiates Simulative play from the others?  Note that is in no way a challenge, just me having difficulty keeping up with the iterations.  At one time Fortune at the end and cause and effect game mechanics were the defining feature, at another time "zero metagame concerns" was put forward as a suggested definition.  I'm a little behind.  What is now the current differentiator for Simulation.

It almost seems to me that at one point the implication was that Gamist was Exploration with Gamist concerns tacked on, Narrativist was Exploration with Narrativist concerns tacked on and Simulationist was Exploration purely for Exploration sake without tacking on Gamist or Narrativist issues.  But I'm a little hazy on that.

[Jack Spencer Jr]

On 2001-07-27 18:16, Ron Edwards wrote:

P.P.S. Jack - what do you think, so far? Have we effectively explained by Simulationism appears to be nowhere to some and everywhere to others?

Hmm...  I'm still trying to get a handle on it.  Mostly I'm wrestling with your "increase the volume of the imaginative activity" or whatever it was you've said.  "Increase the volume" was part of it.  That I'm sure of.

I think what I'm still on about is I sincerely doubt that anything truely pure as far as simulationism actually exists.

That is, true simulationism does not resort to metagame appliances, either GM fudging dice rolls to Karma points or whatever.  I'm going to go out on a limb and say that most games (meaning game groups) do indeed utilize these tools to one degree or another.  I'm almost willing to step a little further out on that limb and say *all* groups do this, but I don't believe that's really safe.

I believe that simulationism is, in fact, an illusion that the mechanics accurately represent the reality of the situation, that the character is accurately represented by the numbers on the sheet, that the proceedings are what would really happen.

hmmm...  maybe that is simulationism.  You did say it was behavior-based, and this is the behavior.  I have a problem with it since I've since decided that most RPGs, especially traditional RPGs do not accurately any form of reality.  At best they are a decent approximation.  At worst they get in your way.

I also keep thinking some of the stuff found in 4th ed Champions (I think it's fourth)  The section of "Things to do to ruin your campaign"  (that sucker's buried in my scary room.  I'm not digging it out at the moment)

One of them was something to the effect of "the players all came together and worked on a plan and got it to work and it all boiled down to a single dice roll....and they blow it.

They suggest (I believe.  It's been a while) fudging the dice or some similar tactic to make the outcome more satisfying.

The main thing is it seems to be all connected.  The simulationist players may not care if the GM fudges dice rolls or contrives actions so long as they don't know about it.  Or maybe they do care, so the GM never tells them he does.

So a great deal of burden seems to be placed on the GM in this view of simulationism.  It may be an even greater burden than the Gamist GM who must merely keep things "fair" and watch for cheating.  The simulationist GM must keep the suspension of disbelief up.  Must keep track of reality.  A tall order.

This is something I need to dwell on some more, it seems.

[Supplanter]

That is, true simulationism does not resort to metagame appliances, either GM fudging dice rolls to Karma points or whatever. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that most games (meaning game groups) do indeed utilize these tools to one degree or another. I'm almost willing to step a little further out on that limb and say *all* groups do this, but I don't believe that's really safe.

One of the things that bedevils an understanding of simulationism, particularly in this forum, is non-simulationists simply refusing to believe that simulationists mean what they say. The message from which the quote appears is simply more of that.

I understand the impulse as I used to suffer it myself: the evidence is still there on google of my folly. But it is folly.

Why is it so hard to credit that there exist people who really do not want to game the way you do, or the way the authors of Champions 4 advise?

Best,


Jim

[Logan]

Jim,

I have no problem accepting that people game differently. I do have a problem with the claim that Simulationism is still the misunderstood bastard stepchild of GNS. We've beat the daylights out of this topic over the last couple months, and I believe we've made some progress. So let's put all that to the test.

I accept as fact that Simulationism abhors plot or story as a goal of play, though the GM may use pre-plotted encounters to set up situations which give the characters the opportunity to do something (even if that something is to do nothing). Furthermore, the player makes decisions based on what the character would do in that situation given the information available to the character in the game world at that point in time. The GM has full responsibility to present the game world and maintain suspension of disbelief. He also has full control over everything that happens in the gameworld, though the outcome of any actions are subject to the game's rules. Historically, metagame is rejected by both GM and players because it harms suspension of disbelief and reduces verisimilitude of the game world. Hopefully, this is all fine and dandy.

The trouble with Simulationism as I've come to know it through these discussions is that the style of play with respect to treatment of character and role of the GM changes radically as one traverses the World-Character axis.

The bulk of published Simulationist games have been centered at the World pole of the axis with heavy rules for determining outcomes as realistically as possible. Of course, in such games, the weight of the rules and the intrusive nature of the mechanics make it very difficult for the player to treat his character as much more than a pawn. Those rules also reduce the role of the GM. You could say (and I think you and/or John Morrow already did) that in such games, balance of power is actually given to the game's rules. Ergo, the players need not place as much trust in the GM because the rules will tell anyone what's supposed to happen in any given situation.

As players realized their desire to be their characters, the need for Simulationist games with lighter rulesets surely increased, but such games still haven't really made it to the store shelves. Amber may be the glowing exception, but for the most part, the way for immersive play has been paved with LARPs and the occasional borrowed ruleset such as Fudge or maybe (MAYBE) Theatrix. At the Character pole, the rules are very light to allow the player maximum freedom to immerse himself in his character. Of course, balance of power is strongly centered on the GM. The player is absorbed in Actor Stance using only IC info (immersive play). That's a voluntary choice and part of being the character. As Mytholder and I have already noted, in such a game, the GM determines what constitutes verisimilitude in the game world, and the player must implicitly trust the GM.

