The Forge Archives

This is entirely based on this thread:
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=8092

So I was thinking about the "Vanilla Simulationists" mentioned in this thread with regard to my own experiences with highly immersionist play styles -- I think that, because the struggle inherent in this mode of play is often not explicitly discussed, Ron may have missed it in his theory.  Let me define some terms.

Struggle:  Struggle is the basis of interest in RPGs.  It is defined as anything that is difficult for the player or the character.

Struggle is towards one of two ends:

Moral struggles are matters of right and wrong, ethics, etc.  They ask the question "What should I do?"
Material struggles are for survival, power, and influence.  They ask the question "How can I do this?" or "How should I do this?"

Most struggles in RPGs are actually combined.  These can either be:

Opposed combined "How far will you go to get what you want?"
or
Aligned combined "Can you become powerful enough to save the world?"

In addition to ends of the struggle, there are also the means of the struggle.  These come in two types (which can also mix):  Internal (to the character or player) or External (forces beyond the control of that particular participant.)  Sorcerer has a lot of internal moral struggles, for example.

Internal and External may be bad word choices here.  I also considered "Decided," "Fated," and "Social" as categories.

We can further discuss whether these struggles are addressed as the character, or as the player.  This is essentially a matter of stance, but sometimes can make a much larger difference (material / social is very different in and out of character, natch.)

My argument is this:  Moral struggles interest the Narrativist player, Material struggles interest the Gamist player.  The simulationist player is interesting in in-character play but, by definition, is confronting moral or material struggles during that play.  Many essentially sim players have a preference for one of the other type of struggle, thus placing them in Gamist or Narrativist brackets.  Those that do not prefer a particular type of struggle are therefore not so much "raw sim --" as their game includes both Premise and Challenge, but are instead, truly playing "mixed."

Any thoughts--
--Ben

P.S.  Interesting corollary:  Mixed struggles actually contain interest to both gamist and narrativists -- they involve both material and moral struggle.  My take on this is that the Nar player views Sorcerer's baseline as "How far will you go to get what you want" and the Gam player views it as "How far will you go to get what you want."  Just a sidenote, really.

P.P.S.  This still doesn't address comedy...  grr...  Someday...

Hey Ben:

QuoteMy argument is this: Moral struggles interest the Narrativist player, Material struggles interest the Gamist player.

I'd say it's internal vs. external struggles that interest the N and G player, respectively.

Quote from: Matt WilsonHey Ben:

QuoteMy argument is this: Moral struggles interest the Narrativist player, Material struggles interest the Gamist player.

I'd say it's internal vs. external struggles that interest the N and G player, respectively.

BL>  Hmm...  Well, uh...
 Are you referring to internal and external in my theory, above?  Because I meant that internal were things that were decided by the player (and/or character in pawn stance), whereas external meant decided by other forces (major NPCs, dumb luck, other players.)  Since the clearly Narrativist games MLwM and Unsung use an external means of deciding their moral decisions, I can't imagine that this is what you are saying.

 If you are referring to "internal" and "external" with regards to the character existing the game world, you may be right, but I think that you're just replacing my "moral" and "material" with internal and external.  I cannot think of any material gain which does not represent itself in the external world, nor can I think of any moral gain which is strongly represented in the outside world.
 So, in that case, yes...  but...  The point about sim players and mostly mixed struggles still stands, right?

yrs--
--Ben

P.S.  I definitely should have used "Decision" and "Fate" for the resolution types.  Much clearer.  Sorry about the confusion...

Hi Ben,

I guess I don't see the difference between your "Struggle" and my terms "Situation + System."

Best,
Ron

Well, I'm of a mind that struggle defines it as a game, (what's the Costikyan definition of a game... ah "an interactive structure of endogenous meaning that requires players to struggle toward a goal"), as opposed to an excercise in collaborative fiction, frex.

So, yes, struggles are intrinsic to RPG's. And they're in the GNS essays, but not labelled as such.

Now, I have to admit I'm failing to see how a Nar moral struggle is or should be internal to the player, as that reflects an ethical system that de-prioritizes the social dimensionsof ethics. Which is a whole 'nother story, but suffice to say, Nar = internal seems a bit whacked to me.

