Why we (I?) roleplay - especially in the Simulationist mode.

[Silmenume]

Having read through the thread Clarifying Simulationism, an idea opened up to me about mid way through that ironically was touched upon by the final post.

So even the idea that Simulationism is different because it's defined as a negative falls apart. Really, gamism and narrativism are the negatives--they exclude vast areas of the world that are not related to their priorities; Simulationism excludes that aspect of forming priorities by which to exclude vast areas of the world. It is the more positive concept in game priorities, because it includes everything, not just the things that are relevant to narrowly defined play priorities. Its perceived narrowness comes from its efforts to protect itself against those who would prefer to focus on a part rather than the whole, who would negatively exclude most of the world in favor of those bits that relate to challenge or theme only.

Roughly speaking, Simulationism is a more generalist mode of role-play.  As a mode of role-play it does not actively seek to exclude or narrow its priorities.  So in its broadness or vastness Simulationism becomes difficult to define.  We know that it isn't narrowly proscribed, but what IS it?

I will throw in some quotes taken from the Simulationism article by Ron, by which I hope he isn't offended, as the starting blocks for my post and making the assumption that said article could be reasonably assumed to authoritative.

"... is expressed by enhancing one or more of the listed elements [Character, Setting, Situation, System, Color]; in other words, Simulationism heightens and focuses Exploration as the priority of play. The players may be greatly concerned with the internal logic and experiential consistency of that Exploration."

"My final point is that this mode requires clear player-character/real-person boundaries, in terms of in-character knowledge and metagame knowledge. There's no single set of boundaries that applies to all ways to play Simulationist, but whatever they are in a given instance, they must be clear and abided by."

"Consider Character, Setting, and Situation - and now consider what happens to them, over time. In Simulationist play, cause is the key, the imagined cosmos in action. The way these elements tie together, as well as how they're Colored, are intended to produce "genre" in the general sense of the term, especially since the meaning or point is supposed to emerge without extra attention ... However, the right sort of meaning or point then is expected to emerge from System outcomes, in application."

The point of this posting isn't so much interested in rehashing what Simulation is, although I hope to bring up some ideas about that, but to back up and expand the scope of the arguments into the realm of the social contract and what we are looking for when we choose to roleplay over going to a Movie, playing a board game, or taking photographs.  I believe these motives are the very driving forces behind what we hope to get out of roleplay and how the various modes unfold from there.  The social contract is an agreement, spoken or otherwise, of what we hope to do.  The social contract however is preceded by a desire to do something.  

I desire something.

Decide that roleplay is the best way to satisfy that desire.

Put a group together with like desires so as to be able roleplay.

Make the social contract with all involved as to what form this roleplay will take and thus facilitate the best was to satisfy our desires.

Whether or not the individual is fully cognizant of this process is not terribly important, but as theorists I think it is critically important to understand the why we do what we do (roleplay) as part of the process whereby we then discern the various forms that this expression of desire manifests itself.  I think it problematic to separate cause from effect.

We can discern certain elements about this desire from the manner it finds expression.  As has been pointed out in the various articles exploration is what we engage in, with the effects of the various priorities being described in the GNS model.  Let us examine the elements of exploration.  I think it is interesting to note that 4 of the 5 elements relate to dramatic elements – 2 directly (Character, Situation), 2 supporting (Setting, Color).  The 5th element, system, poses some problems with my proposition, but its inclusion as an element of exploration is not without some controversy, so for the sake of this post I shall exclude it from the realm of exploration.  I believe the reason for this controversy lies in this very distinction – system is not dramatic.  By dramatic I mean capable of or functioning in the capacity to create an emotional response.

I will also note that every mode of GNS roleplay uses the idea of characters, a fictitious entity that is quantified in some way that allows us to identify and conceptualize it.  This is the same as saying that roleplay, as we understand it in our hobby, uses this construct as the means by which the players explore.   Why state the obvious?  I think it very important to make clear some distinctions between roleplaying and other forms of recreation.  We choose to roleplay over other forms of recreation – why?  There are other forms of combat, such as miniatures and tabletop war games that have rules, avatars (but not individual dynamic personas) and randomizing elements but we have chosen to roleplay instead.  We can compete against one another in board games, sports, or video games, but we choose to roleplay.  We can even opt to watch a movie or read a book, (and here there is much cross over from them to roleplay) but still we choose to roleplay.  Why?

I would also like to bring forward into my long-winded drive towards a point is that conflict is also present in copious amounts in our roleplay past time.  Again this may seem obvious but there are other pastimes that we engage in that aren't based in conflict.  Conflict is deeply embedded into the roleplay experience, and countless pages in innumerable systems have been devoted to conflict resolution (be these systems task resolution that has an inherent but hidden conflict or combat resolution with its overt presence of physical conflict), but something critically important has been left out – theory on the use of conflict as an exploration tool.  In my limited exposure to game systems, but from what I can gather from several bulletin boards that discuss roleplay, including this one, hardly any thought at all give been devoted on how to USE conflict beyond an end unto itself.

Given that so much of roleplay is rooted in or drives to dramatic elements (the primary act of roleplay expressed in exploration [Character, Situation, Setting, Color] along with the use of empathetic avatars known as characters) I make the assertion the roleplay is a dramatic form.  I believe roleplay has much in common with movies, books, plays, even poems and music even though it is unique in how it functions, as each form is.  (I believe roleplay is most closely aligned with the narrative form.)  The thing they all have in common is that they are all evocative.  

We roleplay to feel things.

Yes, anything we do has an emotional component, but the very essence of roleplay, the act of exploration and all the elements that are explored (at least the 4 that I had indicated), places roleplay clearly in the camp of those activities designed to engage our emotions directly.  Granted we don't read a book or go to the movies because we decided overtly that we want to "feel things", but it is in the act of suspending our disbelief and empathizing with the characters that we do "feel things."  And it is the summation of these various feelings and our emotional reactions to them that determines if we enjoyed ourselves.

Ok.  Why all the fuss?  So roleplay is a dramatic form (and in my opinion one most similar to a narrative one at that).  Big deal.  What's my real point?

This brings me back to the GNS form of Simulationism.  One of biggest issues I have with the description of Simulationism is actually summarized in this quote which I have lifted from Ron's essay on Simulationism.  (I hope you don't mind Ron!)

What's fun or good about that? Simulationist play looks awfully strange to those who enjoy lots of metagame and overt social context during play. "You do it just to do it? What the hell is that?"

The way the essay is structured I too wondered why anyone would play that form (and I am a simulationist at heart!)  The reason, as I see it (which means I could be waaaaaaay off target) is that conflict is glaringly absent.  We have all the elements of dramatic narrative, (character, situation, setting, color) but we are missing the one thing that makes all the items click into an interesting whole - conflict.  Conflict is the Go element.  Conflict is the motive force that drives events forward.  Conflict reveals character.  Conflict evokes emotions.  Without conflict you have a static existence.  Without conflict you have description, but no drama.  You have a character description, but he is not revealed or tested.  You have setting but without conflict it is nothing more than a travelogue.  Situation without conflict is description.  Yet roleplay is by its nature dynamic.  We don't roleplay to exist, but to do.  But to do what?  Ahhh!  That's the question facing DM's every time they prep a game session.  However, doing presupposes desire, and as we know in this life, nothing worth achieving is easy (implications of conflict/complications impeding desire fulfillment).  The record of the characters solutions to the conflicts impeding his progress to his goals is the story.  How the character responded to the conflicts reveals character as well as drives the even forward.

