Clarifying Simulationism

[pete_darby]

I'm still having problems making my brain divide "exploring stuff that's already come out of someone's head," and "exploring stuff that's still coming out of people's heads" into fundamentally different agenda.

There's an implication in this thread that exploration of a pre-mythed (can't find the right term, arrggh) system isn't a creative agenda. Which sounds odd to me, so I'm probably misunderstanding. Especially since there are also implications that a no-myth game must, at some stage, tilt towards gam or nar. Which I'll acccept is certainly a strong possibility where the gam or nar factions have a strong motivation to "do something" with the system, while the sim faction is happily exploring / extending the system...

Am I really odd in thinking that exploration can be an agenda on it's own? Isn't curiousity enough? Isn't it creative enough?

Because I'm beginning to think that's the big creative impulse behind sim, and, crucially, the one that is de-emphasised in Gam and Nar. A gamists curiosity only extends as far as tactical or strategic gain; a narrativists curiosity only extends as far as "does this help me address premise?"

For both, a rabid curiosity will only get in the way of their agenda, unless it is subsumed into it.

Maybe my problem is because I used to get very hung up on doing settings right, and got hung up on "am I doing this world wrong?" Having chanegd my attitude to treating systems as toyboxes, full of cool stuff to either play with or ignore according to my whim, I'm much happier, but tend to scratch my head about folks who treat creative inputs into the creative process differently.

Maybe I'm the only one marching in time...

[Wormwood]

Pete,

I think the big difference between inventive and immersive Sim is seen in play. In inventive sim the room to create is prioritized, choices are made to maximize creative input and options, this is necessarilly tempered by the social elements of the group, so cooperative behaviors involve leaving room for someone else to fill in some portion of your creation, etc. In immersive sim, definition is key, players need to all be on the same page as frequently as possible to eliminate disparate views of that being explored. Structurally, the former is more like brainstorming, the later like consensus building.

Now, whether these belong both under Sim, or should be separated is a harder question, certainly the theory doesn't fail because they are combined, no more than keeping Step on Up and Challenge both under Gamism does. Also there needs to be some structure in Sim (at least in the basic theory), and I think that this serves that purpose admirably. One thing I seriously disagree on is that immersive Sim is supposedly not a creative agenda, yet it serves as a socially developed constraint on the exploration being performed, and a clearly observable one at that. How does this fail to be a creative agenda? Prioritizing fidelity or immersion is still a priority, and it is one that can be easily diagnosed as such.

Also, it seems that when ever GNS is challenged it becomes construed as a claim that the theory is wrong or flawed. GNS is far to useful to be wrong, however it may be incomplete, especially as it does not claim to be complete. Hence the purpose of this discussion is not to invalidate GNS, but to extend it. If we are serious about study and advancement of RPGs, then we must develop more theoretical tools for this purpose, theory extensions are a key way to do this, especially because there is a level of agreement maintained, the theory and its extension remain compatible, no contradictions occur between them, only a mapping of concepts and terms. I cannot stress this enough, theory extensions are very good things.

I hope that helps,

   -Mendel S.

[ethan_greer]

Ralph, I think that your Sim1 requires just as much "creative invention" as your Sim2.  Therefore, I disagree with the need to make a distinction.  Oh, and what Pete said: G and N both deprioritize pure curiosity (The Dream). So really, G is the absence of N/S, and N is the absence of G/S.  Just as S is the absence of G/N.  I dig.

Edit: Cross-posted with Mendel. I'm getting the difference better now. But I stand by my statement that they're both the same sort of creativity - a consensual shared imaginitive space. Maybe they're just dials - Invention and Immersion - for Sim play. You can have them both on high, or one high and one low. ?

[Valamir]

Ralph, I think that your Sim1 requires just as much "creative invention" as your Sim2.  Therefore, I disagree with the need to make a distinction.

The distinction is not about which one requires more creativity Ethan.  This is not saying Sim2 is good because you have to be inventive where in Sim1 you don't.

Creative Agendas are really nothing more than additional baggage the player is bringing to the table.

