The roots of Sim II

[Silmenume]

2 things -

First - Bangs are not Force.  

Force is "the final authority that any person who is not playing a particular player-character has over decisions and actions made by that player-character."

Bangs by their definition drive the player/character to make a decision right now, not deprive them of the final authority in making a decision.

Bangs are almost the opposite of force.  I understand that force can subvert bangs, but by their very nature they are nearly opposites.  One demands a decision; the other robs the player of the authority of a decision.

Second - I am going to move this part of the discussion to a new thread, but exploring character does necessarily comfortably contain the idea of plumbing the moral makeup of a character's persona.  There is nothing inherently Narrativist about moral questions and exploring character.  Exploring a character's personality in Sim cannot automatically exclude certain portions of said character's personality makeup i.e., moral compass.  This is the very issue I brought up in my earlier post saying that discussing character exploration quickly gets the effort labeled Narrativist.  ANY portion of a character's persona can be explored in Sim, including moral compass, it's just how those issues come into play and how they are handled in game.  Exploration in Sim does not say, "thou shalt explore character but thou shalt not explore the moral makeup of said character!"

It won't be until later tonight until I can open the new thread.

Aure Entaluve,

Silmenume

edit - addition of quotes for clarification purposes

[Jason Lee]

2 things -

First - Bangs are not Force.  

Force is "the final authority that any person who is not playing a particular player-character has over decisions and actions made by that player-character."

Bangs by their definition drive the player/character to make a decision right now, not deprive them of the final authority in making a decision.

Bangs are almost the opposite of force.  I understand that force can subvert bangs, but by their very nature they are nearly opposites.  One demands a decision; the other robs the player of the authority of a decision.

I think we have different definitions of Force.  My definition is that Force is what forces something happen.  Bangs, as events, shape the course of events; narrowing the story path to the decisions made in regards to the Bang, which might be contrary to the Premise the players might prefer.

I'm viewing Force as both force to create conflicts (Bangs) and force to resolve them.

I accept your definition of Bangs and their purpose.  I also accept that I may not be using the word 'Force' in its local jargon form (GM-oomph).

[Sean]

Caldis - my creative agenda was focus on exploration of character. That was what I wanted to do with the game, visualize more and more deeply the character I had created. (Sometimes. This is not the whole history of my or even this character's play, only one important and somewhat theoretically interesting phase of my game-play, which I sort of wish now had come up in another thread if at all. This is my last post on the subject in this one.) My GMs creative agenda was making story out of that focus by putting her in situations where her choices would address premise. I was not addressing premise at the time and never gave it even a moment's thought.

Cruciel - one more time, we were addressing premise, perhaps, but I was not. Del was using my intense exploratory focus as a way of making story out of what we were doing.

Consistency of character, even moral consistency, does not, I think, imply anything about GNS modes. Lots of extraordinarily interesting paladins played in an entirely gamist mode in D&D. The theme is there, the premise is there, the deep moral beliefs are there, the well-thought out personality is there. What's not there is the decision to spend time on heavy exploration of this or the focus of play-decisions on challenging those beliefs to produce premise-rich story. So not Narrativist.

[Jason Lee]

Sean,

I'll take your response to mean I'm off base, so I'll let it lie.  

Except, I would like to make a note in response, and swing this back around to the topic. (I think, Mike?  When you get a chance of course. I see that this thread has exploded on you.)  The questions become "Can a player explore his character's moral decisions without being interested in those decisions, and hence prioritizing Nar?  Is that then Sim?  Then what's the point of Sim?"  The Beeg Horseshoe (Mike's approach, not the Words-In-Jared's-Mouth approach) is intended to answer befuddling sequences of questions like that with answers other than: "Yes, yes, and nothing, respectively."

[Silmenume]

Hey cruciel (Jason)!

Fair enough on the definition issue.

I would guess, by your inclusion of the idea of Illusionism, that you believe Force (as you have defined it) has a somewhat negative connotation.

I do not agree that the DM laying conflict before the players requires that said players be deprotagonized.  Illusionism is a process whereby the DM removes the players' choices regarding a situation/conflict and the players are OK with that.  That the DM places a conflict before the players is not inherently deprotagonizing unless the social contract/system specifically empowers the players to make such decisions regarding situation/conflict.  Unless the players have such power to choose, then bangs cannot by definition be Illusionist.

