Confused over Simulationism + example campaign

[John Kim]

It seems that nearly everyone agrees that this is a Simulationist game under GNS terms.  That certainly makes things easier for me in one sense, since I had considered it Simulation in rgfa's threefold.  

My impression has been that how people talk about Simulationist here seems radically different from the Water-Uphill game. But I can't quite pin down the specifics of that impression.

I think it would be helpful if you could try to pinpoint some of the differences.  Ron's got a pretty specific model going, but there don't seem to be all that many people who are entirely certain about it.  Possibly working by counter-definition might be helpful.

Fair enough.  I'm going to put down my impressions -- but again please remember that they are just impressions, and I can easily admit that accept that they don't really represent the model.

[*] I often see talk about GM control as being an effect of Simulationism, especially for Illusionism which Ron classifies as a subset of Simulationism.   I see extremely little in common with the Water-Uphill game, which was strongly directed by the players.  
[*] I also see talk which suggests that Simulationism lacks or inhibits moral and social choice.  Ron's samurai (Sorcerer vs GURPS) and knight (Pendragon vs TROS) examples, for one.  I don't dispute those examples, but I don't see how this has to do with Simulation.  Water-Uphill seems to be agreed as simulation and it left PC behavior entirely up to the players.  
[*] Perhaps a related point to the others, Simulationist exploration is often expressed as non-dynamic.  i.e. The PCs are "along for the ride" but don't control the flow of events.  I don't see any reason for that.  For me, the whole point of Simulation is to see the dynamic -- i.e. to let loose the PCs and not know what is going to happen.  
[/list:u]

[Andrew Martin]

Hi, John.
Caution, I'm no expert, barely a novice in GNS. I could be writing complete rubbish!

I often see talk about GM control as being an effect of Simulationism, especially for Illusionism which Ron classifies as a subset of Simulationism. I see extremely little in common with the Water-Uphill game, which was strongly directed by the players.

Perhaps a related point to the others, Simulationist exploration is often expressed as non-dynamic. i.e. The PCs are "along for the ride" but don't control the flow of events. I don't see any reason for that. For me, the whole point of Simulation is to see the dynamic -- i.e. to let loose the PCs and not know what is going to happen.

Did the players have the ability to add or subtract to the setting? For example, did a player add to the setting something like: "we find a village over the next hill, filled with green gnomes." or perhaps, "Noriko's magic rod runs out magical power and crumbles to dust." ?

If the players can't modify the setting, except through the character's powers, like killing a guard with a sword or fireballing a bush, I think this is Illusionism.

I also see talk which suggests that Simulationism lacks or inhibits moral and social choice. Ron's samurai (Sorcerer vs GURPS) and knight (Pendragon vs TROS) examples, for one. I don't dispute those examples, but I don't see how this has to do with Simulation.  Water-Uphill seems to be agreed as simulation and it left PC behavior entirely up to the players.

An earlier poster wrote that the game seemed to be simulationist, with a priority towards setting. I'd agree. This leaves PC personality undefined. The players could be gamist, simulationist or narrativist with respect to their character's personality descriptors. As regards to the setting, personality descriptors seem to be unimportant.

[Le Joueur]

Hey John,

[*]I also see talk which suggests that Simulationism lacks or inhibits moral and social choice.  Ron's samurai (Sorcerer vs GURPS) and knight (Pendragon vs TROS) examples, for one.  I don't dispute those examples, but I don't see how this has to do with Simulation.  Water-Uphill seems to be agreed as simulation and it left PC behavior entirely up to the players.[/list:u]

'Who's in control' is unrelated in any way to GNS.  It just isn't important.  You can have a game where the gamemaster calls most of the shots that's Narrativist, you could even have a Simulationist game that has no gamemaster whatsoever (which is about as not 'along for the ride' as you could get).

Another confusion seems to be arising here.  Simulationism (despite the term) is not about simulation.  All modes of GNS allow for the complete panoply of player control of character.

Anyway, to my main point; you're getting really confused between players and characters here.  In order to understand Narrativism apart from Simulationism, you have to note a couple of important facts.  There is one more important than any other in gaming; never lose sight of it.

The character don't exist.

They have no drives, no lives, no motives, nothing; when you walk away from the table they are nothing.  The level you identify with them, the amount of emotional investment you have with them, the amount you let your 'internal model' of them do as you expect it to (or not expect it to) is a matter of your choice not theirs (they have no choice being non-existent).