All role playing starts with basic Exploration.  That's a given.
The Gamist then adds the additional baggage of Step on Up on top of that
The Narrativist then adds the additional baggage of Story now on top of that.
The Sim2-ist then adds the additional baggage of "creative invention" (or whatever, that's just a placeholder term anyway)

In all of these cases the additional baggage -- the Creative Agenda -- involves player goals being imposed onto the game world.  All of these Creative Agendas are essentially metalevel concerns.  Its the player's who's being challenged, its the player who's addressing the theme, its the player who's engaged in creating and giving input.

Sim 1 play exists purely at the Exploration level, without any additional baggage.  Without any additional metalevel agenda.  This is the crux of the distinction to me.

Oh, and what Pete said: G and N both deprioritize pure curiosity (The Dream). So really, G is the absence of N/S, and N is the absence of G/S.  Just as S is the absence of G/N.  I dig.

G is not the absence of N or S.  G is Exploration plus the presence of Step on Up
N is not the absence of G or S.  N is Exploration plus the presence of Story Now.
Only S is currently described as Exploration without the presence of anything else.

Edit: Cross-posted with Mendel. I'm getting the difference better now. But I stand by my statement that they're both the same sort of creativity - a consensual shared imaginitive space. Maybe they're just dials - Invention and Immersion - for Sim play. You can have them both on high, or one high and one low. ?

This is much more IMO than a dial.  This is a fundamental distinction that I believe is a wide as that between Step on Up and Story Now.  We saw how deep the divide is in the various "Characters Don't Exist" threads.

[AnyaTheBlue]

Only S is currently described as Exploration without the presence of anything else.

I don't think it is.  I think people see it that way, though.

I think S is defined as not just Exploration for Exploration's sake, and not just  E without G or N, but Exploration in a particular way.  Exploration with some additional constraints.

For want of a term, I think S is Exploration plus Emulation.  The faithfulness of the Emulation is an additional constraint layered on top of the foundation of Exploration that all RPGs are built on.

To try and put it another way, I think all RPGs have an Exploration layer as a foundation.  G and N add another layer of priorities on top of that Exploration.  Sim adds another layer of Exploration-oriented priorities on top of that Exploration.  These involve not just 'pure Exploration', but Exploration of some specific Things above and beyond the normal-old everyday Exploration that all RPGs have.  It's the difference between having a combat system and a Cinematic combat system.  In the first place, you have 'foundational' Exploration.  In the second, you have 'Simulationism' Exploration of a Cinematic style.

It's not 'more of the same', it's 'more of those same actions about something extra'.

I think that's the way it works, anyway.  My Sim cup of tea may well not be everybody's Sim cup of tea =)

[Jonathan Walton]

To build on Ralph's point, he's basically saying that Exploration isn't a Creative Agenda.  It's passive, like watching theater.  Sure, there are some creative processes going on, the player has to engage the material and steer their avatar through the shared imaginative space, but like Alice in Wonderland, they are not a pro-active participant in the imagined space.  But eventually, Alice crosses the last river and changes from a Pawn to a Queen, ready to actively work on her environment.  This isn't just Exploration any more, it's "Exploration Now!" or maybe "Dreaming," active creation and stretching the boundaries of the imagined space.

What me and Ralph are objecting to, then, is your description of Simulationism as just "Exploration++," when it's something else that's really going on.  Sure, you might argue that Simulationism is the first obvious Mode to move into after just passive Exploration, but that doesn't make it the same thing as Exploration.  If you define "the Right to Dream" as actively creating within the shared imaginative space (which I don't think you've done), I imagine we'd be happy.

I agree with Ralph that pure, passive Exploration (being along for the ride), doesn't fit into GNS anywhere.  It's not a Mode.  Whether it is "roleplaying" or not depends on your definition, so I won't touch that one.  I'm willing to accept that this is just us wrestling with Simulationism and that you've already come to this conclusion, but, if so, I don't think its been communicated effectively.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Ralph,

That's a very clear statement of your position. My concern is as follows.

