Clarifying Simulationism

[Walt Freitag]

Hi Ron,

Social Contract: "let's create together"
Exploration: "let's create this"
creative agenda: "this" in action

As far as I can recall, this is the first time I've seen this presented with the operative verb being "create" all the way through. Before, it's always been "explore," with "explore" being defined as "imagine (in a shared way during play)." "Create" has hitherto appeared only in the general term "creative agenda," and then again under Narrativism in explaining that the creation of Story is being prioritized.

The difference (if any) between "explore" and "create" is for me the crux of the whole issue. What is being explored or created are, or course, the five elements. It appears from my experience that all of the elements are being imagined through play (though to varying degrees), while in a given game or portion of a game, any, all, or none of them might be being created through play. When I say "created" I mean a human being making something up, not communicating or sharing something already made up or decided upon, and not turning the crank on a mechanical system and watching a result pop out.

Anya's "Y" and Valamir's additional Sim creative agenda is what I'm calling CCI, for Commitment to Creative Imagining, which is also very similar to Ian's "Inventionism." It's the prioritization of creation, by human beings, through play, of (one or more of) the five imagined elements, as separate from the communicating or sharing of imagined elements that already exist or that arise from mechanism. It's all "exploration" but they're very different agendas.

I believe it's useful to make the distinction between Exploration in general, and the more specific CCI. Here are some examples of why, from my essay-in-progress, from a section called "CCI pries open some Simulationist black boxes":

No-Myth Play
The effective difference between players participationally playing through a pre-planned scenario (evolution of situation), and playing "no-myth" style in a traditional GM-driven way, has been the point of much debate. It's obvious that the two styles of play are very different, but the difference seems to come in entirely underneath GNS's radar. Once it's established that the GM retains control over the Story in both cases, and that neither play style is Narrativist (at least, as far as the non-GM players are concerned), GNS mostly just shrugs. Looking at it from the Exploration point of view, one sees as usual plenty of Exploration going on in both cases. No help there.

The difference in terms of CCI, however, is enormous and obvious. Module play is (primarily) Imagining of Situation. No-myth play is (primarily) Creative Imagining of Situation. In no-myth play, players' actions affect the evolution of Situation in a sufficiently direct way (despite the possible intermediation of system and GM decisions) that Situation is legitimately a creatively imagined element.

Fortune in the Middle
The benefits of Fortune in the Middle are normally described in terms of character protagonism. This makes perfect sense when discussing Narrativist play, but it's less clear what Protagonism means in the context of Simulationist play, where creation of formal Story (from which the meaning of "Protagonism" derives) is not prioriized. Usually it's interpreted as the player's opportunity to make the character look good, by avoiding the "whiff" phenomenon in which an outcome dictated by the resolution system is interpreted as a character blunder or shortcoming. But whether and why a character should look good in Simulationist play is not clear-cut; it's one of the many trade-offs between different varieties of Fidelity. (Fidelity to genre expectations in which main characters usually look good tends to conflict with fidelity to in-game-world causality or plausibility that would create the expectation that sometimes the characters should look bad.)

On the other hand, the benenfits of FitM in facilitating CCI are very clear and obvious. The process of narrating FiTM outcomes is itself a venue for Creative Imagining. Equally important, Fortune in the Middle turns what's normally an ex post facto editing process (the player proposes a course of events, and the system determines whether it happens or not) into a process of inventing with prior constraints (the roll determines the constraints – specifically, whether the outcome is an overall success or failure, with possible additional constraints such as concessions – and then the player invents an outcome within those constraints). Prior constraints and subsequent editing can both be spurs to creativity (some authors give their editors a lot of positive credit for their influence over the work), but prior constraints are much more so in a "right now" way. Knowledge that a proposal is subject to editing or rejection by other agents (such as the system) can induce hestancy or even indifference while a prior constraint offers a clear opportunity to build on or within the pre-established framework.

