Revised does S really exist. Or It's everywhere!

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

Problem 1: people are still thinking about individual decisions in very small units of time. This is not valid for GNS discussions. GNS operates at along social lines of communication across multiple decisions - that's what "priority," "goal," and "mode" are all supposed to be driving at, as terms.

Cassidy, when you write ...

"Is there a lock? No? OK then, I'll try and hold the door shut as best I can."

Even a simple statement like that could be Sim.

... the scale that you're operating at is simply not an appropriate one for the discussion. You're talking about Exploration, and identifying that activity as being present is not GNS-relevant.

The presence of Exploration does not tag the instance of game-play as being Simulationist. For some reason, thinking that it does has cropped up throughout this thread - in fact, it's the essence of Jack's error in his first post. That others are compounding the error boggles me.

Problem 2: "Presence of all three ..." in a game. The focus needs to be on play. That's what GNS is about. Taking our attention to game design is a secondary level of analysis, and I'm very reluctant to do so in the context of the error that's being perpetuated in the thread so far.

Best,
Ron

[Jack Spencer Jr]

The presence of Exploration does not tag the instance of game-play as being Simulationist. For some reason, thinking that it does has cropped up throughout this thread - in fact, it's the essence of Jack's error in his first post. That others are compounding the error boggles me.

The problem, then seems to be how to tell whether something is a priority or not. I know that I, and I would imagine plenty of others here still do not get what GNS keys on. It's not a single event of an instance of play over several event or decision that the GNS priority is seen. How does one differentiate straightforward G or N play which contains Exploration vs GS or NS hybrid play?

[Cassidy]

... the scale that you're operating at is simply not an appropriate one for the discussion. You're talking about Exploration, and identifying that activity as being present is not GNS-relevant.

My interpretation of what constituted an "instance of play" was clearly incorrect. Thanks for pointing it out.

[taalyn]

Ba vocab on my part, Ron. I meant "a game as played" or "a session", not game design. Well, okay, I meant game design a little, which is wrong, but predominantly, I meant, a game session.

Aidan

[Ian Charvill]

It seems to me that the only decisions one needs to consider re GNS are those where two or more of the modes come into conflict.  So it's not about whether you prioritize setting, it's about whther you prioritize setting at the expense of story, frex.

So a decision to explore every back alley of the seedy docks district because you're really enjoying the atmosphere even though there's no challenge involved in doing so and it doesn't advance the plot would be a decision where simulationist priorities were expressed.

Choosing to explore when there is no challenge or story at stake isn't simulationist -as far as I understand it - only choosing to explore at the expense of challenge or story.

When I'm thinking of simulationist play I tend to think of Paul Mason's Imazine, and his emphasis on immersion and his ideas about culture games.

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

Jack, that's why we go to actual play to talk about this stuff most concretely. Check out some of my posts about Tunnels & Trolls - that's where I try to talk about real Gamist priorities, in action. Check out my posts about The Riddle of Steel, or Fvlminata. These are only a few examples.

Ian, your "back alley" example doesn't really illustrate the crucial "at the expense of" element of Simulationist play. Your other points are all on-the-mark, though.

I also want to mention something else, apropos of my Gamist essay - people are flinging the term "Challenge" around all over the place, in reference to its "necessary presence" in Gamist play. I think they are missing the point - that Step On Up is the key ingredient of Gamist play, and that "Challenge" is merely a re-labelling of Situation when Step On Up is active.

Best,
Ron

[Ian Charvill]

Ron,

To check that I'm understanding your last point:

it's not that there is a challenge that make's it gamist, it's that the player is challenged and gets (or stands to get) some kind of gain within the social group (winning, kudos) by rising to that challenge?

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Ian,

Right - and that the "rising" (Step On Up, meaning kudos is on the line) is socially acknowledged as the point of play.

It ain't Gamism unless you (you!) can lose.

Best,
Ron

[Jason Lee]

Giving kudos to M.J. for a nice positive definition for Sim agenda.

I guess the way I'm seeing GNS here is like the color (creative agenda) of sand.  You go to the beach and pick up a handful (instance of play), and say "hey look, white sand!"  If you start looking at individual grains of sand (individual decision points) you see all sorts of different colors, and you lose sight of what color the beach is.

I guess that's just a metaphor for what Ron has been saying, "GNS dunna work all little like." (well...maybe he was a little more eloquent about it ;) ).

That seems to makes sense to me for Sim as an positive, individual priority.

I guess my problem is that I'd like to look at the individual grains.  When I look at individual decisions I see G/N as actually making the decision and S simply limitting your choice of options.  I see the negative definition for Sim; it seems like a different beast than G and N; it never makes its own decisions; it just colors G or N decisions.