1. I think we may be dealing with two different mental images of "Exploration only." In yours, people are indeed role-playing. In mine, they're not. In mine, when they start really playing (and this can include dedicated prep; I'm not getting into that issue now), it's "Exploration-plus" already.

2. I agree that the "plus" is more than an absence. This is the essence of my "Does Simulationism really exist" section in my big GNS essay, and it's the essence of my Simulationism essay - that "The Dream" is an active phenomenon, not a lacuna. I was under the impression that I was solving the "absence" issue at the time - but now, it appears that I'm facing a backlash in that people want to look at what I'd think of as minimal "action" within the Dream and say it's "only" Exploration, and not "the Dream."

So to me, that "action" is the key. I think there's always some, even if it's limited simply to the fact that people are speaking to one another instead of locked into individual imaginative hazes. What constitutes this extra action that's got everyone so het up? Based on the posts so far, Invention (a good term) seems to be involved. So does the presence of an embedded theme, such that play is thematic in the sense of celebrating something known. And I imagine there are others.

3. Yes, there's a profound distinction between Simulationist play without Invention (let's stick with this one) and Simulationist play with it. The same distinction exists, using (as far as I can tell) the same main variables, within Narrativist and Gamist play.

For a visual, imagine a circle whose center (the paper label) is Exploration, and pie-wedges of GNS composing the outer portions. Surrounding the inner circle is a section (about the size of a 45rpm, say), that we'll call "little or no Invention." So each pie-wedge has its section of no Invention. Then the outer, wider portion of each pie-wedge is its "lots of Invention" section.

But hell, maybe the best thing to do is for me simply to pay attention while others talk for a while. I've already probably missed several posts by typing this, and the thread is already getting humpbacked.

Ralph or M.J., if you'd like, maybe you can identify several sub-sets to the thread, so they can be split out into separate ones? Especially since some of the discussion is about "understanding GNS in the first place" and since some of it is about "hoary veterans refining what they know much further."

Best,
Ron

[ethan_greer]

Ack. I'm really not all that gung-ho about arguing over this Sim1/Sim2 distinction. Rest assured that while I may disagree with you from a GNS theory standpoint, Ralph, I clearly understand what you're saying and can see the validity of your claims from a certain point of view. For that matter, I also like Beeg Horseshoe from certain perspectives. Which explains why I typically stay out of theory debates - I'm just not passionate enough about theory in the first place... :)

[Ron Edwards]

Well, for example, Jonathan's post.

Fucking terminology. By "Creative Agenda," all that "creative" means is that people are talking to one another and including what they hear into what they're imagining. All that "agenda" means, is "by what social and aesthetic parameters."

That's all. The "creative" is not supposed to be some kind of profound and Invention-heavy thing.

And by the way, I have a lot of trouble with the terms"active" and "passive." For instance, to me, "passive" would mean no one is talking or looking at one another, or, for that matter, in the same room or on the computer or anything. They'd be lumps. Anything besides that, to me, is "active."

Best,
Ron

[Jonathan Walton]

Confusion fixed, Ron, thanks to your last big post.  Sorry to give you a headache.

Check my new thread on "Defining Roleplaying (According to GNS)" if you want to continue the active/passive discussion.  I was mostly referring to people who share the imagined space, but aren't doing anything at the moment.

[M. J. Young]

Actually, Ron, I'm not entirely certain what there is to discuss here; I understand what Ralph is trying to say, but I don't think it withstands scrutiny.

We've got three GNS modes. Gamism pretty much means that we're here to compete in some way, to test our ability as players to beat something and impress someone (even if it's only ourselves) with our skill. Narrativism means we're trying to explore moral, ethical, or personal issues of some sort. Simulationism means we're discovering a world, a character, or some other aspect of the shared imaginary space.

Within those three modes, players make things happen by utilizing the tools given them to impact the shared imaginary space. Games differ in the number and kinds of tools which are used for this. Most players in most games are able to impact that SIS through the actions of their characters; some players are able to do so through means other than their characters, and some do not have characters and so are limited to other means.