In both cases, though, non-CCI Sim players have viewed the technques in question as illegitimate tampering with the desirable objectivity of (respectively) setting or system/causality. For me, these and many other examples show that CCI vs. non-CCI Sim are as different in practice from each other as either is from either of the other two modes.

- Walt

[AnyaTheBlue]

Ron,

Social Contract [Exploration [G, N, or S]]

Where the brackets surrounding GNS are called the "creative agenda."

Social Contract: "let's create together"
Exploration: "let's create this"
creative agenda: "this" in action

But it's not a linear progression like the above little bit might suggest. Exploration is a *type and piece of* Social Contract. Creative agenda categories (GNS) are *applications* of Exploration.

No, I think I get this (although maybe I don't -- Hmmm).  What I'm trying to communicate hasn't had enough time to simmer, so I don't think I've been articulating it well.  Hm.  Again, this may be entirely semantic (and it may be appropriate to put it in it's own thread).

Social Contract is the key, clearly.  Everybody sits at a table and, instead of just talking about the weather or their pets, they formalize their socializing using a combination of metagame stuff and actual formalized records (ie, rulebooks, character sheets, previously decided on house rules, whatever).

"Exploration", which I was calling X, was the process I perceive as being the next level up.

Playing an RPG always involves social contract, even when you are doing solo stuff.  There's an interaction between you and the  players who exist in potential only in the future.  Even though there is no direct feedback, there is still a formalization of your actions which are governed by either a pre-existing social contract (prepping for people you've gamed with previously), or the potential one which will presumably grow out of future play and about which you are making certain inferences about based on your own comprehension of the game.

Prep and solo play are a part of and interact with the social contract, I think.  But they have distinct differences from sitting at the table and gaming with three or four other people.  I'm not sure if they are all exploration, or if they are all the same kind of exploration, if that makes sense.

Perhaps the differences I'm perceiving here are differences in Creative Agenda, and not categories of Exploration.  I think they are modes of Exploration, however, distinct from Creative Agenda.

So, the mode of Exploration that occurs during face-to-face play at a table is, at it's most base level, 'playing the game'.  By which I mean, rolling dice, moving figures around, stating actions, determining consequences for actions, and all that.  I still see it as Role Playing, even though no Creative Agenda has been prioritized, in my mind.  It's just going through the mechanical motions as provided by the formalized social contract, and enjoying the metagame social aspects almost entirely.  It is the 'action' step, defined by, but distinct from, the Social Contract.  It's the 'agendaless Creative Agenda' being realized, 'Exploration' without G, N or S being prioritized.

This is different from what I see as Sim play because with Sim play, you don't just do More Exploration, but you actively provide more complicated constraints and formalism with a different goal from the main game's non-prioritized simulation systems.

This is a subtle distinction, and I may not be right about it being real.

I'm talking about the difference between, "This game has a combat system for handling fights" and "this game has a combat system for handling fights, AND that system realistically Emulates blood and limb loss, fatigue, morale, headwounds, and battlefield distractions," or even "This game has a combat system for handling fights, AND it's really good at Emulating cinematic wire-fu and high action."

All of these combat systems are simulations in the mundane sense of the term.  But the latter two have an additional Creative Agenda connected to Faithful Emulation of something important beyond the basic system.  You don't just abstractly resolve conflict.

This 'running the game' step is what I mean by X, and 'running the game' plus 'Step On Up' gives you 'gamism', while 'running the game' plus 'Emulation' gets you Simulation.

Prep work still has a social contract, and a Creative Agenda, but I think the 'running the game' details are different.  Likewise with Solo Play.

So I guess what I'm saying is that I think Exploration might have modes of it's own independent of GNS, and one of them might be my 'X'.

I seem to be seeing a lot of people get hung up on the "Finding out about the Unknown" connotations that the word exploration (and discovery, too) has, and in the process sort of missing what I see as the important point, that exploration can just mean "range over all the possibilities".  You can explore something which has no surprises and no unknowns.  Exploration in the Forge/GNS sense can certainly involve inquiry into the unknown aspects of a simulation, but I don't think that dimension is important or defining for Simulationist play.