Now, there is nothing whatsoever that limits character moral or social choice in either Simulationist or Narrativist games.  In fact, Narrativist games don't even care what the characters think centrally (they don't, being non-existent); what characters choose doesn't reflect how the Edwardian Premise directly.  The characters do not make 'statements' on the Edwardian Premise anymore than an artist's brush does any painting.

An Edwardian Premise is something the players are doing.  What they have the characters do (regardless of how consistent it is with the internal model of character) reveals some kind of reaction to the question raised by the Edwardian Premise (whether intentionally or not).  The fact that play is more satisfying because it is relative to the thia Premise is how you detect Narrativism.  This is why it cannot be detected at the 'single action' level, this is why it cannot be assumed of a game or design, this is why it can't even be ascribed to the entirety of a player's play.  Only when enough play has happened to realize that it really is the 'subtext,' the 'player stuff' outside of the purview of the character, the way play is 'better for' addressing this Premise, can you say if play is Narrativist.

As I said, regardless if something resembling this Premise came about, it has to do with the players wanting it.  Nothing says that Simulationism can't result in a defining and satisfying 'answer' to a Premise, it is whether that was the reason play is valued.  A lot of people get hung up on play that results in X being the same as play that intends on X from the start.  The latter, when relative to an Edwardian Premise (whether selected by the participant(s) or by the game in design), is what makes it Narrativism; the former could be anything.

Since you didn't describe the game as having a specific moral quandary for the participants, it doesn't sound like Narrativism.  Having an "accidental" thematic question and answer (even if you know 'something' will happen), doesn't sound like Narrativism because this result sounds like it wouldn't have hurt to be absent of it; I don't think you can have 'Narrativism as gravy' and call the play Narrativist.  This remains unclear because of the presentation so far.

If, as you say, "the main priority of my game was promoting immersion in character," then I don't see how any kind of 'expected accidental issue' was of priority.  This sounds contrary of Narrativism; like I said, unless Narrativism is the point in some way, it isn't the priority and the 'real priority' is the mode of play.

Am I getting any clearer?

Fang Langford

[Jack Spencer Jr]

Hi John,

It seems to me that you have a couple issues:

[*] You are taking Simulationism as a big lump. Simulationism is the Exploration of one of the five elements of roleplaying, so there are five major types of Simulationims, and nigh-infinite ways to do each of the five, I'd imagine.

So comparing Water-Uphill to the examples of the knight and samurai in the Simulationist essay isn't useful because they are two very, very different types of Simulationism: Exploration of Setting and Character respectively.

[*] You are also confounding Illusionism with Simulationism. They are not the same.
[/list:u]

I think the main priority of my game was promoting immersion in character.

Hmmm. Well, this issue is being discussed in Be somebody.

However, you are right that I did not pre-decide on a narrow issue like "the use of supernatural influence" to be the priority.

Right. Which means that Water Uphill was not Narrativism. I feel I should point out that this is nothing to be ashamed of. None of the three modes is better than the other. Only better suited towards a person's preferences.

Now, I don't want to pick apart Water-Uphill for this purpose. It actually sounded like a beautiful game and I encourage you to write it up, if you haven't already, and make it available for others to play.

[John Kim]

Since you didn't describe the game as having a specific moral quandary for the participants, it doesn't sound like Narrativism.  Having an "accidental" thematic question and answer (even if you know 'something' will happen), doesn't sound like Narrativism because this result sounds like it wouldn't have hurt to be absent of it; I don't think you can have 'Narrativism as gravy' and call the play Narrativist.

Well, I don't have any problem labelling the game Simulationist, since that is the term I have used for it for a while.  However, your logic seems to be that unless something is specifically pre-planned, then it is not centrally valued.  I don't feel that is true.  For me at least, Noriko's rash action was probably the high point of the campaign.  I certainly would have been less satisfied with the game if it hadn't happened and nothing equivalent happened instead.  

I think Ron's term of "Exploration" is very apt here.  The Water-Uphill campaign was certainly exploratory and experimental.  The purpose of exploring is to find something.  The fact that I didn't know what I would find doesn't mean that I didn't care whether or not I found anything.

[Editted for grammatical error]

[Jack Spencer Jr]

Hi John,

Wow, you are so close!

However, your logic seems to be that unless something is specifically pre-planned, then it is not centrally valued. I don't feel that is true.

Well, we are talking about GNS here and the definitions thereof, so it is true.