I do agree with you though, that when players are empowered to make situation choices that Bangs can require Illusionism, but that is not a generalized state.  In Sim, the DM acting as an agent of "the world," has full authority to have events fall into the players' laps and not be Illusionism for the players have surrendered no power.

Aure Entaluva,

Silmenume

PS - Yes you got my name right!

[Caldis]

You've stated that you are done with the discussion so I wont persue this any further than simply saying that I would be interested to hear more about your player/gm - sim/nar split in the future and will look for the thread should you ever decide to start it up.

Consistency of character, even moral consistency, does not, I think, imply anything about GNS modes. Lots of extraordinarily interesting paladins played in an entirely gamist mode in D&D. The theme is there, the premise is there, the deep moral beliefs are there, the well-thought out personality is there. What's not there is the decision to spend time on heavy exploration of this or the focus of play-decisions on challenging those beliefs to produce premise-rich story. So not Narrativist.

Back to the meat of the topic and Mike's original point ( I hope) and to do that we have to turn the above post around.  Since morals and themes can be present in all three modes, just as exploration of setting, colour,character and system can be, then there is nothing unique about simulationism that sets it appart from the others.  All three modes can explore these elements to varying degrees so by choosing simulationism you are not choosing it over game or narr you are simply choosing not to add that extra level to the sim.  Narrativism adds that address of premise to the exploration, Gamism adds the 'step on up',  simulationism adds nothing because it is exploration.

[Jason Lee]

Jay,

I would guess, by your inclusion of the idea of Illusionism, that you believe Force (as you have defined it) has a somewhat negative connotation.

Maybe implied, not intentional.  It took me quite a while to realize that I didn't hate Illusionism.  I hated Illusionism to decide the outcome of conflicts, not Illusionism to create conflicts.  One deprotogonizes, and one controls pacing.  To me, force is like raw energy - you can use it to create momentum or stop momentum.

I do not agree that the DM laying conflict before the players requires that said players be deprotagonized.  Illusionism is a process whereby the DM removes the players' choices regarding a situation/conflict and the players are OK with that.  That the DM places a conflict before the players is not inherently deprotagonizing unless the social contract/system specifically empowers the players to make such decisions regarding situation/conflict.  Unless the players have such power to choose, then bangs cannot by definition be Illusionist.p

I'm in total agreement here, I think our definitions of Illusionism are a little different too (or maybe I'm think more of Illusionist Techniques than Illusionism).

I do agree with you though, that when players are empowered to make situation choices that Bangs can require Illusionism, but that is not a generalized state.  In Sim, the DM acting as an agent of "the world," has full authority to have events fall into the players' laps and not be Illusionism for the players have surrendered no power.

Maybe a little example?  If you, the GM, prepare a scene you think would be really cool to have happen before game.  Then, at some point, you change the location of the scene or alter it somewhat to make it happen, I'd call that an Illusionist Technique (not necessarily Illusionism, just partly).   Now, the subtleties would lie in whether or not getting this scene in game relies on the PC's doing certain things (high potential for deprotagonizing force), a PC sort of triggering it (creating conflict), or it having squat to do with the PC's (just the GM playing the world).

Seems like, aside from definitional issues, we're probably in agreement.  Let me know.

[M. J. Young]

On a broader level I think that from what I've seen in the narrativism essay and in the discussion taking place on these boards I'd have to state that the only valid form of Simulationism is Illusionism.

This perturbed me; I was preparing to write a post which called attention to a distinction

I think our definitions of Illusionism are a little different too (or maybe I'm think more of Illusionist Techniques than Illusionism).

An illusionist technique is any use of credibility to remove the significance of an apparent choice. These can be extremely effective, used appropriately.

I've got a world in development right now (for The Third Book of Worlds) in which there is a scenario that uses an illusionist technique quite dramatically, to create a very dramatic opportunity for gamist play. The scenario provides maps of a location that get pieced together by the referee to meet the player's movements--that is, if the player moves in a particular direction, the referee chooses one of the map fragments to fill that area, and that becomes the map for that section. The events that happen are not on the map; nor are the random. They occur in a sequence designed to be strongly cinematic, and the referee runs them in that sequence, choosing when and where they occur.