Again, I don't think I'm actually disagreeing with anything.  I think this is a semantic issue.  At most, I'm quibbling about how Exploration in the [SC[E[GNS]]] diagram relates to the SC, and if it has modes independent of the GNS Creative Agenda modes.

I'm sorry if I'm running back over ground that is in an essay or earlier thread.  If anybody has specific pointers, lay 'em on me!  =)

(I see Walt responded.  I think I need to wait longer in between postings, to let other people get their words in edgewise =) )

[AnyaTheBlue]

Hi, Walt!

Module play is (primarily) Imagining of Situation. No-myth play is (primarily) Creative Imagining of Situation. In no-myth play, players' actions affect the evolution of Situation in a sufficiently direct way (despite the possible intermediation of system and GM decisions) that Situation is legitimately a creatively imagined element.

I'm not intimately familiar with 'No-Myth' (I believe I've read a thread or two on it), nor am I exactly a GNS expert, either.

But.

How is this distinction different from Director or Author vs. Actor or Pawn stances?  I see the 'Imagining of Situation' to be Actor or Pawn stance, with 'Creative Imagining of Situation' as being Director or Author stance.

Am I missing something?

[Valamir]

That's good stuff Walt, though I find myself stumbling over CCI as a term.  Perhaps Creative Invention is a better choice (its at least as accurate a term as any of the other isms).

In GNS as it exists today there are two very clearly different animals being housed under the Sim umbrella...a fact which regularly brings up "Simulationism is just the dumping ground for stuff that isn't G or N" arguments.  All of the 3 have different flavors, but I've grown to think that these are much more fundamentally different than being just different flavors of S.

It seems to me we have the following Situation:

All Roleplaying Starts with Exploration:

Add Step on Up and get Gamism.
Add Story Now and get Narrativism.

but for Simulation currently now you simply have:

Add nothing but greater focus on Exploration and get Simulation.


What I think we really have, however, that's not being captured currently is two distinct animals:

Add nothing but greater focus on Exploration and get Simulation1
Add Creative Invention and get Simulation2

Sim1 is the "I want to experience the world as if I was really there, I the player, am mostly along for the ride" type of voyeuristic play.

Sim2 is the "I will take an active hand as a player in forging this world and making in my own, not for any step on up purposes or story now purposes, but because I'm into the world building of it"


Now what I had suggested earlier is that Sim2 is Simulation.  Its the third Creative Agenda of the 3.  Sim1 by definition lacks its own Creative Agenda.  IMO "the Right to Dream" as its defined currently is NOT a Creative Agenda...its the absence of a Creative Agenda and is why we have the "which one of these things is not the same -- which one doesn't belong" discussions.

Sim1 is nothing more than Exploration.  Its Exploration plus nothing.  By definition, since there is not additional Creative Agenda to emphasize, the emphasis is exclusively on Exploration.  If Sim2 is Simulation, than Sim1 is simply Exploration itself...its located back at the "root" so to speak.

[Marco]

I think Ralph's points are good.

I don't like the "being along for the ride" phrase since it seems to me that a player who's engaged will be forging ahead to see what there is to see and do what there is to do--while neither directly seeking challenge or story nor "world building."

An additional case would seem to be where what's being exploried is something like color or situation at a very deep level (some very nunaced Call of Cthulhu-world-style play comes to mind) so that the play is story like in structure, the characters are fairly free to do what they want, but the basic premise-style-question has been answered by the world/genre. In that case the particiapnts may really want and develop a story-like structure as a high-priority--but it won't really be Narrativist play (or at least it'll be one of those boarderline cases).

In neither of these cases is the play exactly vouyeristic nor is it constructive in the sense that I usually think of as world-building (although you could see covering the entire map on a cartographic expidition as world building--it's just not the term I'd pick for it).