For me at least, Noriko's rash action was probably the high point of the campaign. I certainly would have been less satisfied with the game if it hadn't happened and nothing equivalent happened instead.

There is a difference between the high point, what part of play you or anyone had found to be most enjoyable, and what the play priorities were.

Consider this: Suppose instead of doing what you did in that game, the players all decided to, whenther conciously or not to address the Premise "Is it right to use supernatural means to your advantage?" You would still have Noriko's bit, but then the other players would have pursued this premise (hopefully) to the same degree. Perhaps one player would be mucking about with a love potion, another would be toying with some kind of truth helmet, or whatever. Then, instead of the one instance of profoundity, you would have most of play be profound in some way.

You see, it's not the end result it's how you get there. It's also not what you're hoping to get out of a session, but what you do to make sure you get it out of a session.

[John Kim]

Consider this: Suppose instead of doing what you did in that game, the players all decided to, whenther conciously or not to address the Premise "Is it right to use supernatural means to your advantage?" You would still have Noriko's bit, but then the other players would have pursued this premise (hopefully) to the same degree. Perhaps one player would be mucking about with a love potion, another would be toying with some kind of truth helmet, or whatever. Then, instead of the one instance of profoundity, you would have most of play be profound in some way.  

I am certainly aware of the option, and have been for many years.  However, I don't find that it has the results that you say (or at least not most of the time).  I find that this approach frequently lessens profoundity rather than heightening it, because the events feel contrived -- because, in fact, they are.  I don't reject it as an approach, but I don't think it is a sure thing, either.  My current campaign is something of a mix, for example.  

Incidentally, you seem to be assuming that my one example meant that there was nothing else profound in the campaign, which isn't true.  I'll try to work on some more writeups, but unfortunately this isn't one of my better documented campaigns.  

You see, it's not the end result it's how you get there. It's also not what you're hoping to get out of a session, but what you do to make sure you get it out of a session.  

Well, several other posters have talked about "priorities" as being the important thing.  You might want to take it up with them.

[lumpley]

Hey, John.

When you look back over a game, what you'll see is a bunch of instances of play.  Some'll be Narrativist, some Gamist, some Sim.  Identify a) which are which, b) which you enjoyed best, and c) how each came about, and you'll have useful information to take into future gaming.

So your game might have been predominantly Sim, but all the high points were Nar.  That's fine.  Might've been predominantly Nar, with key Sim instances providing structure.  Might've started out mostly Sim and, as the setting and situation clicked thematically with the characters, become increasingly Nar.  Your game doesn't sound like "pure" Sim or Nar, but who knows?  Personally, I don't think we'll be able to narrow it down much.

Premises are less mystifying than all that, though.  If you can look at a character's actions and they're about something, that's Premise.  What were the cool, interesting, effective conflicts in the game?  That's where the Premise is.  You've got kids going around in a magical world: so what?  If there is a "so what," there's a Premise.  The Nar instances were the instances where the "so what" came to the front.

-Vincent

[Jack Spencer Jr]

Well, I tried to illustrate how Water Uphill would work if it were run Narrativist. I may have done a poor job. Then again, maybe not:

I find that this approach frequently lessens profoundity rather than heightening it, because the events feel contrived -- because, in fact, they are.

This bit here reinforce my belief that you have Simulationist priorities. Of course they're contrived. Everything in an RPG is contrived in one sense or another. But that's Narrativism, you see. Narrativism require, in some way, to contrive events into a story by addressing a Premise. Players who enjoy this don't mind that it's contrived, if fact they probably prefer, but further discussion on Narrativism should probably wait for that essay.

I'll try to work on some more writeups, but unfortunately this isn't one of my better documented campaigns.

That won't be necessary. I don't think that more examples would help, really.  

You see, it's not the end result it's how you get there. It's also not what you're hoping to get out of a session, but what you do to make sure you get it out of a session.  

Well, several other posters have talked about "priorities" as being the important thing.  You might want to take it up with them.

Actually, I think I may have mistepped big time here. Let me backpeddle a little.

I think the main priority of my game was promoting immersion in character. For example, a key idea for the concept was that it kept the players very close to the PCs in terms of viewpoint -- i.e. the world was just as strange to the modern-day Earth players as it was to the modern-day Earth PCs. What happens to the kids -- not just physically but emotionally -- and what choices they make were very much a priority of the game.