The result is that the player's choices regarding which direction to go will never lead him to reach the end location before he has been through the events of the adventure; further, at several points the player will be given information in one encounter that will be useful in a subsequent encounter, and he is unlikely to miss the information because the encounters are set by time, not by place. He will go through the entire "story", much like a character in a film. He still "chooses" which way to go, but those choices actually mean nothing--they are just color.

On the other hand, what he does with each of those events is entirely in his hands. If he decides to leave the area entirely, he's free to do so; if he avoids an encounter, or parlays, or fights, or uses trickery, or surrenders--whatever he chooses, he is in control of that part of the story that matters. The referee is in control of the part of the story that doesn't matter but as a framework for the real story.

There is no guarantee that the character will win any encounter, or lose; or that his companions will survive, or die; or that he will ultimately save the day or destroy everything.

The way I have put it before, it is good to use illusionist techniques to take from the player the decisions that don't matter so that you can bring them to the decisions that do.

Illusionism, overall, takes all the decisions away from the players--that is, nothing they choose matters more than as color. It's not exactly railroading, and it's not participationism, although these are closely related.

It's like Jennifer sitting on Grandad's knee, and he says, "Once upon a time there was a princess." She says, "And the princess' name was Jennifer, wasn't it, Grandad?" "Yes, that's right, the princess' name was Jennifer." She hasn't changed the story at all; she's introduced color to it.

In Illusionism, the players think they're making meaningful choices, but all they're actually doing is coloring the referee's story as he tells it. They get to the end, and they feel like great heroes because they think they won, when actually the end was never in doubt--only the color.

In Participationism, the same thing is happening except that the players suffer no illusions. They know that the only thing they contribute is color, and they eagerly do so while the referee tells his story. They're enjoying creating color. They choices do not impact the story, but they don't want them to--they want to hear the referee's story, and feel like they're part of it, like Jennifer does when Grandad uses her name for the princess.

In Railroading, the players are actively trying to do one thing, and the referee is using illusionist and other techniques to negate every meaningful choice they make against their expectations and desires, so that they can only tell his story no matter what they attempt to do to the contrary.

In Trailblazing, the referee is using no force nor illusionist technique at all, but rather has set up a scenario filled with clues for the players to follow; the players, meanwhile, have (usually implicitly, not explicitly) agreed up front that their objective in play is to follow those clues and in essence "win" by finding their way through the referee's story, including whatever obstacles, puzzles, and problems exist within it--a successful game is one in which the referee doesn't have to use any tricks to get them "back on track" because they never lost the track, because it was their agreed objective to be on it.

None of these are particularly simulationist; and simulationism frequently exists entirely without any of these.

For example, most Multiverser player characters start in NagaWorld. Those of you who have seen it (from inside or out) know that it is a vast and strange world with a lot of fascinating things to discover and explore. That's really all it is. Sure, there are dangers in every direction, and you can make it gamist or narrativist if you choose to do so--but ultimately the referee isn't forcing you to go anywhere or do anything, he's just presenting the world as it exists and letting you do with it whatever you would like. Visit the glass city, experiment with the ancient artifacts, go to the industrial complex, contact the aliens, dig into the earth, travel to the end of the world--there are no restraints but that the universe is finite, and if you hit the edge, that, too, is a discovery.

The open-ended exploration of such a world is simulationism; it is not in the least illusionist--you probably couldn't run an illusionist campaign in NagaWorld, or at least it would be extremely difficult to do.

So I don't understand why anyone would think simulationism is illusionist.

--M. J. Young

[Caldis]

So I don't understand why anyone would think simulationism is illusionist.

--M. J. Young

I'm sorry I was in a rush and grabbed for the correct word and picked something entirely different.  I was following Mikes premise, and I'm paraphrasing here, that all play is inherently exploration but supposedly simulationism is only about exploration and nothing more.   All three are supposedly about exploration but both nar and game are about things in addition to exploration, yet do not necessarily reveal themselves in every moment of play.   Sim however never reveals itself, it is the norm upon which the others are based therefore it's not a play style it is the higher level of exploration upon which the other levels are based.  

What I was looking to describe when I mistakenly grabbed illusionism is the vary rare type of play where someone is trying to recreate a work of drama.  They have no emotional involvement in the characters winning or losing or in attempts to create drama, they simply create rules to govern probability and then let the situations play out with no control over how the characters act it's all created before hand.  Deeply intellectual pursuits that are far from typical.  That is the only type of play that didnt fit into Mike's discourse in his excellent (second) post back on page one of this thread.