I propose that Simulationism is not a passive state of gaming being or experiencing, but an active process where excitement, emotions, fights, story development, character exploration, etc which are all actively alive and pursued via the exploratory action of conflict.  The difference between the use of conflict in Gamism and Simulationism is that in Simulationism conflict is not an end unto itself, but a tool of the DM.

Once conflict is included into the exploratory tools set, I believe Simulationism will come much more into focus.  I wish I could include some thoughts on Narrativism, but I have not yet found the article on it.  I feel somewhat exposed because of that, but I hope to have made some cogent arguments.  I will make some broad statements that I hope won't be taken as provocative but I think will shed some light.  Gamism is the overt wrestling with conflict (I WANT to win – defeated the conflicts).  Narrativism is the overt manipulation of conflict as a narrative tool (Wouldn't it be cool if the story [the conflict/drive element] did this?).  Simulationism is the visceral experiencing of the effects of conflict as it explores the various (narrative/dramatic) elements.

I will close soon for I have probably put my foot in my mouth more times than is good for my own health.  But let me say this before I go.  I believe it is the desire for a visceral experience that fuels the drive, for lack of a better term, emotional veracity and "realism/plausibility".  (I know realism is not an effective term because it connotates so many things but I hope by pairing it with plausibility the gist of the idea is communicated.)  We want characters and a world that makes emotional sense though the physics and the history of the world may be very different from our own.

I will now go and hide in a dark corner waiting for the dissection to begin.  It was not my intent to offend or to make overly broad generalizations.  If my rhetorical form is lacking I hope it will improve.  I do enjoy reading everyone's postings on these boards and I hope that in some small way I have made a contribution to the understanding of this most excellent past time.

Best,

Silmenume.  (Elvish for Bright Shinging Star of the West – my Vanyar Elf PC in a middle earth RPG)

(Though in my exhaustion I did not get a chance to refer back to the quotes I lifted from Ron's article I hope to do so in the future.  Perhaps if I haven't been too opaque in my arguments the relevance of the quotes will be apparent.)

[Ian Charvill]

I think there are some issues with focussing too much on the rejection of the metagame implications in sections of Ron's essay.  The paragraph is more telling [emphasis added]...

"My final point is that this mode requires clear player-character/real-person boundaries, in terms of in-character knowledge and metagame knowledge. There's no single set of boundaries that applies to all ways to play Simulationist, but whatever they are in a given instance, they must be clear and abided by."

I think we established firmly here that metagame sim - overtly and happily metagame with very little consideration of character/real person boundries - is a perfectly valid form of sim.  So that while rejecting metagame elements occurs in sim in a way that would be problematical in narrativism or gamism, thinking that sim must require the rejection of metagame elements is an error.

I also think that the metagame goals of gamism and narrativism - competition and premise - occur in submerged forms in simulationism.  Competition occurs submerged in the form of conflict and Premise submerged in the form of theme (conflict I would tend to put in the Situation box; theme in the Colour box).

Therefore a sim game can be lousy with conflict without straying into the Gamist realm - the conflict is not an end in itself but it flows from something inside the game.  Sim motivated by conflict is merely Sim, Exploration of Situation (I tend to believe this to be a very common form of sim).

Similarly you can have simulationist facilitating games with heavy focus on theme.  Call of Cthulhu is a very good example of this.  Due to the ever present Sanity rolls and losses, CoC play is packed with the theme of Humanity is Destroyed by Secrets They Were Not Meant to Know.  This is Sim, Exploration of Colour at it's strongest - we're revelling in genre conventions even as our characters fall to pieces.

In a narrativist game you couldn't of course play to that theme - Humanity is Destroyed by Secrets They Were Not Meant to Know - you could only play to the premise of Is Humanity is Destroyed by Secrets They Were Not Meant to Know?  A play outcome of humanity becoming stronger through those secrets would not be unexpected.

I hope this is all relevent to your post, Silmenume, if I'm heading off in the wrong direction then reign me in.

[Silmenume]

I apologize if by not broaching the topic directly that I implied that Metagame is verboten in Simulationist gaming.  I made the false assumption that when discussing a topic it is understood that we are not speaking in absolutes, but tendencies and trends.  The GNS model describes behavior; it does not proscribe it, at least as I understand it.  That being said I agree that Metagaming behavior in a Simulationist priority game is not prohibited, but I do believe it is an element of gaming that, should it become "over used", will begin to have a negative impact on the suspension of disbelief of the imagined space.  One cannot be (or it is phenomenally difficult to be) "in character" (1st person or actor's stance) feeling what the character feels and discussing some event from a 3rd person point of view at the same time.

Ian I did read the post link you provided in your post, and I thank you for do so.  Upon reading the entire thread I came away with basically that one poster indicated that he enjoyed playing lots of meta in a Simulationist game and did so successfully.  This is not an attempt to gainsay you, but I am holding off on accepting his experiences as doctrine until the idea is explored more fully.

Again I call upon some quotes lifted from the Simulationist article (authored by Ron Edwards) to lay some foundation for my assertions.

"...what matters is that within the system, causality is clear, handled without metagame intrusion and without confusion on anyone's part."

"Internal Cause is King
Consider Character, Setting, and Situation - and now consider what happens to them, over time. In Simulationist play, cause is the key, the imagined cosmos in action."

"Two games may be equally Simulationist even if one concerns coping with childhood trauma and the other concerns blasting villains with lightning bolts. What makes them Simulationist is the strict adherence to in-game (i.e. pre-established) cause for the outcomes that occur during play."

I believe these above quotes do make a very strong case for the idea of internal causality in the Simulationist mode of play.  It has been stated many times that because a game prioritizes a mode of play, does not mean that the other modes are not present.  It means that a special emphasis has been placed upon certain priorities resulting in a great preponderance of those certain priorities being used, but not to exclusion.  I believe and argue that metagaming is not a priority in Simulationism and its use should be minimized, I do NOT argue that it should be disallowed.  I caution that by its nature metagaming can (not necessarily will) cause either drift or dysfunction if overly expressed during play in a Simulationist game.  To the best of my limited understanding metagaming is one of the key elements of Narrativism and Gamism and its lack is one of the key elements of Simulationism.

I also think that the metagame goals of gamism and narrativism - competition and premise - occur in submerged forms in simulationism. Competition occurs submerged in the form of conflict and Premise submerged in the form of theme (conflict I would tend to put in the Situation box; theme in the Colour box).

While competition can occur insitu (in character within the game) should it become the driving goal of the player then the priorities of the game have drifted, especially if the competition is expressed on metagame levels.  Let me make clear that conflict does not equal competition.  Competition is a subset of conflict but is not the only from of conflict.  Conflict can exist without competition, but competition cannot exist outside of conflict.

The same holds for the Narrativism.  Themes can be explored in the course of Simulationist play, but if the goals of Narrativism, the active and metagame pursuit of theme takes precedence over exploration, especially on a metagame level, then the game has drifted.  I do believe that theme can be a vital part of Simulationism, richly so if handled properly, but best if explored from within as opposed to being thrust upon from outside.

Therefore a sim game can be lousy with conflict without straying into the Gamist realm - the conflict is not an end in itself but it flows from something inside the game.

I agree with the first part of your sentence completely!  I am dismayed that the meme did not get through in my first post... oh well, chalk that up to my inexperience in rhetorical writing.  Conflict is not and end unto itself – it is tool, a method used in the act of exploration in roleplay.  However the second half of your sentence has the arrow of causality flowing in the wrong direction (Note – thesis coming up!).  Conflict is not something that flows from within the game, rather conflict is the source from which all exploration flows!  Without conflict one can only make observations, but one cannot explore.

