Clarifying Simulationism

[AnyaTheBlue]

I'll take a stab at a summation, with the caveat that I'm still working my way through the GNS essays.

At the level of playing the game around a table, there is a distinctive meta-game social contract in effect.  One of the facets of that contract is the group (Creative) Agenda.  The game system may or may not facilitate a particular Agenda, and it may or may not impede a particular Agenda.

Functional group play is dominated by a single Agenda, one of Gam, Nar or Sim.  That Agenda doesn't need to be shared by all participants as their own personal primary goal for the play experience, but they have to be willing to be involved with furthering this Agenda, and not impeding it, for play to be Functional.

There is a very specific split in Agendas, into the Gam, Nar, and Sim camps.

Each player of each group, no matter which of the three camps their play is falling into at a particular time, may interact with that Agenda using a combination of Stances.  While Agenda for the game is usually unchanging (or, if changing, it changes over a fairly long time-frame), Stances may be switched between frequently and easily.  All Agendas partake of all Stances, although some Stances are more suited, or more emphasized, by some Agendas.

Just as all Stances can be used to Explore all Agendas, so too can all Agendas be present in any given instance of play.  However, for any particular instance of play, there is an identifiable Agenda being Prioritized by the group, with the other two elements being subservient or largely nonexistent.  Motivation for furthering a certain Agenda is given more weight than the others, and can generally 'trump' the others.  Note that this is for a specific instance of play, with a particular mix of players, playing with a particularRules Set, and operating under a specific Social Contract.

Gamism involves some form of inter-player Step On Up.  Player actions are primarily motivated by an attempt to 'win', for whatever definition(s) of 'win' are appropriate to current play (kill things, not get killed, collect treasure, etc.).

Narrativism involves a focus on development of Narrative and Drama.  The vague and unhelpful "Story", more helpfully stated as "Story Now".  Player actions are primarily motivated by what makes an interesting Tale.  It's not primarily about competition, it's primarily about exploring the interests, events, and plots that circle around the characters and significant NPCs.

Simulationist play involves a focus on the actual process of shared imagination.  Thinking about things the group likes, and simulating them faithfully, through the agency of their character's actions and situation.  Player actions are generally motivated by curiosity about, interest in, and emotional investment in the elements receiving the primary focus of the game's Simulation.  This has been described usefully as "Exploration Now", or "Exploration Squared".

Some in this thread (Walt and Ralph, I believe, but I have to admit that I've lost track) have been advocating for splitting Simulation into two distinct modes, referred to in this thread as Sim1 and Sim2, or alternatively Simulation and Creative Inventiveness.

I (and a few others) have suggested that all three of GNS have the same potential and need for creativity, and that perhaps the "Inventiveness" aspect is either more properly subsumed into the idea of Stance, or is perhaps not a part of the GNS theory at all -- play in any of the G, N, or S modes may or may not have 'Creative Invention', which is indepenend of which of the modes you choose to discuss.

I think Pete was disagreeing with the idea of splitting Sim into two types, and was instead advocating the second position -- that Exploration is a creative Agenda on it's own, and doing so puts it on even footing with G and N, as opposed to in the Saddle point of the Beeg Horseshoe.

I think one area of confusion for both myself and others in this thread has been which thing we're talking about when we say 'Exploration'.

The distinctions that were being drawn between 'Sim1' and 'Sim2', I think, may be the differences between 'Exploration' and 'Exploration Now'/'Exploration Squared'.  The first is at the base of the Beeg Horseshoe, and underlies all three of GNS, while E^2 is the S in GNS, and would be a hypothetical third-tine on the Beeg Horseshoe...

As always, this is just my own following of the thread.  I think we're mostly arguing semantically about what the various things we all see in play are, and what their relative importance is to the play experience.  Some of us may be biased because we're attached to a particular play mode or a particular sort of group Social Contract ourselves, and therefore see it as more (and/or other's as less) valid.

Did I miss anything?  Did I horribly misstate anything?  Did I slander anybody's inbred cousin by mistake?  If so, I apologize in advance!  =)

Pax!