I really think he's on to something with his thoughts and have tried to add to the discussion but I fear my thoughts and words have bounced around too much and may have muddled his points.

[Mike Holmes]

Here are my responses in order. Sorry for taking so long, and for the odd presentation below (rushed).

Jack, yes exploration is what makes RPGs different. When we discussed the "what makes something an RPG" threads, that special thing that I refered to was unfettered exploration. In other games, you can't really explore because they limit you to certain actions. This is a limited take, which makes more sense with my response to John L.


John, that "something else" that Sim has is merely the ways in which we maintain plausibility, or that immersive feel. The idea is that, in assuming that we can do "anything" with that "other" that you refer to, you have something that's unique to RPGs. That is, Ron has said that Sim is Exploration Squared, it's just more exploration, more of the time. I'm saying that it's devotion to maintaining that thing that is unique to RPGs. We're all saying the same thing in different ways. We're all saying it is special, and something that goes beyond mere child's play, yes.

As to your second point about whether sim is dominant, I think that texts that say that you should suppress your other drives are common to an extent. But their rules say otherwise. Hence the incoherence problem being common. In the texts trying to avoid incoherence, they end up saying that one should stay away from G and N. But in the rules you can see that they still want these things. They just haven't figured out how to do it right at that point systemwise (and maybe we still haven't). But this is about bad designs, not really sim games. I don't think there are really sim games from a system perspective.

One thing that Ron's never been able to explain to me is how come if "System Does Matter" the problems with the texts are so important? I mean, sure there's a second layer of icoherence there, but isn't it relatively minor? Or is text more important than we thought?


Jason, you'd have to expand that theory (dials on the parts of exploration) some for me to be able to comment on it. On your later point, Ron has changed from the "moral and ethical" definition. So much so towards "emotion" that I think that all play is co-opted to some extent (as you'll see below).

Force and illusionism issues come dow to a question of whether a player has been given the ability to play Gamist or Narrativist. Basically a participant (often the GM) can take that away. When that happens, then the players can only explore. I don't think that GMs often take away all Gam or Nar opportunities, but to the extent that it happens, the GM is making Sim the only mode available. I think it's possible that a GM may be able to do this with other modes, too, but that merely means that the player can't "play sim" (fail to play the enforced mode) on those occasions where the revealing decisions come up. Or, if they could, everyone would know that play had ceased being an RPG and had become a game or story.


Caldis, the "why" sim, is the same as "why play RPGs". That is, if sim is just more exploration, then we do it for the same reason that we do RPGs to begin with. If you play RPGs you're a simmie right from the get go. The only question is whether you also then do Gamism or Narrativism with your RPGing. Why do you see less of these modes with other people? Because they're prioritizing the reason they came to the table in the first place. I firmly believe that if people wanted to just play Gamist, they'd play chess or Advanced Squad Leader. If they really wanted to just create a story, they'd write (even collaboratively).



Jason, John K, et al. I did ask people to denounce the theories. It wasn't that that I was commenting on, but the apparent expectation that I would defend the positions I had asked for people to destroy.


John, I've always agreed with you that RPGs have their own aesthetic. That said, it isn't so different from literary or game aesthetics that we can't make comparisons. That is, it's no surprise to me that some people want to do their exploration in such a way that it produces something akin to a story in the literature sense. I mean, people often say, "I want to play something that feels like LOTR." What are we to assume from that?

Yes, there may be "reduction in emotion" from time to time, but my point all along has been that the emotional moments only happen sporadically anyhow. That is, yes you can have less active pursuit of, say, Narrativism. That doesn't mean that it never happens, however. By which I mean to say that even very occasional narrativism is still a draw for all RPGs. The same with occasional Gamism. I think that the game completely in one of the three modes is very rare to non-existent.


Silmenume, I think that exploration is not just creating and experiencing. If so, then painting would be an RPG. I'm not sure what you're saying when you say that RPGs use "the tools of story creation". That is these tools are just imagination. All imagination is about seeing things (characters) in places doing stuff. Stories are imagination written down in very specific ways. Yes, sometimes RPG play resembles a story, but the exploration element actually takes it beyond a story to something somewhat akin to actual experience. Wheras stories don't have that same quality because you can only recieve them. This is the unique part.