Sim motivated by conflict is merely Sim, Exploration of Situation (I tend to believe this to be a very common form of sim).

Not merely Sim.  With minor modifications it IS Sim.  To whit –

Conflict + Character + Situation = The Exploratory action that is Sim.

One cannot explore Character without exploring Situation because the addition of conflict creates Situation.  One cannot explore Situation without exploring Character because how one responds to conflict illuminates Character.  The types of conflict a Character faces and the Setting can lead to Theme being investigated during Exploration.  Setting and Color support the Exploration process in Sim, and while they are absolutely integral to Exploration they cannot function as a stand-alone priority in play.

To extend this metaphor a bit more I will propose the following two "diagrams".

Conflict + Setting = Gamism.

Conflict + Situation = Narrativism

I understand this is a gross over simplification, but I think there is some merit in at least exploring these ideas.  If they prove to be of no merit then throw them out and I apologize wasting anyone's time.  To start with the Gamism diagram I operate under that assumption that the competition (step on up) is clearly the driving motivation for that mode of play.  If that is the case then what largely remains to be determined is the manner in which the competition will play itself out and this will be strongly determined by Setting.  Will we be competing in a future setting, a fantasy setting, contemporary, a space setting, etc.?  The Setting determines the shape in which this competition will be played out, but is of itself not a primary interest.  This is not to say that other items of exploration aren't involved or that the players don't have other interests, but for this example I stripped the argument down to it barest components.

I believe that Situation (plus conflict) is the driving interest in Narrativism because of its primary interest in theme.  Situation can illuminate Theme, especially if Situation is tightly controlled or only allowed to unfold in certain directions via Metagamist intervention.  If the primary interest in Narrativism is Theme or perhaps Thematic Questions then Exploration of the other 3 dramatic elements fall back to a position of lesser importance.  This is not to say the other 3 do not exist or are not explored in Narrativist play, but I believe they are there primarily to support the Exploration of the Situation and by extension the "Question".  (I don't know very clearly for I have not yet read an essay on Narrativism so I ask some latitude – I regret if I have made some incorrect assumptions.)

This leads me to posit the following (in VERY broad and general terms) -

Gamism = Competition
Narrativism = The Question
Simulationism = Drama/Emotions

The question then arises as to why the driving need for the imagined reality to be modeled so deeply or unyieldingly.  In other words why is so much attention paid to the (imagined) world and how it functions (modeled) that this mode of play can be labeled Simulationism?  I think much of the reason for the search for plausibility/details/internal consistency lies in the need for the world to be logical if we players are going to open ourselves up emotionally.  This works on several levels.  First we all hate being pulled out of a scene because the physics of the world behaves in an inconsistent manner.  (How many of you have been watching the climatic 3rd act of a movie and had the film break?  While the cause was not an in form inconsistency the frustration of being pulled out of the moment is the same.)  Second if we are going to invest emotionally in a game/movie/book we begin to project forward and if the "rules" change out from under our feet we feel bitterly betrayed.  (While we enjoy the feeling of falling while riding a roller coaster, we do not want the tracks to actually disappear out from under us.)  So it is my belief that the drive to create an "accurate" or "consistent" (aka emotionally safe) model of the imagined world is what drives this mode of roleplay to create an imagined space that is so consistent that it could be said to Simulate.  If we are going to invest/expose ourselves emotionally we want to do so in a manner that will minimize negative (implausible) experiences.  

Creating an interesting and engaging dramatic event is no easy feat.  Just look at all game systems that spend oodles of pages on setting, character creation, conflict resolution (be they combat or non combat skills), etc., but hardly a peep on how to make a riveting game experience.  In a certain sense one could surmise that it is easier to create a game system than it is to teach techniques of effective dramatic form.  I think it certainly helps explain why system tends to be so highly developed in Simulationist games.

While much thought has been given to character design, creation of setting, even situation and color I think it is time that effort be spent on discussing the role of conflict in exploration.  The GNS models talk about Exploration as being the "sea" upon which the priorities of all other aspects of gaming are "floated" upon, but nothing (very little?) has been addressed to what it means to Explore and how to go about doing it.  We have been taught much about how to build the piano, but we don't know how to play it.

In light of what I have discussed I would go so far as to say that Simulationism is a misleading appellation.  Simulationism connotes a passive emotionless almost scientific modeling process.  I believe that the gaming mode that is currently referred to as Simulationism is much broader and much more dynamic and interesting than what the name connotes.

Some thoughts.  I hope they spur some more in return.

Best.

Silmenume.

[Ian Charvill]

I think what you're aying is essentially this, that:

The key to productive sim play is emotional engagement with the imagined elements.  For many - maybe even most, maybe even everyone except me - this means something involving immersion or suspension of disbelief.  I'm jsut going to use the term engagement here because Immersion/SoD both carry baggage that I'm not sure I'm happy getting into (YMMV).

In terms of what helps with engagement, certainly strong consistency of in-game causality is an important one and Actor stance (perhaps aided by occasional, convert, Author stance) is another.

I would also suggest the following three:

Pacing - lulls in the action are an easy time to get distracted so keeping things moving is important.
Environment - playing the Lord of The Rings RPG while the stereo's blaring out a Bill Hicks CD may be disruptive; conversely if that same stereo is playing the score from The Followship of the Ring it may be very helpful.
Avoiding Covert Out of Game References - certain scenes are apt to break engagement - because they are reminiscent of a Monty Python sketch, becaus they remind someone about what happened to them last Tuesday and now here comes an anecdote - being aware and controlling the references within scenes is a worthwhile thing, though not always easy.

Now, for me, personally, engagement is also increased by personal creative investment in the imagined elements of play.  This can involve heavy use of metagame elements but this doesn't have to be the case.  Frex, many people seem to be more engaged by sim play when they've created their own characters as opposed to playing pre-gens.  In other words, I think that another technique that can be useful in promoting engagement, is to give players ownership of part of the imagined space.  Now, traditionally, this is limited to the player's own character and a small amount of associated space - their kit and maybe a few close relationships (allies, enemies, dependent NPCs).

Now, I'm apt to get hobbyhorseish about this because I am that guy that proposes the heavy-metagame sim in the other thread.  But, unless you want to follow that particular avenue further, I'm going to drop it there unless you want to cotinue (if you want to go into it further feel free to PM me).


*   *   *

Asides:

I don't think you're the first person to question the appropriateness of Simulationism as a term, but I don't think there's much milage there.  The term is what it is, but just abbreviate it to S or to Sim, if it helps you to just think of it as an abstract lable.

I've found it helpful w/r/t narrativism to focus tightly on the difference between Theme and Premise: Premise being the question to which Theme is the Answer (e.g. "What is Love Worth?" as compared to "Love Conquers All").  Narrativism is play focussed on Premise rather than Theme.  Theme is a pretty common result of Narrativist play, but I'd argue that Theme qua Theme is also pretty common in Simulationist* and Gamist** play.

Situation is just what happens when character meets situation, and I suspect all three GNS modes find most of there productive play at that juncture.

* e.g. CoC & Humanity is Insignificant in the Face of the Unknowable Vastness of the Universe
** e.g. D&D & Good is Destined to Strive against Evil

[Ron Edwards]

Hi there,

I'm not sure what to say except that this is a wonderful dialogue. Thanks to both so far.