(Edit: Minor cleanup, addition of attempt at levity)

[Ian Charvill]

Ron -

Simulationist play is simulationist play whether the engagement with the Dream takes the form of immersion or invention or whatever - the method with which you prioritize the Dream is less important than the fact of the prioritization.

You also seem to be saying that this is the GNS model: agree with it or disagree with it, but that is the model.

(I'm guessing that the guiding implication here - and certainly the reason that I broadly agree - is that if you split sim in this way you open the field to splitting G and N on similar grounds and we multiply variety in a wilderness of mirrors)

I'm not 100% I'm catching the implications of your final point - which would seem to be that you can have Narr with heavy Sim support but not Sim with heavy Narr support.  Anything more than incidental theme and you playing Narr.  You just can't have a sim heavy hybrid.

[pete_darby]

Yes, Ron, I was trying to do far to much in one post. To tyr to clear up a little...

Firstly, I was fighting against a tendency that I preceived in previous posts that was saying non-creative sim was a weak sim, and not only likely to be subsumed into sim or nar, but probably deservedly so. Yeah, I know, I put a lot of melodrama into other people's posts. Essentially, sim1 is the middle point of the beeg horseshoe.

As a corrolorary to that, prehaps to get sim spread beyond the beeg horshoe's small sliver of sim in the middle, sim2, an active, dynamic creative sim seemed to be proposed as fundementally different, and stood on it's own as equal to G and N.

Now, I proposed that at the heart of sim is curiosity: I'm beginning to prefer this to Ron's use of the term The Dream, but I would, wouldn't I?

Curiosity about the system unifies the proposed sim1 and sim2: I would argue that it can be powerful enough to have step on up or story now present in a supporting role to curiosity, and in that I think I'm disagreeing with Ron, who, if I'm right, feels that sim is unique in that it can only be prioritised in the absence of step on up or story now, and in hybrids must be supporting.

So, I'm disagreeing with people who want to split sim, and I'm disagreeing with Ron about whether sim can be the dominant part of a hybrid.

I'll be in the corner on my own then.

[Walt Freitag]

Oh good grief.

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.

Ron, I wasn't trying to describe your position specifically, but summarize the gist of several different opinions voiced by several different people in the thread. However, let my clarify in relation to your position specificially.

By "It's just a matter of preference or technique" I meant that whether Elements are created in play, and by whom, is not a distinct creative agenda on the level of the GNS taxonomy. I shouldn't have lumped "preference or technique" together like that, I guess, since technically all aspects of the social contract are "matters of preference;" what I meant was "just a specific (secondary) preference within a prevailing (Sim) creative agenda." I do feel justified in saying "just... technique" as the "techniques" box in the GNS Venn diagram is inside the GNS box.

"It's all just Exploration" please read as "It [creation of elements in play] is indistinguishable from Exploration in general" which I believe does state your position correctly:

"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.

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.

I think my use of "just" accurately characterizes your use of "So what?"

Regarding subsequent posts, I wholeheartedly agree that "Sim1" or "weak Sim" is in no way artistically inferior (and that therefore the latter term shouldn't be used). There's nothing wrong with role-playing a module as a more engaging way of telling/hearing the module's story than reading the module (or the same story in novel form) would be. Nor with role-playing a system as a more engaging way of operatig a mechanical simulation and observing and appreciating its behavior than doing so in the third person would be. Most of my own professional career has been the creation of "weak sim" in various media, and I can attest that there is a great deal of craft and a deep vein of art in it. Furthermore, as a practical issue in role playing, I've seen as many problems in Actual Play (and in the forum by that name here) with players wanting less commitment to creative invention than the GM wants them to take on ("my players aren't proactive enough; they want the situation to come to them") as with players wanting more of it than the GM is willing to permit.