I do agree, however, that we don't sim out being cubicle workers (unless it's a Dilbert RPG), because we do want to explore something interesting. It's that "interesting" element, that makes RPGs automatically Narrativist. Until I hear of a RPG called "Boredom" where the idea is to play out the most unemotionally engaging elements of life that exist, I'll say that all RPGs have this small element of Narrativism. I think this is why the term premise was so problematic early on. I do think that every game has a Narrativist Premise, even if the emotional responses from it are subtle "Gee Whiz!" moments.

Gamism is the same. In some ways, Gamism is just "player Narrativism" in that it's not the player feeling for the character that happens, but feeling for himself.

I don't see the "problem" with character sim. But I think that for others that might have a problem, my take on things makes it easier to understand. Process, answer, it's all part of the same spectrum of play. I do agree that one can prioritize exploration in more ways than have been found to date.


Walt, I think Sim is unique, because, as all of play before the reveal moments, effectively, it's most of play for everyone. All the time. That is, the conversation is always "about" sim, it just takes breaks to be Gamist or Narrativist at times. If those opportunities are siezed upon whenever they appear, the game can be said to be Gamist or Narrativist depending. But that doesn't mean that exploration isn't happening before, and after. Just suspended for a while. What this means is that my model has no ambiguities. Play is "ambiguous," and therefore exploratory, until it becomes Gamist or Narrativist. It's not important to figure out what the ambiguous moments are because being Congruent (to use your term), they can't offend anyone. And that's what GNS is all about when the day is done. Who enjoys playing with whom.

Can moments that are G or N be on the borderline? Of course. But to the extent that they are, they're less likely to be offensive.


Sean, I refer you to the response I gave to Silmenume above. As Ron says, plausibilty has to exist for story to have weight. So, of course there's no problem with the idea of character sim. It's what you do until you decide to make a decision that addresses premise. In any case, I side with the side that says that all curiosity has a reason behind it. Ron would have to agree. Note that in Ron's model, "time spent" doesn't really mean anything. You don't typically play a little sim and then a little narrativism - there's an overall agenda to all play (which can change, but more glacially than my model). Again, there is no conflict in understanding to say that "prioritizing" exploration is simulationism. It just seems to lead to misunderstandings, IMO. I'm merely trying to restate the theory in a way that makes people understand how the things in question interact.

Did someone say that Drift was hard? I think that informed Drift is quite simple. I just think that the vast majority of Drift occurs without analysis. In any case, no doubt that it's easier to accomplish from the social aspect if there are fewer people - only stands to reason.

Your comments about Sim/Nar splitting get the same treatment as Jay's above. If they don't annoy anyone, then who cares what they are precisely. What you're describing is a coherent creative agenda, and that's all that matters.


Gordon, again, it's my supposition that points #1 and #2 are people discussing the bad reasons why these things do happen. So I agree with you. My point is that we shouldn't worry about the bad reasons, unless they're the primary reason, which I think they're not.

I don't think that Sim means we don't "care" about the other priorities. This is almost the central problem of perception that I'm trying to fix. If that's true, then sim doesn't exist. Because we don't ever stop being competitive emotional individuals. What Sim "is" is putting exploration first, despite still wanting the other two things. Yes, that's prioritization, and as I say repeatedly that this doesn't conflict with the original model. But the perspective is different - with my model, we're not retreating from the other two, we're prioritizing the third so that, if/when we get to the other two, they'll have meaning for us. Again, we play RPGs to explore. So "Sim" is just making sure that when we get to Gamism or Narrativism, that we're still roleplaying as well. It's the framework for all play. And for some players that needs more investment than other to stand up right. That doesn't mean that these players are uncompetitive, unemotional beings. We don't do sim because we don't care about the other two, we do it because we like the other two, and the other two would be worthless without sim (well, not if what you wanted was Monopoly in the first place).

Mike

[Silmenume]

Silmenume, I think that exploration is not just creating and experiencing. If so, then painting would be an RPG. I'm not sure what you're saying when you say that RPGs use "the tools of story creation".