Classic play in all three modes tends to be represented by games in which "players" who are not referees can only impact the SIS through character actions. In narrativism, that most commonly means front-loaded narrativism, although it can mean thematic development through in-game character choice. Narrativism is tremendously enhanced by making director stance creative abilities available to players, but that's a relatively new development in game design. In gamism too we usually have setting-based challenge met by character choice and tactics; director stance in gamism is difficult to implement, but it has been done more recently in a very few games. Simulationism traditionally has been the same: the referee and game designer do all the creative work, and the players interact with this solely through their characters. However, using director stance in simulationism inherently means that some of what the referee does in creating the setting and situation is passed to the players to manage out-of-character.

Three things should be noticed about this.

The first is that what the referee does in traditional simulationist play is not less simulationism than what the players do, even though it is completely different--just as what the referee does in traditional gamist and narrativist play is still, respectively, just as gamist and narrativist as what the players do, despite being entirely different in function and method. To create the world for the purpose of revealing that which has been created is simulationist, just as to discover what has been created is simulationist.

The second is that even in the most traditional approach, the players have some impact on setting, through the actions of their characters--they create and reveal situation, at least, within the world, and sometimes impact setting through their actions. Thus whether they are limited to actor or pawn stance or allowed full author or directoral credibility, they are still impacting the game world. It is not a matter of function, but merely of degree and method.

The third is that there is not this black and white either/or that Ralph seems to be implying; it is a continuum. Always the players have some impact on the reality they explore; rarely (but not never) can they create that reality with the same credibility as the referee. The credibility of the players to impact the SIS is somewhere between not at all and completely.

I think this thread has been very useful in elucidating these facts about simulationism; I'm not certain I saw how director stance could and did fit into the simulationist mode so clearly before. I do not think that we've found a new mode of play, but rather that we've discovered that, just as stance can make a great deal of difference in Narrativism and Gamism, so too it can have strong impact on Simulationism.

And no one has ever said that if you like a certain mode you will like all applications of that mode; that's a red herring.

I'm satisfied, I think, that this thread has gotten much that is good from it, and that simulationism has been greatly clarified through it (although I still see some confusion in spots). I don't really see much more to say on the subject.

--M. J. Young

[Walt Freitag]

Argh. Computer problems and out-of-town time have kept me off the board for a few days, so I wasn't able to participate in the latter part of this thread. My apologies to those whose comments on my posts have gone unresponded to.

Since this thread might be coming to a close, I don't want to go into any further detail on anything, but a few general comments:

1. The question at hand regarding invention-in-play seems to be continually getting sidetracked into an issue of Stance. It's not a matter of Stance. Just as there's no specific stance for, say, Narrativism, there's no specific Stance for invention of Elements in play. The process by which a player's creative thought becomes a part of the shared imagined space might be direct (e.g. using Director stance) but it might also pass through other players, system, and/or a GM.

2. When it comes to the Elements of play, fidelity and creativity have a nonmonotonic relationship. (In other words, more of one does not consistently mean more, nor less, of the other). Example: you want to play a Star Wars game, with "Star Wars style monsters." Here are three ways of going about it:

a. Use monsters from the canonical films in which they appear, translating them as accurately as possible into the shared imagined space.

b. Note that the nature of monsters in the canonical films is that no single type of monster ever appears in the story more than once, and accordingly, create an entirely original monster for each monster-encounter episode, while trying to give each invented monster a certain "Star Wars feel."

c. Use the monster encounter tables from the AD&D 1979 edition.

C is low-fidelity low-creativity, B is moderate-fidelity high-creativity, and A is high-fidelity low-creativity. (The relative fidelity of A vs. B is difficult to really pin down, but most people would regard a source book of monster stats from the Star Wars movies as being more "faithful to Star Wars" than a source book of original monsters claiming to have a "Star Wars feel.") Very low and very high positions on the "fidelity" dials both inhibit creativity.

3. Ron endorses the following statement, in this thread:

In your [Ron's] Simulationism essay, you have this: "'Story,' in this context, refers to the sequence of events that provide a payoff in terms of recognizing and enjoying the genre during play."