And much gamist struggle can be in terms of optimising your own character for best effect.

EDIT - Okay, editing frantically as my brian catches up to what's really being said: the above can be taken as a valid statement of my views, but not entirely relevant to the thread...

There are also problem with the "Nar is ethical, Gam is material, Sim is both." Because ethical questions can be very much material ones, or at least questions that evaporate without a material dimension. It looks like you're saying that we can divorce ethical and material struggles, and I really don't see that this could or should be done.

As a concrete example: the ethical dilemma of grain distribution during a famine. I would argue that the (nar biased) play arising from that would have a very heavy material component external to the player. Simlarly, a gamist could take psychological disadvantages to get a tactical advantage in some situations, and avoid triggering the debilitating effects as a gamist rather than sim or nar behaviour.

And I (probably erroneously) detect a whiff of dismissal of Sim, in implying that all but a very narrow range of sim is really Gam or Nar in disguise, or mixed gam and nar. Now, I would see sim struggle as the struggle of the characters to acheive their goals (as opposed to Gam /Nar player struggle to achieve goals through the characters), but I feel like I'm stretching struggle to accomodate.

Quote from: Ron EdwardsI guess I don't see the difference between your "Struggle" and my terms "Situation + System."

BL>  There is none.  At all.  At a theoretical level.

 But, addressing something as a struggle -- decided in or out of character -- makes it a lot easier for me, as a largely sim player, to address slants towards G and N in my style.  What I suggest is that you reason why you have people saying "I play to be in my character, no more, no less" is that they enjoy confronting struggles In Character, which says nothing about whether they prefer moral or material struggles, if at all.  Both Story Now and Step On Up seem, to me, to imply some meta-game sensibility which is either absent or safely buried in Dream-heavy play.

 I guess the point is that the presence of Right to Dream does not violate moral and material struggles -- in fact, a dream must contain moral and/or material struggles to remain interesting.  Thus, if a loaded dream (as addressed in the referenced thread) is actually not Sim, then a better way to ask questions to ascertain its nature is to ask about conflict or struggle, not about Premise or Step on Up.

 To say it again:  Take a player who claims to play solely for the dream, and rather than asking him "where's the beef" ask him "what kind of beef to you like your character to eat?"

Get it?

yrs--
--Ben

Quote from: BenStruggle is the basis of interest in RPGs

I was almost ready to disagree with this, until I got a bit further down in the thread and found:

Quote from: Pete
I'm of a mind that struggle defines it as a game, (what's the Costikyan definition of a game... ah "an interactive structure of endogenous meaning that requires players to struggle toward a goal")

In my mind, one of the defining qualities of Role Playing Games as a category distinct from other games is the fact that the 'Struggle toward a goal' component is highly customizable, varying not just from game to game, but within a given group, in some cases.  To a degree, the Struggle is suggested by the mechanics, but is left in the hands of the individual players to define and pursue.

The Goal and the Struggle Towards it can be almost anything -- a gamist goal ("I will become King of all I survey!"), a metagame goal ("Hey, when we split up, let's make sure Marsha's character teams up with Norm's -- he's got a crush on her!"), a simulation goal ("Being a peasant in 6th Century France is the coolest thing ever!  Where's that 'Lice and Lesions' table?"), or whatever mix of everything that you want.

I'm still not convinced that Struggle/Situation+System is the basis of interest in RPGs, but I'll certainly admit it's a basis of interest.

Oh, one other thing...

Quote from: Pete...I would see sim struggle as the struggle of the characters to acheive their goals (as opposed to Gam /Nar player struggle to achieve goals through the characters)...

I'm not sure I buy this, either.  I think gaming is the players struggling to achieve their goals, and they achieve them through a combination of their own actions and their use of Stances mediating between the metagame/OOC arena and the IC/Character arena.  I don't personally think of any particular division of char actions vs. player actions as being characteristic of Gam/Nar/Sim play, except insofar as you tend to see certain Stance combos more often in some play modes than others (but I don't see any of them as being exclusive).

I'm willing to be convinced, though =)

Arg.  Okay, another thing.