-Marco

[Valamir]

I think Ralph's points are good.

Thank you, although they are nothing more than the amalgamation of what a number of folks have been stumbling towards for a while and have only begun to articulate in rough fashion in a few recent threads.

I don't like the "being along for the ride" phrase since it seems to me that a player who's engaged will be forging ahead to see what there is to see and do what there is to do--while neither directly seeking challenge or story nor "world building."

I think the operative part missing from your quote is "I the player am along for the ride".  The character very well may be forging ahead, but the player is mostly just observing and vicariously participating in what happens.

Note:  in reference to earlier "characters don't exist" threads, if there is an occasion where the player has completely subjugated their own agendas in favor of maximum character portrayal, this is where such play would fall.  In this sense, the player really is "along for the ride" so to speak.

Note #2:  A couple of us (notably myself and Mike H) have long submitted that metagame rules and director stance is not anti-Simulationist and such things function perfectly well in conjunction with Simulation.  Not everyone has agreed; and I think this split reaches the why.  For what I called Sim2 above, the act of "creative invention" (and where my Sim play has historically fallen) works quite comfortably with such techniques.  Sim1 which is Exploration devoid of Creative Agenda does not...because Directive Stance and Meta Game mechanics presuppose a Creative Agenda on the part of the player.

An additional case would seem to be where what's being exploried is something like color or situation at a very deep level     [snip]

In neither of these cases is the play exactly vouyeristic nor is it constructive in the sense that I usually think of as world-building (although you could see covering the entire map on a cartographic expidition as world building--it's just not the term I'd pick for it).

-Marco[/quote]

Well, as I noted, each GNS mode has several sub flavors that approach the general concept differently (and sometimes incompatably even), so I'd suppose that what you've identified here are similarly different flavors of the overall concept.


The more I think on this, the more convinced I am that Sim1 and Sim2 are really a required split of what we call Simulationism now.  Partially because such a split helps address several obstacles and issues (like those mentioned in my Note 1 and 2 above) that we've been wrestling unsuccessfully with for some time.

The only stumbling block would be that I believe Sim1 is nothing more than Exploration itself, and I think Ron has previously committed to the notion that no roleplaying occurs at the Exploration level, that its the next box up.  

I think the solution is to realize that the Venn diagram doesn't have to be one where each layer is 100% nested within the larger.  There can be layers than overlap.  For instance Techniques don't have to be nested underneath GNS.  They can overlap both GNS and the larger Exploration box.  

At that point you have the part of Exploration that includes the GNS creative agendas and Techniques; the part of Exploration that does not include the GNS agendas nor Techniques (and represents other non roleplaying Exploratory activities) and the part of Exploration that does not include the GNS agendas but does include various Techniques (which identify the activity as roleplaying).

You then have:

Exploration + Step on Up + Techniques = Gamism
Exploration + Story Now + Techniques = Narrativism
Exploration + Creative Invention + Techniques = Simulationism (Sim2)
and
Exploration + Techniques alone = Sim 1

[M. J. Young]

Ralph, I see what you're saying, but I think you're putting too much into an important distinction. Aren't you just distinguishing simulationism with director stance from simulationism with actor stance?

You could as easily argue that front-loaded narrativism (narrativism with actor stance) is completely different from mainline narrativism (narrativism with director stance); I suspect you could make the same arguments for gamism, although director stance in gamist play has to be more tightly controlled--but isn't Donjun (is that the spelling?) gamist with director stance?

No one argues that there aren't differences between subcategories. Obviously, in simulationist play, someone is creating the world which  is being explored. Does it cease to be simulationist if those creative abilities are shared? I don't see it.

--M. J. Young

[Ron Edwards]

What I think is this:

As usual, people are confusing Techniques with Modes.

"Creative invention" is a Technique. It can be found in all of the Modes, or rather, each of the Modes contains a potential subset which includes "inventing stuff into play."

Walt, your use of Create vs. Explore is opaque to me. "Imagine," to me, may or may not include the creation-thing; it's still imagining, either way.