My current thoughts on the "does Simulationist play have a metagame priority?" are that people can mean the same thing by answering either Yes or No. In that circumstance, the best thing to do is to use Gamist and Narrativist play as a contrast, and if you see a distinctive difference between S and [GN] in terms of how real-people agenda impacts the imaginary events, then you're all good. No need to parse that out differently at this time; it doesn't seem to work out well in this medium.

Best,
Ron

[M. J. Young]

Silmenume, I find myself disagreeing with you at one of your foundational premises.

Simulationism has nothing to do specifically with first person play or character identification or emotional involvement--no more or less than any other mode. In fact, some people play wargames in what is simulationist mode, completely non-competitively, just to determine "what would happen if". Some years back I had an extended correspondence with a fellow who called role playing "the great thought experiment", by which he meant that you could use it to ask "what if?" about almost anything and produce an answer through play. This is simulationism: the desire to know what something would be like. It can be all of those things you suggest, but it can equally be completely detached--emotionally satisfying only in the same way as learning calculus is emotionally satisfying if you wished to do so.

On the issue of metagame in simulationism, In the article http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/23/">Applied Theory

It is much more difficult to address credibility distribution in simulationism. What matters here is the verisimilitude and consistency of the shared imagined reality; that is, all players must see the same thing and believe it. This does not preclude broadly shared credibility; it does require a solid agreement on the nature of the reality. If we're playing in a medieval fantasy world, exploring an abandoned castle, a player given credibility could announce that he saw objects on a table, and describe the objects he saw. As long as those objects do not upset the agreed nature of the reality, such credibility is not problematic. Thus it is evident that the objects could include bottles and lamps, perhaps swords and daggers, possibly jewelry, all things which would typically be found on such tables. Were the player to describe seeing laser guns or kinetic blasters there, this would clearly violate the agreed reality, and his credibility would cease at that moment. However, there are difficult cases here. The player might describe finding the famed lost jewel of Prince Balthazzar, or opening a bottle to release a djinni, or discovering a scroll with a map to a hidden treasure. These, too, are all plausible within the setting, but may be stretching the credibility of the player. For this reason, it is more common for simulationist games to prefer narrower credibility for the players and broader credibility for the referee. It is not a necessary arrangement, but it does tend to support simulationism better.

So I agree that metagame aspects are rarer and much more difficult in simulationist play, but still am persuaded that they can be functional. The problem you have is that you see metagame as breaking the player/character link, but that link is not central to simulationism. The question about metagame in simulationism is not whether it interferes with the player's ability to feel like he is in the character's position, but whether the metagame functions in a manner which enhances the in-game reality.

As an example (I think this is Feng Shui, but I'm not certain of the details so I'll describe it generically) we could have a martial arts based game which was entirely simulationist, intending to produce a world very like the Wuzia/Kung Fu movie worlds. In doing so, we could include what is in essence a metagame rule concerning combat: the more colorful and original a combat move is when described, the more likely it is to succeed. Thus if a player says, "I punch him", he is unlikely to have much impact on the situation; but if he says, "I throw my arms back as I begin to bend over into a back handspring, and bring my feet up to kick him in the face before bouncing back out of reach of his next attack", he gets bonuses on his dice. That is a metagame mechanic which effectively enables the players to enhance the reality of the Wuzia/Kung Fu Film world. (Note that it is a bit different from saying "I use the backflip kick maneuver"--the metagame mechanic is encouraging player description as a way of enhancing game reality; the other would simply be built-in in-game tactical options. Further, by using description, we encourage player creativity and so have constantly changing fight scenes, rather than reliance on tried and true maneuvers.)

At one point in your discussion, I was reminded of the section in Ron's http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/1/">GNS essay, $#!+ I'm Playing Narrativist!--but I don't know for certain that that's what you're doing, I'm just suspicious.

Anyway, I agree that simulationism need not be emotionless. I also think that gamism and narrativism can be played in both highly invested emotional modes and reserved observer modes (and possibly other modes as well).

--M. J. Young

[Ron Edwards]

Hi there,

M.J., do you think that your point of disagreement would be diminished (not refuted, just diminished in importance) if Silmenume's point is specified to be a historical observation? That's pretty much the line I took in the essay.

Best,
Ron

[M. J. Young]

Let me attempt to parse my agreements and disagreements a bit more clearly.

I agree that we play simulationist games for reasons which involve emotional satisfaction. I disagree that that emotional satisfaction either must or always has come from character identification. We play gamist games and narrativist games for emotional satisfaction. We play Pinochle and Miniature Golf and Trivial Pursuit for emotional satisfaction, as well as attend movies and read books and even in some cases go to school--and these clearly don't involve character identification. My objection is that the idea as presented is saying "This is the reason people play simulationist games". I am quite happy to concede that it is a reason that some people play such games, and even that I have played some simulationist games with this character identification/secure illusion of reality as one of the principle motivations. I have also played simulationist games for other emotionally satisfying reasons, such as seeing how an idea plays out among a group of characters, or attempting to emulate something that resembles real-world physics, or hearing the descriptions of an alien world. There are a lot of ways in which games can be emotionally satisfying, and some are so in more than one way.

So I agree that this is a line worth pursuing, as long as it is understood that we are exploring one form of simulationism, and not its central defining concept.

As far as historical context is concerned, that's more difficult to say. For most of the first decade of my gaming experience, I had little or no contact with any gamers outside our rather isolated gaming group. If that is how most people did play, it would be outside my knowledge; we did not always do so (although we were certainly the kings and queens of constant drift).

I also object to the notion that simulationist play must include conflict to be interesting. Simulationist play may include conflict to be interesting, but it can instead become interesting through the aspect of invention/discovery (two sides of the same concept). I would love to have someone drop me into Perelandra, just so that I could experiment with the floating islands and have that feeling of walking on the tops of waves. I don't need a story or a conflict or a tension to find a world interesting.

My wife is an extremely avid reader. She reads more than she can afford to buy, and so re-reads many books repeatedly. Her favorite parts of most books are not the issues or the characters or the action, but the descriptions. Just tonight she stopped my mad rushing to somewhere to have me pause and read a page out of Steinbeck's Of Mice and Men, in which he describes a quite afternoon looking out at a bend in the river. The vividness of the description is wonderful. She considers Steinbeck's stories to be rather on the depressing side, but she loves the skill of any author who can do that. She recently read one of CJ Henderson's books (I brought it back from the con--the non-supernatural one with the private eye). She said it was terribly violent and in places unnecessarily vulgar, but that he did have a wonderful talent for description that made it worth reading.

Not everyone needs conflict to be interested in what we call in the more general sense story. My creative writing professor made us write several short pieces before we wrote a story, one of which was a description of a scene. That can be as engaging as an action movie, if it is a well-told description of an interesting scene.

So I object to the notion that simulationism requires conflict to be enjoyable. Again, it certainly may contain conflict, which may contribute to the enjoyment thereof by many players, but it is not an essential ingredient.

I see the metagame issue as a side point. If we want to say that early simulationist games avoided metagame as disruptive to the in-game reality, I would concur that even today most simulationist games do so; but I believe I've demonstrated that this is not a requisite of simulationism, but rather an approach to design and play that is easier and perhaps more common.

So by all means, continue to discuss these aspects of simulationism; please, though, recognize it as one denomination, and not the entire religion. I may even have more to contribute to the thought on that basis.

--M. J. Young

[Silmenume]

Hello and thank you all for having taken the time to read my ideas and post thoughtful responses.
Ian, I think your summary of my ideas is pretty close to the mark.  Your suggestions as to how to aid engagement are virtually identical to some of the tools that I/we do use.  It strikes me as a little fascinating that the same tools should arise independently when discussing like goals (though not necessarily supporting them).