However, you are right that I did not pre-decide on a narrow issue like "the use of supernatural influence" to be the priority. Instead, the issues flowed out of what the characters did and chose. You can call that accidental, but I knew for certain that some sort of accident would happen, and that was a priority of the game. I just didn't know exactly what it would be.

OK, back a couple post, let's try again.

First of all, let's try to put this in the context of your initial question, of what you were trying to get out of this thread: basically what is Simulationism and specifically how does it differ from Narrativism using Water-Uphill as an example.

As Fang had noted, you list two priorities here Immersion into character and an "accident" or a Premise being addressed. Now, like I had mentioned before, GNS is more like an overview. Identifying what a person or group's GNS priority is takes time, looking at the big picture, as it were. Can you see that of these two priorities one has been given higher priority over the other? The premise is addressed "out of what the characters did and chose." or, out of the character immersion (this is another issue altogether and I'd rather not get into it here as it would just clutter up the thread). So the priority of play is the character immersion. all the other priorities were secondary.  Does this make sense?

[lumpley]

Hey, Jack.

I think I disagree with you.  Immersion just means exploration of character, and you can't address a Premise without exploration of character in some form.  Did John and his group prioritize immersive exploration of character for its own sake, or in order to effectively address the game's Premise?  We don't know.  I don't think we can know.

(My experience of Narrativist play is that it seems less contrived than Sim play, but that's for another time.  Certainly, how contrived a game seems doesn't correlate to GNS.)

-Vincent

[John Kim]

Immersion just means exploration of character, and you can't address a Premise without exploration of character in some form.  Did John and his group prioritize immersive exploration of character for its own sake, or in order to effectively address the game's Premise?  We don't know.  I don't think we can know.  

Yeah, that seems tricky -- especially given the suggestion that there can be a subconscious Premise and subconscious attempts to address it.  For me, exploration of character and Premise-addressing are pretty thoroughly intertwined.  

I think this touches on an old problem of rgfa's threefold.  It was pointed out that the threefold's Drama and Game were defined positively in terms of a goal, while Simulation was defined negatively as rejection of meta-game influence on in-game resolution.  i.e. In the threefold, Simulation is a methodology, but not a goal.  

In his GNS model, Ron has addressed this by making Exploration the goal of Simulationism -- but I suspect this has the same shortcoming.  "Exploration" is so general a goal that it is a central part of Narrativism and Gamism as well.  This seems to make it difficult to distinguish based on goals or priorities.  

Certainly I will be looking carefully at distinguishing based on method vs distinguishing based on goal.  Different methods can work towards addressing the same goal.  

(My experience of Narrativist play is that it seems less contrived than Sim play, but that's for another time.  Certainly, how contrived a game seems doesn't correlate to GNS.)  

I'll buy that.  I did say that seeming contrived was only a possibility.  Contrivedness and profoundness are a product of personal view as well as implementation, I think -- and I think you are right that they don't neccessarilly correlate to GNS.  (Not that I was replying to Jack's suggestion that my game would have had much more profoundness if the players all decided to address "Is it right to use supernatural means to your advantage?".)

[Le Joueur]

At least, if I'm remembering my Narrativism right (since you can address multiple Egri-style Premises (what Fang keeps calling an Edwardian Premise) at the same time in Narrativist play). And if I'm wrong on that, as the Mask says, "Somebody stop me!"

Okay, stop.

One point about how I keep saying <tone voice="whiny">"Edwardian Premise"</tone> may grate upon your ears, but quite frankly I literally cringe when Ron refers to his animal as an "Egri-style Premise."  Why?

Because it ain't.

Oh, I fully recognize that that's where it came from and how Egri's Premise taken literally is almost unusable in role-playing games.  There's no problem there.  My problem is that Ron keeps eschewing credit for inventing his own Premise.

It's a really good idea!

Why must he continually push credit for it on Egri's shoulders?  Saying that a Narrativist is using an Egrian Premise is, in my opinion, doing grevious damage to that author's work.  The difference is as incredibly simple as it is terrifyingly far apart.  Even Ron has revealed the difference, here, in this forum.

Egri's Premises are statements.

Ron's Premises are questions.

I gnash my teeth everytime he acts as though that's the same thing, cuz it ain't, not in any way shape or form.  Furthermore, because of that change, Ron has pretty much had to redefine 'theme' too.