Best,
Ron

[Jonathan Walton]

I wasn't really understanding the "splitting Sim" concern until now, but it's starting to grow on me...

"Creative invention" is a Technique. It can be found in all of the Modes, or rather, each of the Modes contains a potential subset which includes "inventing stuff into play."

I think they actually have something, Ron.  Sure, invention can be a part of all Modes, but so can Gamism and Narrativism.  Mixing Modes is the name of the game, so having "Creative Invention" in other Modes doesn't necessarily restrict it from being a Mode.

Furthermore, lately, as I've been playing with more and more people who are new to roleplaying, I've had a pretty good chance to observe how they react to it and what they seem to latch onto.  Since most of these newcomers don't have very competative personalities, they aren't really attracted to "Step on Up," even when I encourage them to take part in it.  They definitely do grasp onto "Story Now" in a major way.  However, that's only part of it.

The main motivation for several beginning players seems to be a kind of "Wouldn't That Be Cool?" perspective.  At first, it starts out as pure Exploration.  I would be GMing Nobilis and describe mountains made of glass or a rollercoaster covered in climbing roses.  Inevitably, one of the new players would mutter something like "Wow, that's so fucking cool."  But after a while, when they begin to realize what they can make "happen" in the shared imaginative space, they start asking questions about what they can do.  "Can I poke him in the eye?"  "Can I make him turn into a frog?"  "Can I make it catch on fire?"  "That would be SO cool!" Eventually, as they gain confidence, their questions simply become declarations.

And here's the thing.  They aren't motivated by Step-On-Up challanges with the other players (or the GM) and they aren't really thinking of the overall narratiev structure of the story.  They just want to make something "really cool" happen right now.  I suppose you could call that a kind of pro-active Exploration ("let me make something that I want to experience"), but that doesn't differentiate it from similar things that happen in Gamism and Narrativism, where players also set up situations that they want to experience for the purpose of Step On Up (creating conflict and taking on challanges) or Story Now (making the narrative flow in various desired directions).  In a sense, this is a kind of Sim that could be called "Exploration Now!" which maybe, I guess, what you meant by Sim being a kind of extreme Exploration.  If so, then I guess I really am just dense for not understanding that before.

[AnyaTheBlue]

Jonathan,

...invention can be a part of all Modes, but so can Gamism and Narrativism.
[Snip]
The main motivation for several beginning players seems to be a kind of "Wouldn't That Be Cool?" perspective.  At first, it starts out as pure Exploration.  I would be GMing Nobilis and describe mountains made of glass or a rollercoaster covered in climbing roses.  Inevitably, one of the new players would mutter something like "Wow, that's so fucking cool."  But after a while, when they begin to realize what they can make "happen" in the shared imaginative space, they start asking questions about what they can do.  "Can I poke him in the eye?"  "Can I make him turn into a frog?"  "Can I make it catch on fire?"  "That would be SO cool!" Eventually, as they gain confidence, their questions simply become declarations.

In my experience it's very very very rare (if not impossible) to play an RPG and not have all three GNS elements present.  The key, I think, is not the presence or absence, but the relative strengths and priorities.

Your description of player-transition during your games sounds to me like players flipping from Actor or Pawn stance to Author or Director stance.

[Valamir]

In a sense, this is a kind of Sim that could be called "Exploration Now!" which maybe, I guess, what you meant by Sim being a kind of extreme Exploration. If so, then I guess I really am just dense for not understanding that before.

Exactly, that's a great parallel way of putting it.

The distinction I'm seeing, however (which I think is more fundamental than MJ) is between this and the more passive voyeuristic play where the exploration just "happens" rather than being driven.

If the "just happens" was simply an initial stage before the players fully developed into Exploration Now, than perhaps there would be no distinction...but for many, it seems to not just be a stage, but to be the desired final destination.