Quote from: Ben
Both Story Now and Step On Up seem, to me, to imply some meta-game sensibility which is either absent or safely buried in Dream-heavy play.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, Ben, but I think I've seen Sim-heavy play not necessarily be Dream-heavy (although it can be).  I think there are (or can be) very strong meta-game concerns in Dream-heavy play.  In fact, I would argue that most strong Sim play has a very explicit metagame concern:  Being Faithful to the Sim.  That's something the Players are concerned with (as opposed to the Characters), which to my mind makes it a metagame concern.

Or am I misunderstanding?

I also take a slight exception to this:

Quote from: Bena dream must contain moral and/or material struggles to remain interesting

I don't think that's a requirement for Dream/Sim play, although I agree it frequently is present.  I think there is plenty of Sim-prioritized play where the Sim components don't necessarily have moral and/or material struggles, and which remain quite interesting to those players dedicated to them.

I think Faithfulness to the Simulated Topic can be the Struggle.  You struggle in the social, metagame arena to Do It Right.  It's almost a kind of gamism, but not really, because you aren't necessarily competing to be the one Doing It Right the best.

I can give examples, if that would help.  It may be that what I'm seeing as Sim-heavy play is in fact not, or is not what you would categorize as Sim-heavy.

Quote from: BenStruggle is the basis of interest in RPGs

Quote from: Pete
I'm of a mind that struggle defines it as a game, (what's the Costikyan definition of a game... ah "an interactive structure of endogenous meaning that requires players to struggle toward a goal")

Quote from: Anya
In my mind, one of the defining qualities of Role Playing Games as a category distinct from other games is the fact that the 'Struggle toward a goal' component is highly customizable, varying not just from game to game, but within a given group, in some cases.  To a degree, the Struggle is suggested by the mechanics, but is left in the hands of the individual players to define and pursue.

BL>  Note that I did not say "struggle towards a goal."  I merely said "struggle."  A lot of struggles aren't towards a particular goal -- heavily moral struggles are often not towards any goal, except the nebulous one of "being a better person."  "Conflict" is another would that could be used to describe what I'm talking about, but it implies two sides, whereas struggle can be purely internal.
(note:  I largely agree with you, below, this is largely just clarification.)

Quote from: Anya
The Goal and the Struggle Towards it can be almost anything -- a gamist goal ("I will become King of all I survey!"), a metagame goal ("Hey, when we split up, let's make sure Marsha's character teams up with Norm's -- he's got a crush on her!"), a simulation goal ("Being a peasant in 6th Century France is the coolest thing ever!  Where's that 'Lice and Lesions' table?"), or whatever mix of everything that you want.

BL>  Note that you are strictly talking about metagame goals.  And, in the context of metagame goals, I agree with you.  But in the referenced thread, Ron was very clear that a simulationist metagame goal ("Being priests missionizing a small town is the coolest thing ever!  Where's the 'blessing of the crops' table?") is still an instance of Narrativist play if it contains largely Narrativist in-game struggles.  It's his theory, so I believe him on this.

I would also like to take your example of peasants in 6th century France a bit farther -- the life of a peasant in 6th century France is full of struggle -- the material struggle to survive and produce crops, and the moral struggle of matching the Christian religion to your everyday existence and traditional ways.  It is rife with struggles -- that is why it is interesting to simulate.  Again, according the the referenced thread, this game could be played Gamist or Narrativist, but I have a hard time believing it could be played struggleless (which, apparently True Sim is...)

Quote from: Pete...I would see sim struggle as the struggle of the characters to acheive their goals (as opposed to Gam /Nar player struggle to achieve goals through the characters)...

BL>  Pete... This is exactly what I'm getting at.  My point is that -- if it doesn't matter if Premise is addressed in character or out of character (and likewise for Challenge and Step on Up) -- then therefore there is no, or very little, True Sim.

Note that I don't really care how this is classified (all pure-in-game play is sim, or pure-in-game play is classified as to the struggles it contains).  I just would like it to be solid one way or the other.

Quote from: Ben
Both Story Now and Step On Up seem, to me, to imply some meta-game sensibility which is either absent or safely buried in Dream-heavy play.