The fear of splitting Sim requiring an equivalent splitting of Gamism and Narrativism is unfounded, I believe. If at any other time I had suggested that one could play Narrativist without substantial player commitment to creative imagining (that is, without the players strongly contributing to inventing Elements in play), I'm pretty sure I'd have been contradicted by many here. How could there be the all-important "player authorial power" without player commitment to creative invention (especially, of character and situation)? In other words, the "Narrativism with little or no invention" sector of Ron's circle either cannot exist or is, at least, rare.

Gamism with substantial player invention of the Elements of play is also rare, though it is clearly possible. Most resource-management challenges are dependent on the resources being managed being finite in variety and known in advance. The exceptions, the "Gamist with lots of invention" sector (remember, we are -- or at least, I am -- talking about invention of the Elements of play, not invention of other things such as strategies), would be games promoting Step On Up based on inventiveness itself, challenges of the "who can make up the coolest stuff" nature, as in Once Upon a Time.

It's only in Simulationism that the "inventive vs. non-inventive" distinction becomes acute and polarizing.

- Walt

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Walt,

It's only in Simulationism that the "inventive vs. non-inventive" distinction becomes acute and polarizing.

In-teresting. And yet, I disagree a little. For instance, I think that Narrativist play can function quite nicely with relatively little invention. Theme can be created specifically through player-input through character decisions, wholly within the in-game context. The sole requirement is that the player(s) be empowered to do so; i.e., no single person reserves procedural control over their characters' decisions, and the players do not sit pat, without investing in those decisions.

So, no Invention. The setting and situation may be laid out in detail (as long as no outcomes of player-characters' decisions are dictated, or inflexibly expected to go certain ways, which are essentially the same thing). The players may be using no abilities or whatnot that aren't on the character sheet. No Director Stance, no scene/conflict framing control, none of that stuff, beyond the GM.

But if the protagonists' decisions do make the story, and if those decisions are not pre-loaded or overridden, then you have Narrativist play. In my experience, The Whispering Vault lends itself very well to this sort of Narrativist play, given enough sessions to see the reward mechanic in action and without rushing the individual Hunts.

I suggest that the same applies to Gamist play - some of it is quite Invention-heavy, and some is extremely Invention-limited.

In both of the above cases, I submit that play-preferences may be extreme, and that a hypothetical person who's very committed to Invention-heavy Narrativism may well mistake his preference for the thing itself, and insist that low-Invention Narrativist must be Simulationist. (All right, I admit it - this isn't hypothetical. It's a pernicious and common error of understanding even among some Most August Forge members.)

Final point: let's say I'm dead wrong about all of the above, and Simulationist play (as I see it) is uniquely characterized by a "split" over the Invention issue ... Let's say Ralph's point is 100% right on the mark. I submit that it's no particular threat to the theory as currently constructed. What's difficult about that potential split being a feature of Simulationist play as a category? In-play features and diversity aren't expected to be parallel among the modes. We found a feature of Sim play-diversity. Cool.

Best,
Ron

[Ian Charvill]

It's only in Simulationism that the "inventive vs. non-inventive" distinction becomes acute and polarizing.

Walt,

Couldn't it be that with Sim "inventive vs non-inventive" the distinction impacts on the consensual imaginary space - the space which is the point of play?

Wouldn't one expect parallel splits in gamism over competition and Narrativism over theme?

[Valamir]

Let's say Ralph's point is 100% right on the mark. I submit that it's no particular threat to the theory as currently constructed. What's difficult about that potential split being a feature of Simulationist play as a category? In-play features and diversity aren't expected to be parallel among the modes. We found a feature of Sim play-diversity. Cool.

You mean changing it to be more accurate isn't enough of a reason?  Has GNS really accumulated enough inertia to begin discouraging change? </tongue in cheek smart ass mode>

But as to more concrete reasons as to what's difficult about that split, I direct the reader to several points in the thread already where I addressed some.

In one I pointed out that Ron's expressed exasperation articulated in another thread is as a result of this split.  As I've already quoted that one several times, I won't bother to do so again.  But such difficulties would go away.