[AnyaTheBlue]

If the "just happens" was simply an initial stage before the players fully developed into Exploration Now, than perhaps there would be no distinction...but for many, it seems to not just be a stage, but to be the desired final destination.

I'm not sure, but I can think of two things that might be happening here under the GNS model.

First, it might be that what you are seeing from these players is in fact not Sim-priority play, but Gam-priority play with a subordinate Sim layer and very low Step On Up paired with low competition.  I've seen this happen in groups where the play is mostly Sim/Gam (or Sim/Nar), and there are a few Gam/Sim players mixed in.

The Sim will burble along for awhile, until eventually something will provoke the Gam players and push things to the Hard Core, or the Gam player will set up some Gam-priority elements that some of the Sim/Gam players will also indulge in and enjoy (but put less priority into) -- I think the Legolas/Gimli kill-tally at Helms Deep is a sort of example of this.  The player who only cares about combat, and whom the party has to 'wake up' (or go fetch from his position in front of the Atari) when combat starts to happen is in this category, too.  I think players like this are a lot more rare now than they were in the 80s, where every group seemed to have one or two.  I think now they're mostly playing Mage Knight, Warhammer 40k, Magic, or Computer Games.

Second, it might be what I was talking about (earlier in this thread, I think) about 'running the game'/'exploring' without a Creative Agenda -- basically Exploration without G, N, or S.  I believe Ron is on record saying this is not Roleplaying, but I think I respectfully disagree with him.

These are just guesses, though.

[Ian Charvill]

I think that the extra thing for the 'passive' sim players is the subjective experience of the exploration - and I think this is what people are getting at when they talk about immersion.

And yes, what I described as Inventionism is different from the subjective sim - to the extent that I wouldn't play the other way.  But then, I'm perfectly happy with team co-operative gamism, but despise player vs player with a passion (probably due to bad past experiences).  Too, as far as Narrativism goes, yay to front-loaded, nay to conscious overt tackling of theme (I think that subtexts ought to be, well, subtexts).

These divisions don't split modes in my mind, they just acknowledge that even within a mode different play styles exist.

As an aside, I tend to agree with Ron that pure exploration with no creative agenda would not be roleplaying.  That's mainly because I'm having difficulty imagining what such play would look like.  If someone could post an actual play example of what Exploration without G, N or S would look like, I'd be interested to see it.

--edited to add: I know I initially raised the possibility of Inventionism being a new mode. I've backed off following thought along the lines of paragraph two

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

I've come to the point where I can't tell whether people think they're agreeing with me or not. Jonathan started by saying "they have something," meaning people perceived to be disagreeing with me, then ends by perfectly paraphrasing my point, and then Ralph (who's supposed to be disagreeing with me) agrees specifically with that point.

Jonathan and Ralph, everything you posted in the above two posts is consistent with what I've been saying all along. I can't imagine what's different, unless it's wrapped up with some kind of terminological glitch (like "create" vs. "imagine," which I'm using synonymously for role-playing purposes).

I've come to the conclusion that this thread represents the "working it out for oneself" process for most of the participants, with a couple of exceptions, and that it's raised the point that Invention (which I consider relatively low-stress, as a concept) is a hard nut to chew when people consider modes of play.

We've seen this before with Director Stance, especially when people get some kind of wild hair up their asses that this Stance "is" Narrativism. It takes a long time to settle people down from the flip-out of this mistaken perception. In this case, there's no such direct error, just a lot of ... I don't know ... stress, over Invention.

So some Simulationist play really grips (Explores) certain things, up to and including character motivations or thematic elements. So some of it doesn't. So what? The GNS modes are modes, not "ways to play" or (unlike the Threefold) "styles." Within a mode, there are dozens if not hundreds of identifiable combinations of Techniques and approaches.

Best,
Ron

[Valamir]

Jonathan and Ralph, everything you posted in the above two posts is consistent with what I've been saying all along. I can't imagine what's different, unless it's wrapped up with some kind of terminological glitch (like "create" vs. "imagine," which I'm using synonymously for role-playing purposes).