An issue that keeps arising now is the definition of Metagame and as it is growing in importance in our discussions as its role/effect in determining GNS mode I will spend some time trying to clarify it definition.  By way of starting I will begin with what I think is a fairly good start with one of your engagement enhancing suggestions, but with some changes.

Originally posted by Ian Charvill
Avoiding Covert Out of Game References

Here, to me, lies the heartbeat of Metagaming, but let me rephrase it fist.

Avoiding "OVERT Out of Game/Engagement (Metagame)" References.

First note I believe "avoid" is the operative word, not "eliminate".  It is impossible, unworkable, and thus undesirable to roleplay without some out of game references.

This definition can be broken into 2 parts – Metagame references that have nothing to do with affecting the Imagined Space, i.e., references to Monty Python sketches, events in real life that happened last Tuesday that break engagement and Metagame references that impact directly on the Imagined Space but do so in a fashion that breaks in game causality.

Which brings me to a portion of a posting by M. J. Young.

On the issue of metagame in simulationism, In the article http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/23/">Applied Theory

It is much more difficult to address credibility distribution in simulationism. What matters here is the verisimilitude and consistency of the shared imagined reality; that is, all players must see the same thing and believe it. This does not preclude broadly shared credibility; it does require a solid agreement on the nature of the reality. If we're playing in a medieval fantasy world, exploring an abandoned castle, a player given credibility could announce that he saw objects on a table, and describe the objects he saw. As long as those objects do not upset the agreed nature of the reality, such credibility is not problematic. Thus it is evident that the objects could include bottles and lamps, perhaps swords and daggers, possibly jewelry, all things which would typically be found on such tables. Were the player to describe seeing laser guns or kinetic blasters there, this would clearly violate the agreed reality, and his credibility would cease at that moment. However, there are difficult cases here. The player might describe finding the famed lost jewel of Prince Balthazzar, or opening a bottle to release a djinni, or discovering a scroll with a map to a hidden treasure. These, too, are all plausible within the setting, but may be stretching the credibility of the player. For this reason, it is more common for simulationist games to prefer narrower credibility for the players and broader credibility for the referee. It is not a necessary arrangement, but it does tend to support simulationism better.

In the listed example of finding a table with objects on it, "depending on how it was handled", I do not believe it to be a case of Metagaming.  "Depending on how it was handled" is a critical issue here.  If the DM completely describes a room, and does so without the mention of a table, then the player saying, "I see a table" breaks causality.  The reality had already been established with the DM's complete description and the player altering/impinging on that reality (Imagined Space) without the use of in game resources to do so is Metagaming; he is breaking causality.  However if the DM leaves space in his description where it is plausible that such a table could be found, or at least not specifically prohibited, then that player is aiding the exploration of Setting, not contradicting it/breaking causality.

I do not believe that credibility is identical with the issue of Metagaming.  Rather I believe credibility is a yardstick whereby one can measure if a player's action is Metagaming or I could say whether one is straining or breaking in game/Imagined Space causality.  It is at the point when credibility hits zero that cries of foul (Metagaming outside the social contract) are cried.  For example a DM with low credibility kills a PC in combat.  The Player who does not trust (has a high credibility faith) in the DM believes that the DM broke causality and imposed a Metagame agenda by killing the player character in a fashion that was not consistent or supported by the "reality/plausibility/physics etc." of the Imagined Space.  In other words the DM enforced an out of Imagined Space (Metagame) agenda upon the PC that did not stem from an in game cause but from a desire of the DM that bypassed internal causality.

The above example highlights two issues.  First is that when action credibility goes to zero Metagaming is resulting call by the effected.  Second credibility is an incredibly important issue in gaming.

To go back again to the essay posted by M. J. Young, that a player was exploring setting by "painting in details" is in itself not Metagaming if the Imagined Space/internal causality is not broken.  However, as you had indicated, credibility can be strained if the items "painted" into the scene stretch the bounds of internal causality.  Your average noble is not likely to just leave lying about the famed Jewel of Prince Balthazzar on a table without guards and other protections.  This doesn't mean it can't happen, but it shouldn't happen all the time.  Using the same, possibly incredulous (low credibility or credibility reducing), example if a PC does this many times then the play can then be accused of Metagaming when his credibility reaches zero.  If the player does this consistently to his own, or even his party's betterment, then he could even be accused of drift into Gamist play.  He has broken internal causality so often that it becomes apparent that the player's priorities are more that of winning or being better than others than he is of consistent Exploration of the Imagined Space.  Although subtle, when it becomes "clear" to others that the player is manipulating circumstances (his credibility is zero – he is no longer subject to the internal causality of the world but actively altering it to his favor) then his actions become overt – seen and understood by others to have an agenda that transcends Exploration and the need to maintain Internal Causality.  Determining credibility is not a black and white issue, and is a tough one to handle, and it is something that I believe should be handled on some level in the Social Contract.

However, if this give and take works, this "painting in", then this brings me back to something Ian stated in his post encouraging engagement.

Originally posted by Ian Charvill
I think that another technique that can be useful in promoting engagement, is to give players ownership of part of the imagined space.

Again I agree with you, but with a slightly different emphasis.

Give players partial ownership of all the imagined space.

I would love to go into that topic, but that would require a whole post of its own.

Silmenume, I find myself disagreeing with you at one of your foundational premises.

Simulationism has nothing to do specifically with first person play or character identification or emotional involvement--no more or less than any other mode. In fact, some people play wargames in what is simulationist mode, completely non-competitively, just to determine "what would happen if". Some years back I had an extended correspondence with a fellow who called role playing "the great thought experiment", by which he meant that you could use it to ask "what if?" about almost anything and produce an answer through play. This is simulationism: the desire to know what something would be like. It can be all of those things you suggest, but it can equally be completely detached--emotionally satisfying only in the same way as learning calculus is emotionally satisfying if you wished to do so.

This is why I think the moniker Simulationism is confusing or misleading when applied to the S mode of play of the GNS model of Roleplay.

The example of a war game being played in a non-competitive fashion is not the same as Simulationist Roleplay.  Several key elements are missing from the war game analogy that are abundantly present in Sim Roleplay.  The first is that Exploration is absent from war games.  There are no characters/avatars that we as players use to Explore the world.  If there are no characters then it's not Roleplay.  Roleplay has a distinct set of actions the primary of which is Exploration.  To me, and maybe this is where things are going to really fall apart, Exploration is an experiential/dramatic process.  We are Exploring human beings (dramatically speaking – though we make be donning different raiment's in the forms of different sentient and feeling races) not inanimate processes.  The act of Exploration, as defined within Roleplay constraints, is a dramatically revealing process.  

To borrow your definition - Simulationism is the "desire to know what something is like."  The "desire to know what something is like" is an empathetic desire.  This empathetic desire is a very different goal (and experiential process) than desiring the knowledge of how something will turn out, such as simulating a battle to "see what results" or "what would happen if," which is basically modeling. That is a Metagame goal beyond the reach of Exploration.  Perhaps that could become a mode of play separate from what is currently called the S mode.