Another is the continual resurgence of the Beeg Horseshoe theory...which seems like a good, perhaps even better alternative way of looking at GNS...as long as the person advocating the Horseshoe is talking of Simulationism only in terms of what I've called Sim1 above.  By stressing that Simulationism is actually Sim2, the Beeg Horseshoe theory goes away albiet with many thanks for helping to point out an area of underdevelopment in GNS.

By recognizing that Simulationism is Sim2 and that all 3 stances work equally well with Sim2 (unlike Sim1 in which Actor is the clear leader) and that metagame mechanics are not a hinderance to Sim2, we can begin to talk about Director Stance Metagame heavy Sim without constantly (and yes constantly) being diverted by "you can't have Director Stance and Metagame in Sim" tangents.  We now can easily see that those individuals are referring to Sim1 and their arguements (while potentially accurate for Sim1) don't apply to Sim2.

Further, I happen to be a believer in symmetry between categories.  If one has several categories at the same level, those categories should be parallel in what and how they are defined.  The existance of an "odd man out" to me indicates a structural weakness.

So, for me, one might discuss the best way to account for the difference between Sim1 and Sim2 in GNS; and perhaps seperating Sim1 out and bringing it back to the root of Exploration is not the best way (I've not yet been convinced otherwise, since it seems a perfect fit); but to just leave things as they are because it doesn't cause *too* much problem seems an inferior solution.

[Walt Freitag]

In-teresting. And yet, I disagree a little. For instance, I think that Narrativist play can function quite nicely with relatively little invention. Theme can be created specifically through player-input through character decisions, wholly within the in-game context. The sole requirement is that the player(s) be empowered to do so; i.e., no single person reserves procedural control over their characters' decisions, and the players do not sit pat, without investing in those decisions.

Ah, I see the problem. What I've been trying (and obviously failing) to say is, that's invention too. That's one reason I tried to introduce the term "commitment to creative imagination" or CCI, because it goes beyond behavior of the immediately obvious "hey look, I'm narrating a new fact now" variety.

The setting and situation may be laid out in detail (as long as no outcomes of player-characters' decisions are dictated, or inflexibly expected to go certain ways, which are essentially the same thing). The players may be using no abilities or whatnot that aren't on the character sheet. No Director Stance, no scene/conflict framing control, none of that stuff, beyond the GM.

The same can be true of no-myth play, which I regard as "inventive" in contrast to participationism, which is not.

You may well ask what, then, is not "inventive" in my view? Anything that violates those "as long as..." provisos, for starters. Dictated player-character decisions, whether they're dictated somehow by the GM or dictated by the player's own pre-established plans or expectations. Do you remember your "what the party does with a closed dungeon door routine" from 1979-edition AD&D? Almost everyone had one. Or more generally, stereotyped behavior in stereotyped situations. Characters designed around a few particular cool and effective maneuvers (e.g. the Wolverine "Fastball Special") or other signature behaviors, who sleepwalk through the game looking for opportunities to "pull the trigger" on those behaviors. Long-term character careers pre-planned by players (which prestige classes unfortunately encourage). Railroading, of course, but also consensual Participationism and high-Force Illusionism, when used to force a pre-planned outcome. And also: mechanically generated outcomes. Even if the outcome is unpredictable, it's not inventive if it's out of human hands. Results tables, event tables, resolution mechanics -- these are not incompatible with invention, but if stereotyped character behaviors + results of resolution mechanics (including randomizers) + pre-existing situation and setting are the entirety of how situation evolves, it's not inventive. Pastiche of constrainingly high fidelity, in which the only permissible criteria for evolution of situation is "what is the most X-like?" (What would Lovecraft do?) Ditto "realistic." Lab-rat sim in which character personality models dictate character behavior and causal models dictate outcomes -- though this last one is pretty rare.

Final point: let's say I'm dead wrong about all of the above, and Simulationist play (as I see it) is uniquely characterized by a "split" over the Invention issue ... Let's say Ralph's point is 100% right on the mark. I submit that it's no particular threat to the theory as currently constructed. What's difficult about that potential split being a feature of Simulationist play as a category? In-play features and diversity aren't expected to be parallel among the modes. We found a feature of Sim play-diversity. Cool.