Well.  Then I'm doing a pretty poor job of articulating.  Lets try this.

The last two posts were about what I temporarily labeled Sim2 above and which I put in the Simulation slot in GNS.  You rightly point out that this is exactly what you've been saying all along.

But if the last two posts had been about what I temporarily labeled Sim1 above, you'd also have pointed out that that's what you've been saying all along...and you be write.  Because both Sim1 and Sim2 have been combined into that Simulationist box.

What I'm saying is I don't think they belong there.

Now you correctly point out (as did I several times) that each GNS mode has several flavors.  But as I said above I think this difference is fundamentally different than simply another flavor.  Let me see if I can articulate that difference.

1) The difference between the Exploration box and the GNS box is the Creative Agenda.  The Exploration box is devoid of Creative Agendas.  G, N & S are Creative Agendas.

2) Except for S.  Currently the model calls the S Agenda "The Right to Dream".  Sounds good, makes all three modes have snazzy sounding alternate terms.  Until you dig a little deeper.  The S Agenda isn't really an Agenda at all.  Its the absence of an N or G Agenda.  People have been critical of Simulationism as being defined by what its not for some time.  An effort has been made to counter this by CALLING the absence of an Agenda an Agenda.  By saying that the devotion to avoid the other Agendas is itself an Agenda.  Its worked...but for me it works in about the same fashion as sticking a matchbook under a wobbly chair leg...its a jerry rig that allows us to move on, not a permanent solution, IMO.

3) Earlier you pointed out

In discussions, when I phrase things to be more like the former, I get hastily "reminded" that people care enough about Exploration per se to reinforce it socially and to put some attention toward maintaining it as a "thing," not just an absence.

Then, in other discussions (like recent ones), when I phrase things to be more like the latter, people start gesticulating at the Beeg Horseshoe and saying, "But that's 'just Exploration'!"

To which I promptly agreed.  People are doing this.  Because right now you have both of these things included in Simulation.  The first paragraph above is what I called Sim2 and the second paragraph above is what I called Sim1.  And you are again right "But that just Exploration!"...which is where I've come to believe Sim1 belongs.  NOT in GNS at all but just in Exploration alone.

4) Why do I say this is more than just 2 sub flavors within the same S Mode.  Because they are fundamentally different.  Sim2 actually has a real honest to god proactive Creative Agenda, equally vigorous and palpable as Step on Up or Story Now.  But Sim1 does not.  Sim1 really is the absence of such an Agenda.  It is pure Exploration with no Agenda.

Since G, N, and S are defined as being the Creative Agendas that shape Exploration, S needs to have a legitimate Agenda.  But Sim1 does not have a legitimate Agenda its just Raw Exploration and as such shouldn't be part of G N or S at all.  Its pure Exploration without G N or S priorities.


When I mentioned earlier that this notion solves many of the issues that have been raised about GNS in the past, I think that includes the Beeg Horseshoe theory.  Almost every student of GNS eventually comes to at least give some consideration to the Beeg Horseshoe.  Why?  Why does that keep cropping up again and again.

Because if you define Simulation as being Sim1...thats really what you have.  Raw Exploration at the base, with 2 Creative Agendas (G and N) comeing out of it.

And when you do that you have guys like Ian saying, but wait a minute...isn't there more to Simulationism than that?

Answer, yes...what he called Inventionism and I simply labeled Sim2.


By segregating Sim1 issues out of of Simulation and really paying some attention to recognizing the Creative Agenda of Sim2, I think the model makes alot more sense.  All three modes are now equal.  None of them is defined as the absence of the others, and the mode of play that is essentially just pure Exploration, is put back in the Exploration box where it belongs.  Metagame vs Non Metagame concerns in Simulationism goes away.  The Beeg Horseshoe Theory goes away.

A win win situation all around I think.

(Although I will caveat this by saying it makes Simulationism an even poorer label for Sim2).