Quote from: Anya
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, Ben, but I think I've seen Sim-heavy play not necessarily be Dream-heavy (although it can be).  I think there are (or can be) very strong meta-game concerns in Dream-heavy play.  In fact, I would argue that most strong Sim play has a very explicit metagame concern:  Being Faithful to the Sim.  That's something the Players are concerned with (as opposed to the Characters), which to my mind makes it a metagame concern.

Or am I misunderstanding?

BL>  You have it precisely right.  The thing is, that a lot of Sim players object to any implication that they have metagame goals beyond Being Faithful (rather like accusing some of adultery, actually.)  But my point is that they are still addressing moral and material struggles in game, with regard to their characters, and that if you want to know what mode they are playing in, it might be better to ask them what sorts of struggles they enjoy their characters addressing.

Quote from: Bena dream must contain moral and/or material struggles to remain interesting

Quote from: Anya
I don't think that's a requirement for Dream/Sim play, although I agree it frequently is present.  I think there is plenty of Sim-prioritized play where the Sim components don't necessarily have moral and/or material struggles, and which remain quite interesting to those players dedicated to them.

BL>  Please, contradict the theory.  Cite a specific example of play (that you have experienced or heard of directly) that has no moral or material struggle, but still is interesting.

It is my belief that all human life is filled with moral and material struggles, and thus any game with even-close-to-human characters will contain such.

Quote from: Anya
I think Faithfulness to the Simulated Topic can be the Struggle.  You struggle in the social, metagame arena to Do It Right.  It's almost a kind of gamism, but not really, because you aren't necessarily competing to be the one Doing It Right the best.

I can give examples, if that would help.  It may be that what I'm seeing as Sim-heavy play is in fact not, or is not what you would categorize as Sim-heavy.

BL>  Examples are great.  I think that you're bang on about the metagame arena of Sim.  But that is not what I was addressing.  I was addressing the story content -- the Dream itself, as it were.  I think that no Sim player has ever simulated (nor ever will simulate except as gedankengame) a role-playing game (where here I refer to actual play, not books) which contain no struggle.

yrs--
--Ben

Hi Ben,

I'm still seeing all of this as synonymous with, "All role-playing contains Situation." I don't really see it as much of an issue, except insofar as you've hit upon some phrasing that makes the basic point really hit home for you, or that you can use to communicate better with others. All of that is good, though.

Perhaps the issue is that you're seeing Narrativism defined as containing moral/ethical struggles, and therefore thinking that Simulationism must not have such things. If so, then I can identify what the stumbling block is: the GNS categories are not defined by what they contain, but by what gets maximally-reinforced, social attention.

If the acts of role-playing - the interactions, the rules applications, everything - demonstrably and preferentially reinforce addressing such a struggle (Situation), then you have Narrativist play. But you can be playing in a Situation which contains such a struggle (Situation), but in this case not see that sort of play, in which case it wouldn't be Narrativist.

Best,
Ron

This is beginning to get close to one of my personal areas of quicksand with GNS: where does exploration of character end and narrativism begin? And, in a related question, can you have sim exploration of premise?

My handy shorthand answer for the first is "sim char asks what would my character do, nar asks what should my character do." It's shorthand in that there are so many holes in it you can use it to strain cheese, but it helps me on occassion.

My answer to the second is "Yes, as long as the PC's don't care." Again, it's shorthand for half an essay on protagonism, but certainly ethical premises can exist as arising from setting, even integral to them, but they'll only give you nar if the players engage with them as other than a part of the setting to live with or an opportunity to improve their position.

So what's this got to do with Sim struggle? I'll subtly change my position now by pretending to clarify it: Sim struggle for a player is the struggle to faithfully respresent and explore the simulation. The goal is the dream. A well designed sim game makes the struggle, the intersection of systems, or the revelation of setting, interesting. And, more importantly, it's a goal that can be forever striven for, but never permanently attained, as the perfect dream never ends, the perfect simulation cannot ever be fully explored.

The Nar goal is the un-nebulous "do the right thing" in most nar games. Nah, hold that, the struggle is to adequately address the premise, and a well designed nar game makes that struggle interesting. The goal is the adressing of the premise through the story of the character, and is often acheivable, especially in closed games like MLwM.