What's difficult is that you've put the most divergent extremists in gaming together in the same box. The most freewheeling make-it-up-as-you-go-along-ers (unconstrained even by any need to stay focused on a theme) with the most meticulous rules-sticklers (without even Step On Up concerns to tempt them to bend the rules or exploit a loophole from time to time). Those focused on aesthetic qualities of outcome vs. those focused on perfection of the process. GMs who cannot imagine fudging rolls with GMs who cannot imagine not fudging rolls. Trekkies for whom fidelity to Trek means a phaser on "kill" vaporizes a humanoid regardless of hit location, and Trekkies for whom fidelity to Trek means that bridge officers always survive no matter what. Players seeking the most points of contact possible (effective Gamism usually evolves limits on points of contact due to their diminishing returns in building resource-management richness, while purist-for-system Sim does not) and those seeking the least (e.g. Shadows-playing uncles who don't mind having too few points of contact to allow negotiation of a consistent Premise). Players deliberately using less than optimum tactics because it will lead to more interesting situations and players deliberately using less than optimum tactics because their character's Intelligence stat is "too low" for them to have thought of a better option. Turku immersionists and character-design-in-play auteurs. And the vastly greater numbers whose preferences are more moderate, but who still manage to see themselves on one side or the other of the divide, which they might express in terms of "process vs. outcome," "high fidelity vs. low fidelity" (but you have to know fidelity exactly to what to figure out which side they're on), "flexible vs. strict," or "rules-oriented vs. story-oriented."

It's a bit like you've seated the most militant anti-abortionists at the same banquet table with the most militant abortion-rights advocates, because they have in common a strong interest in the abortion issue. In this case, what they share is an intense focus on Exploration -- that is, Exploration-squared. (Note: no "just" here.) They differ in just about all areas of technique and asethetics, except for the de-prioritization of Gamist and Narrativist agendas. Once they realize they're in the same box with their opposite members, their natural reaction is to reject the box and its theoretical framework.

Sure, there are diversities and divergences in the Gamist and Narrativist boxes as well (the arena for competition in Gamism, the degree of overtness of the metagame in Narrativsm, among others), but they just don't compare. One can describe a Narrativist-facilitating game mechanism and other Narrativists will agree that's what it is, even if it's not to their exact taste (e.g. too overtly metagame). Ditto Gamist. But there's no such thing as a Simulationist-facilitating game mechanism. Only mechanisms that might facilitate a Simulationist's play and might be detrimental to it, depending on which side their preferences fall on. (Try it with Fortune in the Middle, for instance.)

- Walt

[Gordon C. Landis]

Walt,

That's a well-reasoned and pretty compelling argument for splitting Sim.  I only see two things that keep me from agreeing (and I say that having started the "Things NOT GNS" thread at least partially because splitting Sim seemed bad and wrong to me):

1)  G, N and S are NOT the only really, REALLY important things about roleplaying styles.  I think everyone knows this, and from time to time someone points it out - but "the theory" is called GNS, and thus other stuff is easy to forget/de-emphasize.  I think we'd be better served by adding these other really, really important things to the model/discussions in a more powerful way than we have so far.  Ralph's point that constantly tripping over "you can't have Director Sim" is annoying is well-taken.  But is splitting Sim the best solution?

2)  I think the issues you point to in variably-inventive Sim play certainly exists in other play as well - I've seen Gamists of different stripes at each others' throats because of differences about the flavor of Gamism they want.  Over invention?  Maybe not - I'll have to think on that a bit.  But would that matter?  As long as important aspects of play lead to issues with that  play (within particular GNS modes), does it really matter that inventiveness has particular (though not exclusive) importance within Sim?  Like (maybe) "balance" has particular (though not exclusive) importance within Gamism?

Those are authentic questions - maybe inventiveness IS a big enough issue that it effectively constitutes a Priority at the GNS level.  Your post certainly is persuasive as to its' importance.  I'm just not sure what the best thing to do about that is.