As an aside I would also like to note that usually when one is interested in "seeing what happens" there is an implicit understanding that we are testing or at least comparing results of more than one run through (actual simulation) based upon different data sets (trying different things) but with the same conditions.  This comparison does not necessarily have to be matched against the results of action with the same group of players, i.e., one could be comparing against another groups results, but this does introduce difficult to account for variables.  While Gamist play may allow for such play, like competing teams at conventions, the goal here is to win, not to just "see what happens."  While this "scientific method" of play may be applied to roleplaying I have yet to see such play.  (I understand, though, that one person's experiences don't make for a good data sample)

When one models to see the result of some actions, like in a war game, especially one where the competition priority has been set aside, the goal is not the process, but rather the results of the experiment.  Exploration, in Sim play, is not goal oriented rather it is experiential.  "To know what something is like" is to experience the event; it is not factual knowledge, but a deeper more personal emotive knowledge.

This distinction between 2 types of knowledge, the factual distant type, and the personal/experiential/emotive type is not just some semantic argument, I believe it is germane to this discussion.  Spanish, if I can remember back to my high school days, has two distinct forms of the verb, to know; conocer and saber.  Saber - to know a fact, to know something thoroughly, to know how to do something.  Conocer - to be acquainted with a person, place, or thing.  This distinction of types of knowledge, that which is distant and that which is personal experiential, goes deeply back to the roots of Western Civilization as the distinction is made some 5000+ years ago in the Old Testament.

I believe Exploration within the Simulationist mode of Roleplay is of the "desire to know what something is like" camp.  It has all the tools used by other empathic exploration genres like novels and movies.

At one point in your discussion, I was reminded of the section in Ron's http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/1/">GNS essay, $#!+ I'm Playing Narrativist!--but I don't know for certain that that's what you're doing, I'm just suspicious.

I went hunting all over that citing for the reference you were making.  I finally found it under "But I'm story-oriented"!  As a response I quote from the article itself -

"'Story' may mean 'series of caused events,' in which case the issue is trivial.'"

Very close to my feeling that story is not something created prior to play, but is the historical retelling of what transpired during the course of play.

Best.

Silmenume.

[Ian Charvill]

A couple of distinctions that I think'll be useful at this point:

Sympathy/empathy - sympathy being feeling what someone else is feeling, empathy being understanding what someone else is feeling.  They're not mutually exclusive but neither does one mandate the other.  I would suspect sympathy to be a great drive in most people's actor stance sim play (especially that type usually called 'immersive').  Empathy would be more of a guide in author stance sim play.

Metagame goals/metagame techniques: I don't think sim offers much of a metagame goal, if any - certainly this is distinct from G and N.  Metagame techniques however - like all techniques - are more of a use to taste thing.

I'd end with a note about bringing imagined elements into play.  I think that the process that gets called retconning - for retroactive continuity - is something that people have wildly differing degrees of tolerance for.  I can get on with large amounts of very obvious, explicit retconning without breaking my engagement with the imagined world, other people would be against the least measure of it.

[Ron Edwards]

Quick clarification: M.J. is referring to a section in my essay Simulationism: the right to dream, specifically the one called "Oh shit! I'm playing Narrativist!" Not a section in the GNS essay.

Best,
Ron

[Mike Holmes]

Ian, unless I misunderstand you somehow, you have Sympathy and Empathy reversed. Other than that clarification, I agree with the point.

Mike

[M. J. Young]

Wow, there's a lot to consider here.

I apologize for citing the wrong article; I'm going to have to go back and read them all again, just to get them straight.

Silmenume, you and I are using "credibility" in wildly different ways--both correct in English, but very different in context. I understand what you mean by saying that someone has depleted his credibility, but that's not consistent with my use of the term.

The idea of credibility as referenced in the article comes from a thread a couple years back about authority, credibility, and the shared imagined space. "Credibility" is the right of any participant to define elements in the shared imagined space. It is "apportioned" by the "system", that is, everyone knows how much each is allowed to contribute. If as a player I am allowed to define my character's actions but nothing else, that is the limit on my credibility--any statement I make about my character's action is credible, defining what he is doing in that shared imagined space; any statement I make about that shared imagined space that is beyond my character's ability to control is also outside my credibility, and I cannot make it "real" within that world. Yet there are games in which players have credibility to create and control objects within the game world that are beyond the control of their characters. In such games they, like the referees in most games, have greater credibility.

By this definition of credibility, it is not something that you lose because people don't believe you. It's something that you have because the system gives it to you. The referee has the most credibility not because we all trust him, but because our system (in the broadest sense) decrees that whatever the referee says is real is in fact real in the game world, and whatever he says is not real cannot be real in the game world. How much credibility the referee has varies from game to game, and system can dictate changes in that--for example, a fortune mechanic which allows the referee to override the player's statement of what he is doing, such as declaring that he has yielded to the temptation, or he is too drunk to do that, or he failed his will power check.

While you're using credibility in a valid way, it's not the way the word is used in the article (where it is defined).

There's also a problem with the word metagame; in this case, the problem is a lack of clear definition. The word means everything and nothing. In the current context, I have taken it to mean any ability to cause or influence in-game events by players other than the referee which involves real-world events. My Wuzia example was exactly of this sort. The effectiveness of the character action is not based entirely on the physics of the world, or the ability of the character, but in some part upon the action taken by the player to enhance the character's action through the player action. By describing a more vivid and interesting combat move, the player empowers his character to be more effective in combat, thus simulating the Wuzia world more accurately by using a metagame mechanic. Now, you can argue that this is not metagame; but if so, I'm going to have to ask you to define metagame. The definition you present in your post suggests that by "metagame" you mean "that which would be disallowed by all players in the game"; but if that's the definition, then there can be no valid metagame in any game, because what is disallowed is by definition disallowed.

Again, metagame is a side issue.

I do not believe credibility is the equivalent of metagaming even as I've defined the two terms; rather, I believe that credibility can be apportioned in a manner which provides valid metagame influence to the non-referee players, and that this then means a valid metagame mechanic. To cite my table example, if we've all agreed (that is, the system allows) that players can create detail consistent with the setting that is likely and not extreme, then the creation of the table is a valid use of credibility in a simulationist game, and may well involve the use of metagame mechanics; if we've agreed that only the referee can create or describe room detail, then the creation of the table by one of the other players is neither credible nor metagame--it's merely disruptive, because the player lacks the credibility to create the table, so it doesn't exist, so his talking about it is only delaying the game until we can get back to what the referee actually has described.

If the DM completely describes a room, and does so without the mention of a table, then the player saying, ?I see a table? breaks causality. The reality had already been established with the DM?s complete description and the player altering/impinging on that reality (Imagined Space) without the use of in game resources to do so is Metagaming; he is breaking causality. However if the DM leaves space in his description where it is plausible that such a table could be found, or at least not specifically prohibited, then that player is aiding the exploration of Setting, not contradicting it/breaking causality.

It is clear here that you're using "metagaming" to mean "breaking the rules". In that sense, you can't have valid metagaming in any form of gaming, because as long as it means "breaking the rules" it's cheating. The question is whether you can have metagaming that breaks the in-game causality but is still within the rules--accepted by the system, credible for describing the shared imagined space--and whether you can do it in a simulationist game. I say yes, you can give the players the power to create and control the game world the way the referee does and still be playing simulationist, just as you can give it to the referee. In a sense, the referee always has and uses metagame power; the fact that the players are also enabled to do this does not mean it's not simulationism--it only means it may be simulationism with a different apportionment of credibility through recognized metagame mechanics.

The example of a war game being played in a non-competitive fashion is not the same as Simulationist Roleplay. Several key elements are missing from the war game analogy that are abundantly present in Sim Roleplay. The first is that Exploration is absent from war games. There are no characters/avatars that we as players use to Explore the world. If there are no characters then it?s not Roleplay. Roleplay has a distinct set of actions the primary of which is Exploration. To me, and maybe this is where things are going to really fall apart, Exploration is an experiential/dramatic process.