And Gam, the goal is constant proving of the character in challenges. In some ways, it's actually gam that's the odd man out, as the structure of RPG campaigns makes the goal of RPG gamism (the constant challenge) nearly impossible to achieve, as, in the words of Qui Gon Jinn, "There's always a bigger fish." The character can only, in the long run of an open ended campaign, either fail at a challenge or end up with no challenges left, weeping because there are no more worlds to conquer.

But anyway, this has, for me, been mostly an academic excercise in stretching Costikyan's definition of a game, which he tried to formulate to include everything he thought was a game and exclude everything he thought wasn't, over the GNS framework.

Taking it away and going back to struggle... So, would you say sim heavy on setting exploration, that does not address premise or concentrate on challenge, not exist, exist as gam/nar hybrid by equal prioritisation of the only two elements that matter for struggles' sake (even if that's negative prioritisation of ignoring both), not consist of roleplaying, or be so rare as to be beyond consideration? Baecasue I'm finding it hard to find it a place in the struggle theory.

Hello Pete,

You're falling into some verbal holes that I'm familiar with. People talk themselves into very strange places by subtly mis-using the terms, and then they flail to get out.

Quotewhere does exploration of character end and narrativism begin?

The key to answering this one is, Exploration doesn't end when Narrativism begins. Narrativism operates on a bed of Exploration. So if you're looking for its "ending" point, you'll be endlessly frustrated.

Where Narrativism begins is easy - when it does. You're a HeroQuest player; you know that people get jazzed about the "political is personal" aspects of Glorantha, and that their characters' actions express Theme Stuff about those aspects through play. There you go.

QuoteAnd, in a related question, can you have sim exploration of premise?

"Exploration of Premise" is an oxymoron. It's the five elements of Exploration which are Explored; Premise is a guiding aesthetic ("creative agenda") that shapes or marks that action. Simulationist play, by definition, lacks that (or the corresponding Gamist) aesthetic.

Best,
Ron

Quote from: Ben Lehman
The thing is, that a lot of Sim players object to any implication that they have metagame goals beyond Being Faithful (rather like accusing some of adultery, actually.)

I just about fell out of my chair reading that.  You're kidding, right?  Wow, I've never met anybody who has claimed that.  I try not to be judgemental, but I think they're being extremely silly if they really believe that.

Sure, I believe it's a strong, if not the strongest, priority for Sim-heavy play.  But I can't see it as the only one.

I think the Metagame Social Contract Arena is a vast unmapped territory that every game really has a lot of interaction in.  I don't think it's always identified as being part of the game by the participants, but I think it really is, and I think every single person brings a whole metric butt-load of priorities at that level to the table.  It is a very rare game of any sort (RPG or otherwise) that doesn't have a substantial component at that level, unless the players are very aware of it and consciously shut it down somehow (ie, convention play or some wargaming, frex).

Quote from: Ben
Please, contradict the theory.  Cite a specific example of play (that you have experienced or heard of directly) that has no moral or material struggle, but still is interesting.

It is my belief that all human life is filled with moral and material struggles, and thus any game with even-close-to-human characters will contain such.
[Snip]
I think that no Sim player has ever simulated (nor ever will simulate except as gedankengame) a role-playing game (where here I refer to actual play, not books) which contain no struggle.

I think Ron's point about the non-exclusivity of the GNS modes is relevant here.  What I was saying was that I've seen Sim-priority play, with both Gam and Nar elements also present, where the Sim-priority did not in fact involve Struggle beyond Being Faithful to the Sim.  The moral and material struggle was embedded in the Gam and Nar portions of the play.  The Sim layer was pure Faithfulness.

In the 6th Century French Peasant example, the Accuracy of reflecting 6th Century Peasant Life would be the important thing, not the presence or absence of inter-character or character/NPC romance (Nar), or who could get the most crops in (Gam).  Those things might well be present, but using player knowledge of crop rotation to "game" the crop yields (Gam), or initiating a romance between a peasant and a Duke's daughter (Nar) would be frowned upon or trumped entirely as being 'non-realistic' or 'cheating' -- Simming Faithfully relies on systems or players committed to maintaining the integrity of the Sim and only engaging in Gam and Nar play that doesn't break that integrity.  At least, that's how I'm reading Sim-priority play.