As far as I'm concerned, this is not an easy way to play. Being the character takes a tremendous amount of energy for the player and providing the requisite verisimilitude in presenting the game world takes a lot of effort from the GM. That said, I think it can be a very rewarding way to play, and I certainly include such a playstyle in my repertoire for use as needed. The trouble in describing all this comes with using one term to describe what might well be 2 different styles of play.

Just to clarify, I see both sides of the issue. On the one hand, this radical difference that I've described is just the naturally-occurring difference in approach from moving from pole to pole along the World-Character axis in Simulationist play. On the other hand, the relationships between [player and character] and [player and GM] are different. The balance of power is different. The very style of play is different - and the perceived difference is apparently greater than differences in approach to Gamist or Narrativist games.

This is the Simulationist dilemma as I see it. I don't have a resolution for it. I'm hoping further discussion will make the answer clear. I've laid all this out in the latest version of the faq. I know it's been in the shop for a while, but Ron has had his hands full, and my revisions were quite extensive. Anyway, I hope you'll agree that we're making progress.

Logan

[ This Message was edited by: Logan on 2001-07-29 09:56 ]

[Supplanter]

This is the Simulationist dilemma as I see it. I don't have a resolution for it. I'm hoping further discussion will make the answer clear. I've laid all this out in the latest version of the faq. I know it's been in the shop for a while, but Ron has had his hands full, and my revisions were quite extensive. Anyway, I hope you'll agree that we're making progress.

Indeed, it sounds like that is the case. I want to avow that I was absolutely not including you in my complaint. I know that the FAQ is a work in progress and that the very length of time between editions is a hallmark of how extensive the changes are. Since the biggest disagreements with the first edition were precisely the simulationism sections, it seems likely that one can make a good guess as to the nature of those extensive changes.

I have seen several people who are not writing the model do just what I complained about, though, including in the very post I responded to. And I really did do it myself back in the day. "You can't really mean that," I more or less said. But of course they did.

I'm very interested in your point about the dual nature of simulationism and its relation to the world character axis. I started to pursue it, then realized I was too sleepy to either make my own points effectively or be sure I understood yours. So I'll beg off that part for now. But it's nice to see you posting again. You've been quiet lately.

Best,


Jim

[Logan]

Thanks, Jim. I'm interested in your take on that duality, too. Your point about people saying "You can't really mean that" is well taken.

Logan

[Jack Spencer Jr]

On 2001-07-28 21:56, Supplanter wrote:

Why is it so hard to credit that there exist people who really do not want to game the way you do, or the way the authors of Champions 4 advise?

Well, I need to dwell on the whole thing more but it's not so much that I don't believe people don't game differently from myself so much as the style of gaming being described here may ideed only exist in theory.  The old "good on paper" deal.

I was going to describe possible simulationism again, but I'd just be digging my hole a little deeper.

We need a little more focus, I think.

According to the FAQ, the "Edwards model" as it's called there is about game design where as the rgfa model is about player behavior.

The terms may be applicable in either instance to either model but we should probably focus on one or the other or keep the two applications separate as it can confuse the issue.

Now a game as written can probably indeed be simulationist but I have my doubts  if most games are ever played as written.

I need to dwell some more...

[Ron Edwards]

Jack wrote,

"According to the FAQ, the "Edwards model" as it's called there is about game design where as the rgfa model is about player behavior."

For the record, this is a misconception and any text in the FAQ that leads us to it shall be expunged. GNS is about player/GM behavior; my observation that game design has an influence on such behavior is a secondary issue.

But all this is getting away from the point. Jack brought up a crucial, central issue in the development of the ideas here on the Forge. As I know myself, this issue draws fire - often of a very savage, tremble-voiced sort - in a way that discussing Narrativism and Gamism does not.

I hope - really - that the current construction as defined by my and Fang's exchange above, and as commented upon by others, can be taken as a new starting point.

Best,
Ron

[Jack Spencer Jr]

OK, let me see if I've go this...

Simulation is something in common with all RPGs.  On one level or another, any RPG is a simulation.

How the simulation works and what is being simulated varies.  Most traditional RPGs tended to simulate "gameworld physics."

This sort of explains why I've often heard complaints on GURPS Supers.  The most common reason is that the superheroics found in comic books doesn't work in the "realistic" GURPS system.  Whatever anyone else may think, this prompted SJG to add the tagline "Super heroics meets the real world" or something to that effect to the product.

Some newer games attempt to simulate story with mechanics like situational modifiers.  Bonuses to a task not based on character ability but on the importance of the task at hand to the story.

At least that's how I've been looking at it, anyway.

Of course, these concepts do all bleed together and it's hard to find a good example of any of the branches since traditionally games have mixed these goals together and I suspect that most games still do, although some are more focused than others.

Look at D&D.  Pure Gamist, right?  Then how do you account for the aging rules?  Simulationist?

I suppose it could be used in a gamist way if it's treated as a time limit.  Try to get as much stuff before you die of old age. (Hey, Jared!  That'd make a great game, don't ya think?)

It does depend on your perspective on such things.  

Personally, we never used the aging rules in D&D.  Our characters never lived that long.

[Ron Edwards]

Jack,

I think it's valid to use "Exploration" for the underlying imaginative commitment for ALL role-playing.

Then Simulationism, like Gamism and Narrativism, represents one sphere of applications for the imagination.

So no - Simulationism is not everywhere. Exploration is everywhere. Simulationism is one thing you can do with Exploration. Do not mistake any desire for plausibility or consistency for Simulationism.

Final point: D&D is not "pure Gamist." If we are talking about those first three hardbacks c. 1979, it is incoherent, with most of its elements being Simulationist and Gamist. The aging rules you're talking about are a good minor example, and your point about not using them illustrates my entire thesis.

Best,
Ron