Is this the key to distinguishing the abovementioned play modes? My intepretation of this statement is that in Simulationist gaming, a long and complex story might come about and be part of play, but only for the express purpose of bringing about all the appropriate genre elements in the game as part of the internal consistency of the Dream. i.e., A Sim game Colored with elements from Chinese wuxia movies might have a multilayered story involving class conflict, people being trapped by their social position, repressed romance, heavy action, a sorcerer and his eunuch henchmen - but these are all trappings of the genre. So, their inclusion in the game, part and parcel as they are to the Dream, isn't Narrativist because no one is creating a theme that /isn't already there/. In other words, it's just played out as the Situation part of the Exploration; because the dream calls for it, there just so happens to be a kind of intricacy involved.

In Narrativism, by contrast, the major source of themes are the ones that are brought to the table by the players / GM (if there is one) regardless of the genre or setting used. So, to sum up, themes in Nar play are /created/ by the participants and that's the point; themes in Sim play are already present in the Dream, /reinforced/ by the play, and kind of a
by-product.

So whether themes are created in play, or already present, is (of course) critical to Narrativism. And yet, most seem to be claiming, whether the Elements of the Dream themselves are created in play or front-loaded is just a matter of preference or technique, it's all just Exploration, it's all creative, it's not a "modal" distinction.

I don't buy it. I agree with Ralph, this is a big blind spot that's been hindering understanding of (the range of play currently described as) Simulationism since day 1. It's the reason for the "every time I try to describe simulationism as X, someone says, no it's Y" problem.

- Walt

[Ben Lehman]

Whew.  Lots of posts over the weekend.

Can I attempt to clarify the debate here?  I think that, at this point, the definition of simulationism comes down to two possibilities.  I name these after theories, but I do not imagine that what I am saying is exactly what Ron or Jared believe, but rather what the "final picture" looks like (two styles or three.)

1)  The Beeg Horshoe solution:  The presence of absence of any premise, moral choices, step on up, challenge or competition within the Dream of the game shifts the game into a Narrativist or Gamist category.  This relegates Sim to a very thin slice in the middle.  According to this, Vampire LARPs are generally Gamist and my preferred playstyle is generally Narrativist.

2)  The GNS solution:  The prioritization of Dream over other things is what determines whether a game is Simulationist or not, regardless of any other content.  This means that Sim can, and often does, coexist with Nar and Gam content.  According to this, both Vampire LARPs and my preferred playstyle are generally Simulationist.

The important thing here:  These are two models that describe the exact same situation.  This is not a matter of what is "really out there --" we seem to all agree on that.  Rather, it is merely a means of discussing it.  I submit that both of these definitions have strengths and weaknesses, and that the important thing is that we choose one to inform future discussion and prevent future confusion.

Both of these choices involve a change to the present state of theory.  The first implies that Sim, as a category of play, is very small to the point of nonexistence.  The second implies that Sim can, and often does, coexist with other creative agendas.

yrs--
--Ben

P.S.  It is important to note that I am strictly discussing actual play, here.  There are many gamebooks which can be called quite "Simulationist" but, in the light of #1 above, would simply be "easily driftable."  And, in the light of #2, simply provide a dream framework in which other material may be inserted.

[AnyaTheBlue]

Hi, Ben!

Both of these choices involve a change to the present state of theory.  The first implies that Sim, as a category of play, is very small to the point of nonexistence.  The second implies that Sim can, and often does, coexist with other creative agendas.

Is it a corollary of the Beeg Horseshoe that G and N play is mutually exclusive?  So that Sim play is the chassis and G OR N is put on top of it, but not both?  Because that seems wrong to me.  I can see arguing about whether 'pure' Sim is a seperate category (or two, as some would have it), but not that play has a single mode which excludes others.

It seems to me that one of the strengths of 'stock' GNS is that it categorizes play by what is being emphasized or prioritized as opposed to what is present.  I don't think I've ever played in an RPG that didn't include aspects of all three modes in the GNS triad, and my understanding of GNS is that calling something, for example, Gamist does not exclude N or S.  G is just the top of the heap.