I think a lot of play in Licensed games falls into this Sim-prioritized category (as an aside, I think this is one of the primary reasons people play Licensed games -- they enjoy gaming in general, but they want to Sim something fairly specific and the licensed game frequently includes, defines, and encourages whatever that is).  "A Jedi would help her, so I will" and "That doesn't evoke LotR magic very well, so I'm not going to take those spells" are two specific examples I've seen of non-struggle Sim elements trumping or constraining Gam and Nar elements in games I've actually been playing in.

Taking the Jedi example specifically, the Simulation of portraying a Jedi and following the Jedi Code does not inherently involve struggle.  It can involve struggle, if the GM (or players) challenge that portrayal.  In the absence of such a challenge, however, the Sim simply is it's own reward.  "I'm playing a Jedi.  Cool!"

This is all the way I think about Sim, anyway.  But I'm pretty sure I'm coming from an Illusionist Sim/Gam/Nar (in that order -- it's not my personal preference, necessarily, it's just what we mostly played and I'm fairly comfortable there) background.  We didn't fear the subordinate Gam Hard Core, however.  We just more or less consciously confronted it when it came up, or paused-game and had a metagame roundtable to mediate it if it was disrupting play.  We were very functional Illusionists, I think.  =)

I think there ios some value in 'struggle', but not in the sim context primarily.  I think that 'struggle' is a far better capsule description of gamism than 'competition' is.  In most media, you sit and observe, but in all forms of taks or games, success arises from your action.  You struggle with the logistical or tactical or whatever problems to achieve your goals and obtain saitisfaction.  Struggle is a universal characteristic of games (while competition is not) and serves, IMO, in much the same way that Exploration does.

Quote from: Ron Edwards

Quotewhere does exploration of character end and narrativism begin?

The key to answering this one is, Exploration doesn't end when Narrativism begins. Narrativism operates on a bed of Exploration. So if you're looking for its "ending" point, you'll be endlessly frustrated.

Where Narrativism begins is easy - when it does. You're a HeroQuest player; you know that people get jazzed about the "political is personal" aspects of Glorantha, and that their characters' actions express Theme Stuff about those aspects through play. There you go.

Well, i did say it was full of holes... My problem was with the idea that whenever someone was exploring character, they were engaged in narrativism, not sim. I'm not looking for the terminator between the two, but a recognition that you can explore character without adressing premise. Which is where I get uncomfortable with some of the noodling around new interpretations of GNS which tend to eliminate sim as a separate category.

Quote from: Ron Edwards

QuoteAnd, in a related question, can you have sim exploration of premise?

"Exploration of Premise" is an oxymoron. It's the five elements of Exploration which are Explored; Premise is a guiding aesthetic ("creative agenda") that shapes or marks that action. Simulationist play, by definition, lacks that (or the corresponding Gamist) aesthetic.

Best,
Ron

{waves hand in front of eyes}I said theme all along, not premise, these aren't the droids you're looking for.

In other words, ya got me there. It's one of those things that trips me up, as well as some others posting here, that premise is so tightly bound to theme that I say the one when I means t'other.

But again, it looks like sometimes "exploring theme" gets mistaken for "addressing premise" whenever someone gets the itch to eliminate Sim.

But, my vocabulary problems aside, I stand by the rest of it about the struggle for sim.

Hi Pete,

Yup. I forgot to mention in my previous response that I agree with you regarding Struggle, Simulationism, and so on. Which was sort of the main point of your post, so I apologize for not acknowledging that.

Quick detail. You wrote,

QuoteMy problem was with the idea that whenever someone was exploring character, they were engaged in narrativism, not sim. I'm not looking for the terminator between the two, but a recognition that you can explore character without adressing premise.

So recognized. All of the above is accurate, and you have my permission to kick anyone who thinks that Exploring Character is Narrativist right in the shin. Just once, though.

Best,
Ron