I don't know that I could disagree with more points on this and still be speaking the same language.

Exploration is not absent from simulationist war games. It is perfectly valid to explore what would happen if we did this instead of that. If we were to set up the Battle of Gettysburg, for example, and then make changes to the strategy on each side, we might find ourselves with a very different outcome. That is exploration.

You say that it's not exploration because it doesn't have characters; but I don't see how characters make the difference. If I play Squeam, I've got a character--but far from identifying with him, I'm looking for the best way to get him killed in the most comically gruesome fashion I can arrange. That's still roleplay, and it's still exploration; it just misses most of what you seem to think is essential to those two concepts. We've seen role playing game designs in which players can vie for control of characters in the game world, spending player resources to be able to determine what this or that character will do--still roleplay, but completely devoid of any solid player/character connection. Such a game could be simulationist; I see no reason why it could not be in principle.

I accept your statement that there are two kinds of knowledge, that of knowing facts and that of intimate connection; however, I don't accept your assertion that role playing must be about the latter. It could quite easily be about the former, and often is, especially in simulationist play. In some simulationist play, players use pawn stance to move their characters through the world, because the character is only relevant as a camera angle through which to view the world. That is still about your intimate connection type of knowledge; but it has nothing to do with an intimate connection to the character--it is the use of the character as a conduit through which to establish an intimate connection to the world.

I think you are very much on the track of describing a formof simulationism; but I want it clear that there are many other forms.

To put this in perspective, I have encountered people who will tell you that all role playing games are a competition of the players against the referee. This is patently untrue; but it is a form of gamist play. However, even if we accept that there is a form of gamist play in which the players are pitted against the referee (of which Hackmaster is an excellent recent example, although someone recently mentioned an older one), it must also be recognized that there are gamist games, even gamist role playing games, in which players are working against each other; and there are gamist games in which the players in cooperation with the referee are working against the game. All these are very different forms of gamist play, and not every gamist will enjoy or even be familiar with all of them.

So too what you've described is a form of simulationism; but you've described it in language that implies very strongly that this is the only form of simulationism and that every simulationist plays in the ways and for the reasons that you're presenting. I'm fine with the idea that this is your experience as a form of simulationism; however, please don't ghettoize entire aspects of simulationist play that I have seen and enjoyed. Character identification is one popular form of simulationism; it is not the only one.

I would be quite happy if you would now ignore all of this and go back to discussing your character-centric high-identification zero-metagame simulationism concept with no more reference to these comments than a recouching of the attitude to which I objected, allowing that this is a valid and common approach to simulationism but not the only way it is done.

--M. J. Young

[Silmenume]

I will start off my essay here with a quote drawn from an earlier post –

I made the false assumption that when discussing a topic it is understood that we are not speaking in absolutes, but tendencies and trends.

I say it again, while posting on these boards regarding human behaviors, unless specifically stated otherwise; I am speaking in trends, tendencies, priorities, not absolutes, musts, onlys, and the like.  When discussing human behavior there are no absolutes, just trends.  I will fully and happily admit that many forms of play are possible.  My arguments lie primarily along the lines of what most people most strongly respond to most of the time.  Even with the previous sentence the importance lies in that I am using trends, not absolutes.  However in the realm of definitions I believe we can be very precise, or at least strive to be as precise as possible.

As the GNS model is really a description of human behaviors I regard it as such, a description, a method to try and categorize and label human behaviors.  I too approach my essays in the similar vein.  I am attempting to argue a case that will have the greatest impact on the largest number of people.  I am not interested in formalism.  I agree that many forms are possible.  I also agree that all forms will have some adherents.  But that is not what I am interested in.  I am trying to bring forth the emotive majority in what has been primarily a dialogue of elites discussing many possible fringes.  Genres in movies or Modes of roleplay arise not because someone dictated their existence (or mandated forms/modes), but rather they exist as a result of emergent and self-reinforcing behavior of masses of people that someone spotted.  That we discuss them is an effort to understand and put some order into our efforts as theorists.

I use the term formalism with reference to this definition –
1.   A method of aesthetic analysis that emphasizes structural elements and artistic techniques rather than content, especially in literary works.
I argue, and most history bears out, that most consumers of creative works have little overt interest in the exploration of forms, but have a much stronger interest in content.  This does not mean that discussion of form is not without merit, or the actual works that place emphasis on form are without merit, but rather if one is discussing what "works" for most people I believe it is best to concern ones efforts to what most consumers care about.  And that is what I most interested in.  Consumers typically become interested in form when either it succeeds as a new means to experience content or when form interferes with the experience of content.  The main thrust of my essays is that most players (not all) are interested in content, I believe that roleplay is primarily a dramatic form, but not necessarily the only form or one that every must adhere to, but that very little thought has been devoted to the best ways to facilitate the delivery of content (how to structure systems to that end and to allow for that notion to be taken into account in these discussions on system) or that it is even germane to these discussions.  Much attention has been focused on Gamism and how to design systems that facilitate that Mode of play best for it is understood (or at least now it is) that competition is what is desired out of Gamist priorities.  In other words it has been discussed on these boards that competition is the primary interest in players that enjoy the Gamist mode of play so let us create systems that facilitate that Mode.  The same interest has been shown with Narrativism and the idea of Premise and the Central Question about the human condition in the design of games.  Theory has helped to identify and perhaps distill what is most interesting to those players who enjoy the Narrativist priority for game designers and DM's so they may best support those interests.  These designed games can take many forms and emphasize different elements of Exploration but the do have an over riding focus.  As it stands on these boards, to the best of my limited understanding, the abiding interest for Simulationism has not been identified.  I, however, believe/propose that the abiding (not only), if not currently well understood, interest in Simulationism is dramaticism.

I believe (I do not dictate, but I propose and argue vigorously, for I can not impel anyone do anything, nor do I wish to do any such thing) that mode of play currently known as Simulationist is most directly geared to support dramatic content because 4 of the means of exploration are content (drama/story) oriented.  Furthermore I would like to open up to discussion the idea that what is known as Simulationism be split into to two separate modes.  One I would call Dramaticism, which would continue with the 4 areas of dramatic exploration and be understood to be as such, a means to explore story/drama in its experiential form and its various human interests.  The other I would call Simulationism and it would be the creative priority domain of those games that prioritize system such as purists for system and those interested in simulation for its own sake.  I would describe those priorities of play as those that are not interested in the experiential process but are more interested in the ends/outcomes (how things work out) or modeling (how well the system or how accurately the system mimics/imitates/predicts outcomes).

I DO NOT SAY THAT SIMULATIONISM AS I HAVE REDEFINED (for the sake of argument) IS ANY LESS OF A PRIORITY.  I am not saying it a lesser form of play, nor am I attempting to "ghettoize" it.  I do not make any value judgments regarding this mode of play, I am merely proposing a restructuring of the GNS Model to facilitate what I believe to be a better model understanding that accommodates more of what has not really been accounted for while reducing some of the internal tensions that exist in the current model of Simulationism as it is currently labeled.

To Whit – (again very rough and broad terms)
Gamism = Competition
Narrativism = The Question (regarding some aspect of the human condition)
Dramaticism = Drama/Emotions
Simulationism = Modeling

We model so extensively in Dramaticism because it helps inform us of our imagined environment.  We care about the damage, range, and rate of fire of a bow because it helps us determine how we would react when faced with such a threat.  If the potential for damage/death was low then we would not react the same way we would if the potential for extreme damage/death was great.  Is this bow merely a minor annoyance or do we fear this thing greatly?  If we are react to the environment we are going to need to have it act in predictable ways.