You broke the intent of my statement into two distinct parts that were never meant to be thought of separately.  I will take the blame on that, probably poor writing on my part.  The tools of creation that I make reference to both constrain the scope of the imaginative efforts and aid in its employment.  The tools of painting creation would include a palette, canvas, brushes, paints and the like.  These tools constrain the bounds of the raw creative imagination of the employer into a form and thus constrain content.  Finally these tools are actually employed in the creation of said work.  To continue with the analogy, the employment of the "tools of story creation," leads to the constraint and focusing of the raw imaginative process to that of story creation.  Whether one is interested in or overtly focuses their efforts upon creating a story, experiencing the events that make up a story, or focusing on the conflict end of story determines which CA is in operation. (roughly speaking)

Painting is not an RPG, though both share the personal acts of creation and the personal act of experiencing the acts of creation Painting's tools are palette, canvas, brushes, etc., while RPG's tools are system, character, situation, setting, color and the temporal element of creating for the moment only (or primarily).  These two distinct acts of creation are not the same in form, though they may attempt the same goal of affectation.  The fact that RPG's have certain tools of creation, system is the tool, the story elements the clay, makes it a creative process unique from other creative process.

Exploration, as indicated in the model IS a creation process.  The process of Exploration is adding to the Shared Imagined Space.  If a participant is not adding then they are not playing.  This statement makes its time reference over the course of an entire night's game – not moment to moment.  Experiencing is the feedback loop between creating and gauging the results of said act of creating.  I mean that both physiologically and experientially within the mind.  The ears sense, but the mind assigns meaning.

Yes, sometimes RPG play resembles a story, but the exploration element actually takes it beyond a story to something somewhat akin to actual experience. Wheras stories don't have that same quality because you can only receive them. This is the unique part.

I agree.  Which makes me wonder why you poo-poo'd my statement that exploration is a creative and experiential process.

I do agree, however, that we don't sim out being cubicle workers (unless it's a Dilbert RPG), because we do want to explore something interesting. It's that "interesting" element, that makes RPGs automatically Narrativist ... Gamism is the same. In some ways, Gamism is just "player Narrativism" in that it's not the player feeling for the character that happens, but feeling for himself.

I think this particular idea may lie at the heart of some of your concerns.  All roleplay, at some point or another is about the player feeling something.  In the theory it's called engagement.  In each mode of play the player in engaging in play to feel something, its just what process that leads to the feeling that is different.  In Gamist play it's the feelings generated from the competition and the victory.  In Narrativist play it's the feelings the generated from the act of addressing premise then subsequent created story.  In Simulationist play it's the feelings generated from the act of creation (those acts being constrained to the exploration elements) and the act of experiencing the acts of creation (self or other).  The thing is that Sim places a premium/priority on trying wed the "interests" of the PC and the player.  In fact I will go as far as to say that Sim "can" be even more "interesting" to play in that one does not have to hop out of character as often as in the two other modes of play.  (That it is more interesting is a matter of personal opinion, obviously!  That one does not inherently have to hop out of character as often is, I think, axiomatic.  I understand that light points of contact can be present in all modes of play, but addressing out of SIS concerns does bear an opportunity cost.)

That desire to play an "interesting" character does not automatically equate to a Narrativist agenda.  Interesting depends on the interests of the player that is then reflected in their CA.  If you meant interesting as in, "I am interested in seeing what it is like to be/live such a character, then that would be Sim."  If you meant interesting as in, "I am interested in the story that would arise from playing such a character, then that would be Nar."  If you meant interesting as in, "I am interested in the challenge posed to achieving victory that would arise from playing such a character, then that would be Gam."

Process, answer, its all part of the same spectrum of play.

I do not agree and again I think this may be another sticking point you having.  Gamist and Narrativist play are product/answer oriented.  In Gamist and Narrativist play one creates with an eye on the end product, whereas in Sin one creates for the pleasure and aesthetic of the act of creation.  The final product may be the same, i.e., the same created output that is a story, but the reasons why we engaged in the efforts to create are vastly different.  These different reasons are the very reasons we play, so it make a HUGE difference to those are involved in the game.  As players we are not creating for outsiders, but we are creating for ourselves.  As this creative effort is a group process it demands that all players are all on the same page and are engaging the creative process for the same general reasons.  "Process" and "answer" are not the same general reasons to create.

Food for thought.

Aure Entaluva,

Silmenume

[Mike Holmes]

The tools of creation that I make reference to both constrain the scope of the imaginative efforts and aid in its employment.  

...

The fact that RPG's have certain tools of creation, system is the tool, the story elements the clay, makes it a creative process unique from other creative process.