Gordon

EDIT for clarity

[Ron Edwards]

Hi there,

All systems of classification are going to rely on some variables and de-emphasize others. I've tried to focus on observable processes of play, and tried to keep G, N, and S about fundamental aesthetics rather than about techniques.

Maybe this will help (Jack Spencer brought this up one time). "Mammal" refers to a variety of animals. In biology, it means not only a set of descriptive features, but also a common phylogenetic history (i.e. literal relatedness).

But some mammals swim and have no legs. Others fly. Others burrow, etc, etc. Now, every child on this planet must have explained to him or her, counter to his or her perfectly reasonable perception, that a whale is not a fish, or to put it in technical terms, that ecomorphology does not have to be absolutely fixed with regard to phylogeny.

The classification stands currently because the idea (classification based on shared ancestry) has been multiply corroborated. It doesn't matter that the one classification (mammal) contains a multitude of diversity, as those diverse variables are not considered to violate the conclusion suggested by the variables used to identify the ancestry.

So what is my "idea" regarding GNS? I'm talking about creative agendas at the grand scale. It seems to me that no one "plays Simulationist" at this grand level, any more than a given mammal can be said to be The Mammal (it cannot). An individual "application" is by definition inadequate to exemplify its larger category. Similarly, any two mammals will be "incompatible" in terms of whether they are the same creature.

Since it seems to me that Techniques operate at a much more applied and localized level than Creative Agendas, most of the stuff you list (which is a great list, by the way) seems to me to be about Techniques.

Best,
Ron

[Gordon C. Landis]

Ron -

And preferences in the domain of Techniques (is 'inventiveness' in that domain?) can be as powerful and important as preferences in the domain of Creative Agenda (GNS)?

I think so - and that therefore, the "solution" is to talk up Techniques a heck of a lot more than we have been, and I sense you heading in that direction.  But regardless of the solution - I want to make sure that "preference for particular Techniques" makes sense to you as a powerful factor in this understanding.  That, I think, might help with the within-Sim conflict issue.  But am I adding something inaapropriate to your analysis?

Gordon

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Gordon,

Since play is composed of Techniques, the answer is Yes.

Currency, IIEE, character creation, resolution (DFK), reward systems, and the comparatively fleeting Stances, are all "spheres" of Techniques.

Can we talk about a given profile, or set of profiles, defined by the Techniques it contains? Yes. Could it be possible that some sets, with very little adjustment among their members, satisfy or work well for more than one GNS mode? Yes. Could it be possible that some sets are limited to very specific pinpoint-spots within a single GNS mode? Yes.

Can you talk about Techniques in practical terms without at least referring to the GNS mode or modes also in play? Probably not. That leads us into "roll vs. role" and similar stuff. It's another way of saying that people don't do X, Y, and Z for no reason at all.

This is the kind of stuff I wanted to talk about all along, dating all the way back to the Gaming Outpost. If it hadn't been for all sorts of Sturm und Drang about whether GNS was (a) evil or (b) stupid or (c) misguided (poor fellow), we woulda done it by now. Then again, all the clarification from those days and since then (with special acknowledgment to the Scarlet Jester, for Exploration) has proven valuable.

Best,
Ron

[AnyaTheBlue]

Ron,

Would Illusionistic Sim play be considered a Technique in the sense you are using here?

[Gordon C. Landis]

Yes to inapproriate, or yes to powerful and important?  I'll assume powerful and important . . .

And sure, discussing a Technique without a GNS context might/can/does get all out of control.  But my thought, for what it's worth - fuck it.  Time to just start discussing the Technique, make a GNS context as clear as can be managed, and just take it from there.  Some threads have managed to do this before, and I'd like to see more do so in the future.

There's only so far that understanding GNS can take you . . .

Gordon

[AnyaTheBlue]

There's only so far that understanding GNS can take you . . .

Sure.  But not everybody is walking the same speed, and some people started later than others...