Okay, I can understand skipping the definitions of 'theme' as mood or motif; that only makes the local usage clearer.  But once Ron defines them as "value judgements" he leave Webster in the dust.  Egri's Premises are exactly that, "value judgements" or "statements."  Y'see, when I learned The Art of Creative Writing, what Egri's Premises were are "statements" on the story's theme.  Theme as in "issues like 'slavery' or justice.'"  The acts of Egri's characters collect into a "statement," his Premise, about the theme.

Ron juggles these terms around so that Premise is a question and theme is the answer.  For Egri, the Premise is the 'answer' and the theme is the subject (the question arises from).  The problem I have is not Ron's use of either word; he's perfectly free to use them as such.  The concepts he introduces with them are powerful and very, very useful for gaming; No, I only have one problem.

The use of Egri's name.

See, Ron keeps ducking the credit for conceiving of a telling and important quality of role-playing games (only Narrativist ones maybe, but the whole by the awareness of the difference).  He keeps saying he 'tweaked' Egri's Premise a little.  LIKE HELL!  Egrian Premise = Edwardian Theme; Edwardian Premise = a moral ponderable of emotional value to the participants explicitly or directly dealt with or not (IIRC).  That's just not a simple 'tweak,' it's a major overhaul.  How do we effectively solve this problem I have?

Give Ron the credit.

Sure Egri deserves mention for inspiring Ron, but Ron, it's your baby now.  Deal with it.  I have the utmost respect for the quality of the idea and I think it long past time for you to take credit where it is due.  Leave Egri to the writers and give us, once and for all, the Edwardian Premise.

Fang Langford

p. s. Whew, that one's been bugging me for a HELL of a long time.

p. p. s. This has been a major topic-drifter.  If anyone cares to respond, then this should very much be spun off into it's own thread; otherwise let it drop.

[M. J. Young]

Although I have not read all the posts to this thread, I'm going to venture to say that everyone is wrong. John Kim's game, as presented, is not simulationist. It's hybrid.

He's created a background setting that is interesting in itself, and has the potential for creating stories. He's created a system which does not reward either exploring that setting or creating those stories in any way other than the inherent reward involved in the activity itself.

When the players are wandering around the setting, they're doing exploration of setting, and he's running the game as a simulation. But as things happen, he transitions with the players to deal with the issues raised.

The story of the girl who picks up the rod raises issues, and everyone in the game recognized it. It created a mini-story with moral and ethical implications that were explored, and continued to be explored to some degree, in that she recognized that her power to control them could not be terminated once it had been established. She made the moral choice not to speak to them again when they had decisions to make--resolution of the narrative premise--and that then transitioned back to the simulationist exploration of the setting, with this new element that this character did not speak in these situations.

I'm going to post this and get back to reading the thread; maybe I'll be embarrassed by something I've not yet read, but there's a lot here and I don't want to lose this before I get to the end.

--M. J. Young

[Jack Spencer Jr]

In his GNS model, Ron has addressed this by making Exploration the goal of Simulationism -- but I suspect this has the same shortcoming.  "Exploration" is so general a goal that it is a central part of Narrativism and Gamism as well.  This seems to make it difficult to distinguish based on goals or priorities.

Ron does state that all three modes "float on a sea of Exploration." Exploration is indeed found in all three mode. Simulationism has just prioritized it above any metagame concern.

Identifying GNS can be a slippery little piggy. It has been suggested to me that GNS can only really be seen when different priorities come into conflict.

Like my group that I complained about in Actual Play overmuch. They seem to have a very Sim priority, I seem to wish to explore (small "e") my Narrativist bend. It's like if we were playing the Samurai example from the essay. I wanted to play it Sorcerer style, but the group was playing it using GURPS (to keep using the example) This brings the GNS priorities into sharp relief. I either play within the given system (which require a roll to see if I can break any of my samurai's tenant, and can thus keep me from doing what I wish to do) or I ignore this and break the social contract, pissing everybody off. Interestingly, I chose the first option, mostly, and developed "turtle-like play tactics" as described at the end of the GNS essay. If I couldn't do the things I wanted to do, I did nothing at all, or as little as possible.

I'm actually starting to think that maybe you did have some Drift going on. Like Vincent said, it's hard to say. We weren't there to make observations of the player's behavior.

[Le Joueur]

Whataminute.

Right at the top, the essay states that if you liked how your game went, then the GNS isn't for you.

Basically, that means if John and company had fun, it doesn't matter in the least what mode their game was.  It's pretty clear there that the GNS is really only of use when the game goes badly.  (It helps figure out what the problem was.)

So, John, did you have any problems?

Fang Langford