Maybe. I'd be more OK with the idea if we said it was a different medium, indicating that the tools even interact in different ways. That is, you can call people in a book or in an RPG characters - and in some ways they're similar. But it's the medium of the shared space that makes these things different in application.

Exploration, as indicated in the model IS a creation process.  The process of Exploration is adding to the Shared Imagined Space.  If a participant is not adding then they are not playing.  This statement makes its time reference over the course of an entire night's game – not moment to moment.  Experiencing is the feedback loop between creating and gauging the results of said act of creating.  I mean that both physiologically and experientially within the mind.  The ears sense, but the mind assigns meaning.

Again, I agree in principle, but have terminological problems. Because, again, you can experience a play, I think. That is, you automatically experience anything that you create. That alone doesn't cover RPGs. It's more like "experience as though present". It's participation, but that's not strong enough either, as one can participate in creating a play. I don't even think that the sort of creation, experiencing, and participation that you'd get from Improv Theatre conveys this extra thing. In that case, you're creating for an audience, in no way are you associating yourself directly with the character. See, in a very minor way, RPGs give you the feeling of "being" the character. That's what's unique to RPGs. In no other medium do you put yourself in the position of the character as much as in RPGs. In all other forms, you experience the creation as an external stimulus, like you said, a feedback loop. Only in RPGs can you skip the middleman of the medium itself, and just "be" the character.

Simulationism is protecting exploration for the intent of preventing this unique feeling from fading for the individual. The level to which the protection needs to be carried for an individual to maintain the feel is highly personal. Enough so that when you have a higher level of requirement, those with lower may see it as skipping good opportunities to make tactically sound or story enhancing decisions. This is where the incoherence can come in.

I agree.  Which makes me wonder why you poo-poo'd my statement that exploration is a creative and experiential process.

To an extent, it's creating the illusion that the virtual is real. Or internal vs. external. Again, it's a step beyond.

The thing is that Sim places a premium/priority on trying wed the "interests" of the PC and the player.

Close. I think that sim is setting up the situation so that when you do go to Gamism or Narrativism, these things are congruous. Sim is not going to these modes until everything is "right". That is, only doing it when the actions are more congruent, when they "reaveal" less.

That desire to play an "interesting" character does not automatically equate to a Narrativist agenda.  

Not per the old definition, no. But per my take, yes it does. It may be a very "weak" narrativist agenda, or one in which exploration is prioritized over it. That's where my definition contradicts the current one, if at all. I say we all have all three agendas at all times, we just chose to express them at different rates. We call prioritizing exploration over Nar or Gam, Simulationism. But that ignores that we still have the Nar or Gam (or both) desire, and that we'll indulge that desire on occasion. This is not to assign motives (I don't want to get into all that, again). What it means is that players will momentarily display Gamist or Narrativist "like" (I can't say that they're actuall Gamist or Narrativist without breaking the definitions) behaviors, even when the overall agenda is Simulationist. More importantly, any such drives that we might have (again, whether they exist or not), are potentially satisfied by Congrous play. Meaning that one can like all three modes, and as long as he's making Congruous decisions, he's indulging all three desires potentially. I think this is a lot of play - more than is admitted to.

I do not agree and again I think this may be another sticking point you having.  Gamist and Narrativist play are product/answer oriented.

I think we're getting at the same thing here. The "process" you refer to is that player insertion into the situation. I don't agree with the terms because I can visualize the products of all three being either long term or short term. Instead I'd say that it's more like the internal/external or virtual/real dichotomy above. In actuality there probably isn't a good term for it. I'd like to use Immersion for the one end, but that's problematic to say the least.

Interesting discussion.

Mike

[Sean]

Hi Mike -

Let me just ask you about a couple of straightforward examples.

(1) My friend Jeff at www.curiousgames.net wrote and published a fantasy adventure boardgame. It has a bunch of different scenarios with different victory conditions. He gave the game to his neighbors and they told him that they loved it. Then he went over to play with them, and discovered that they completely ignored the victory conditions. They just liked to go around the map and see what was in the different squares for a few hours. They were exploring the setting, nothing more; that was the focus of their play.

(2) OK, so that's a boardgame, not an RPG. But why can't you have the same thing in an RPG? "I've always wondered what's in that forest at the edge of the map. Let's have our characters go there and see!"