Also in this model of Dramaticism I again assert that conflict is the motivating source.  Yes one can certainly enjoy beautiful descriptions, they add tremendous flavor to the game, but as a motivating force in a game I believe that a game founded/principally motivated/prioritized to description above events (implications of conflict) then the game will eventually fall apart for lack of motive force i.e., people will tend to get bored after a while.  This does not mean such a game cannot thrive, but in general such a priority, be it explored in movies or books or TV shows tends to not resonate well with audiences.

Any thoughts anyone?

Some thoughts on the use of specialty vocabulary on these boards.  It appears that M.J. Young took some exception to the way I used a word drawn from his essay.  I apologize to him for causing some confusion and (what appeared to be) dismay on his part.  The word in question was "credibility."  As I was unaware that the work had another specialized meaning, a vernacular meaning other than standard usage I made an error in a fashion that appeared that I was dismissing outright efforts by M.J. Young.  I was not and I apologize if it appeared that I had been dismissive.  I still stand by what I said, (which does not conflict with his use of "Credibility") however I propose that in future cases where common words are give a more specific meaning perhaps some sort of tag, such as capitalizing could be employed to indicate something is afoot.  I had no idea of the specific meaning of the word "credibility" was different from standard usage and there was no reference cited to suggest otherwise.  I even checked the vocabulary section in the essays section of the sight after the rebuke and did not find the word listed.  I don't have any issue with the specific definition of the word as used by M.J. Young, and again I apologize for any misunderstanding, I just ask that in the future that any important word that has broader common meanings be flagged in some fashion so as to facilitate easier understanding and thus aiding constructive dialogue.

Ian and Ron I thank you both for your clarifications.

To continue with some words I propose again that Metagaming be defined as the following –

Overt out of imagined space references that violate the integrity of the imagined space.  This definition can be broken into two parts.  Metagame references that have nothing to do with affecting the Imagined Space, i.e., references to personal life events etc., that break engagement with the imagined space and Metagame references that impact directly on the Imagined Space but do so in a fashion that breaks internal (in game/imagined space) causality.

In game causality is not restricted to rules specifically and thus by breaking in game causality I do not mean specifically the breaking of rules.  Breaking rules, "cheating", can be a form of breaking internal causality (Metagaming), but that action is not the defining element here.  Breaking internal causality is breaking the link between cause and effect that has been established in the imagined space of the game, i.e. the established (or at least understood) physics/reality of the world which can include the breaking of the arrow of time.  Just because someone gives an in depth description of a battle tactic that can result in bonuses does not make it Metagaming.  If the player says, "I swing overhead to get a +2 bonus," then that is breaking engagement and could be termed Metagaming.  But if the player states, "I pull my sword behind, and with a two handed blow I arc it over my head and drive down upon the skull of the Orc," that is entirely in game even though he is reaching for a +2 bonus.  The player is using an in game (in imagined space) descriptor that results in an established in game bonus without breaking engagement.

Another example could be the table in the room.  If the DM clearly establishes that a room is empty and the player declares that he walks to the table then Metagaming issues arise.  The player has established an effect, the existence of the table, without in game cause, i.e., magic.  However if the DM is not specific or complete in his description of the imagined space it could be allowable that a player "fills in the blanks," and not be Metagaming.  The player is not placing something where it was clear there was nothing before in violation of precedent, rather he is filling in what was not fully established, he is aiding in the Exploration of Setting.  In other words it is plausible that such a table was there just not seen by the characters and therefore not described.  Causality was not broken.  There does not need to be a written rule to allow this though it could be agreed by tacit approval by the DM.

Note, I am not arguing that Metagaming is inherently bad, I am arguing that Metagaming is in direct conflict with internal causality.  As internal causality is key to "Dramaticism" excessive use can lead to problems.  I do agree with Ian that it is a matter of use to taste, I just argue that that taste typically (not always) lies in the low end us use.

It is clear here that you're using "metagaming" to mean "breaking the rules". In that sense, you can't have valid metagaming in any form of gaming, because as long as it means "breaking the rules" it's cheating.

Not so, rules can allow for Metagaming and be an integral part of the game design.  Internal causality within the Imagined Space and the rules system are not one in the same.  Internal Causality is the arrow of time that follows the unfolding of a series of events (within a given framework – a combination of setting, rules, and common sense that picks up where rules left off) that led up to "something happening/effect."  The second form of Metagaming is the altering of that "something happening/effect."  Rules can allow for that altering, but can still be in violation of the arrow of time, thus breaking internal causality.  A rule may allow a player to alter the outcome of an event by the use of some sort of currency that is established within the rules framework but outside the imagined space.  Rules are used to model the imagined world, but they are not the imagined world.  Therefore it is possible to have Metagaming without "breaking rules."  This is not inherently bad, but in an experiential style game it conflicts with our own experiencing of events of moving from cause to effect.  We feel it as jarring.  

In systems where Metagaming is integral, from what I understand, the rules are specific allowances for that breaking of the arrow of time.  The breaking of the arrow time is specifically allowable under certain game systems, but even here it is allowed under specific and delineated circumstances, not as a generalized concept.  Without the arrow of time it would be impossible to play as effect could happen without cause.

To summarize the second aspect of Metagaming can be broken into two parts.  That which is specifically permitted by the rules, but breaks internal causality, and that which is not permitted by the rules but breaks internal causality.  The former can and is designed into game systems and they tend to fall either into Narrativist or Gamist Modes.  The later can be broken into either rules breaking or character breaking.  If one is rules breaking then they are cheating.  Breaking character can be described as allowing an out of game (out of imagined space) agenda to dictate in game actions.  This last one is open to all sorts of mitigating factors and can be the cause of much rancor because character can be internal and not fully revealed to all the other players at the table thus making determining motive difficult to ascertain.  It can have a corrosive effect at the table.  For example a player is playing a Berserker who suddenly becomes cowardly when he sees the odds are stacked against him and shies away from battle.

The effects of breaking internal causality prevent an effect from flowing naturally/logically from the cause.  This can manifest itself in two ways.  The effect simply is not allowed to come into being after being caused thus stopping the arrow of time.  The effect as a result of the cause is altered after coming into being the arrow of time is reversed and allowed to flow down a new path including a path that does not have an effect.

If this definition does not suffice I then ask Ron if it would be useful to create a new thread to discuss the definition of Metagame.

Another point of contention that has turned is the definition of what a RPG is and defined by it elements.  I refer specifically to the Avatar/Character that seems to me, at least, one of the bedrocks of roleplay.  In other words, without a character then one is not playing a roleplaying game.  Is this something that needs to be discussed in a broader sense in a new thread or is it something that is patently understood to be central to the hobby?

At any rate in my next post I will try to be more proactive and describe what I am attempting to do and less time in apologetics.

Best,

Silmenume.

[Ian Charvill]

To Whit – (again very rough and broad terms)
Gamism = Competition
Narrativism = The Question (regarding some aspect of the human condition)
Dramaticism = Drama/Emotions
Simulationism = Modeling

W/r/t this one point, question would be:

Why is it valid to split simulationism between emotional/intellectual engagement, but not split Gamism and Narrativism in this way?

There are, it should be observed, a huge number of ways in which you could split the various modes of play.  The question would be: what is really gained by doing so?