1. The question at hand regarding invention-in-play seems to be continually getting sidetracked into an issue of Stance. It's not a matter of Stance. Just as there's no specific stance for, say, Narrativism, there's no specific Stance for invention of Elements in play. The process by which a player's creative thought becomes a part of the shared imagined space might be direct (e.g. using Director stance) but it might also pass through other players, system, and/or a GM.

Walt,

Maybe I'm confused on terminology.  My understanding of the Stances was that Author and Director involve meta-game conversation, knowledge, and creation, while Actor stance generally involves putting things into the shared imagined space through the agency of the character and it's actions only as opposed to through any sort of metagame statements or Invention.

If this is the way that Stances are intended, then you can get or not get what I think you are calling Creative Invention in any of the three of GNS by pairing it with a stance.  All three of GN and S can have modes where the players are 'Inventive' or 'not Inventive', which appears to be the distinction you are trying to hammer out between Sim1 and Sim2.  If you are going to split Sim this way, you don't get four, you get six modes, I think, because you have to split Nar and Gam, too.

Anyway, I certainly agree with Ben:  I think we all agree about what we're talking about in terms of Real Live Gaming, but we're disagreeing on how to label it.

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

In many conversations, a person finds himself in the position of staying with a frustrating discussion only because he doesn't feel himself to be understood or "heard" by the other party. (add feminine pronouns to taste)

This is a problem with the discussion - the person is now only present in order to hear what he said returned to him, regardless of agreement or disagreement, because so far, he hasn't heard it. He wants to have a real discussion about stuff. However, the substance of the agreement or disagreement being offered by the other people is missed or tabled, because the primary urge - to have been understood at all - is not being satisfied.

That's the position I'm experiencing at this point, with this thread. If one single person, just once, could return an accurate paraphrase of my position in the matter, that would be sufficient. People could then disagree with it, agree with it, offer alternatives, and so on, to their heart's content, and I would be profoundly grateful for whatever they offered, no matter what it was as long as it was based on understanding what I did indeed say.

Until that happens, though, nothing being said is going to enter the state of discourse for me. I can't simultaneously continue clarifying my position (into the void) and deal with points that I can no longer tell whether they are agreements with or disagreements with or exceptions to or clarifications of it.

At the moment, based on Walt's recent post that inserts the crucial yet inapplicable word "just" to my discussion of Exploration, and Ben's recent post which seems to miss the profound meaning I intend with the word "prioritize," I am forced to admit defeat - not in any point at issue, but in the process of discussion in the first place.

Let's take a look as well at Pete's post from a couple of days ago:

There's an implication in this thread that exploration of a pre-mythed (can't find the right term, arrggh) system isn't a creative agenda. Which sounds odd to me, so I'm probably misunderstanding. Especially since there are also implications that a no-myth game must, at some stage, tilt towards gam or nar. Which I'll acccept is certainly a strong possibility where the gam or nar factions have a strong motivation to "do something" with the system, while the sim faction is happily exploring / extending the system...

Am I really odd in thinking that exploration can be an agenda on it's own? Isn't curiousity enough? Isn't it creative enough?

Because I'm beginning to think that's the big creative impulse behind sim, and, crucially, the one that is de-emphasised in Gam and Nar. A gamists curiosity only extends as far as tactical or strategic gain; a narrativists curiosity only extends as far as "does this help me address premise?"

For both, a rabid curiosity will only get in the way of their agenda, unless it is subsumed into it.

This was a brilliant post. As far as I can tell, Pete's point is 100% consistent with my essay on Simulationism. Note that "just" does not apply. Note as well that the Dream refers to a priority that cannot share the driver's seat with another priority. No matter how much Exploration accompanies a Narrativist or Gamist priority, it cannot be Simulationist play. In my essay, I state that Simulationist approaches can be subordinate hybrids, at most.

But was Pete agreeing with me (or Ralph) or disagreeing (ditto)? When he speaks of an "implication," with which he disagrees, is he referring to those who support a fourth mode, or to others? Does he know? Do the people posting to the thread know? I certainly can't tell.

What in the world do you think I am saying? Anyone?

Best,
Ron