I've seen adventures with little more pretext than this in a lot of well established campaigns. The players just want to explore more and know stuff that's going on.  These adventures sometimes look like: GM describes; players experience and visualize, sometimes making choices ("OK, what do you do now?") that lead their characters towards an Exploratory goal.

Anyway, it's very easy for me to imagine whole adventures based on an agenda involving Exploration of setting in which the players exhibit no interest whatsoever in Step on Up or Story Now. It's a dull story, there aren't many problems to solve, the adventure looks like characters describing actions and the GM describing territory, with the ultimate goal being to find something out. I can have fun playing this way personally, and I know others who can as well, provided that the setting is well enough fleshed out to pique curiosity, to inflame our desire for discovery.

(Should that be it - "Simulationism: the Desire to Discover"? In some ways that seems pretty good to me, though I don't wish to deny that there's also an open-ended wonder involved in Sim exploratory focus sometimes too. But okay, sometimes we have undirected desires, what's the big deal there?)

Seems like role playing to me, doesn't seem like Nar or Gam, maybe there's some attenuated Nar or Gam in there, but the question is the distinct creative agenda.

FWIW I just use Exploration of Setting because I think it's the most obvious case of pure Sim play that most of us might have experienced at some point. I've attested to having done this in my youth with Exploration of Character, and I think that Color and System also can be like this - consider the magic research rules in Ars Magica as a possible example of rules facilitating Exploration of System with a more or less Sim agenda.

There are other problems with the horseshoe metaphor too, but since you (a) cede the practical argument that time for Sim is time away from the others, and (b) I think that there are clear Simulationist creative agendas over and above what's indicated by that practical argument, I guess I'm just not really seeing the point of your big picture, whether it's Dr. Beeg's old Horseshoe or some successor theory which resembles it in certain ways. I do like some of what you say in terms of psychological observations and thoughts about how we manage GNS priorities though.

[Mike Holmes]

Sean, it's a positivist view of Beeg Horseshoe. As opposed to the original version which was negative.

My model completely explains the behavior that you're talking about. It's just exploring. It hasn't added any Gamism or Narrativism. I'm not saying that exploration doesn't happen, I'm saying that it's all of roleplaying, and the only thing we're doing most of the time in RPGs. When I say there's "no Sim" I mean, that there's no time at which we aren't exploring, so there's no reason to say that we're prioritizing it. Because, to an extent we always are. Sometimes we suspend allow exploration to falter when reaching for Gamism or Narrativism. But we're never not exploring.

The point is that when you look at Sim as an agenda, saying that it means eschewing Gamism and Narrativism, I say that's just not what happens. You aren't retreating from those two things, you're just exploring in a way that, if you choose to do Gamism or Narrativism at some later point, it will be more congruent.

Another way to look at that, is to say that we're "prioritizing exploration" over Gamism and Narrativism, and that's valid. But what my take allows us to see is that it's a positive thing, a neccessary thing to do Sim. That it's not some retreat from better modes of play, which is what's being implied.

Note that nobody ever says that Gamism is a retreat from Narrativism. These two things are given their proper respect for what they are - additional bahaviors that can be added to exploration if you don't mind losing out on the feel of the exploration to some extent, and at the time that you do it. Simulationism is exploring, and not dropping that ball, such that you can do things with a motive that might promote Gamism or Narrativism or just Exploration, without losing the feel of the exploration.

That's where exploration is subltly different (IOW, why this isn't just the GENder model). Ron says that Narrativism must be plausible. Well, how plausible? To the level that a player demands plausibility, that's the extent that he wants the choices to be congruent between Sim and Nar. A decision with low plausibility, and high thematic potential would show as Narrativist. So we see that exploration to some varying extent is integral to Narrativism. The other two aren't integral to anything, a game can be just as Gamist or exploratory as you like independent of Narrativism.

Oh, so what's that urge to roam around and discover? That's narrativism. Yes, the emotional excitement of discovery is narrativist. It's Ron's statement that emotional engagement is thematic that shows that it's much wider than we previously thought, in fact, it includes all almost roleplaying to some small extent.

Mike

[Ron Edwards]

Hiya,

Mike, I'm understanding what you're saying fully, I think. But I think that Narrativism isn't quite as broad as you're saying:

so what's that urge to roam around and discover? That's narrativism. Yes, the emotional excitement of discovery is narrativist. It's Ron's statement that emotional engagement is thematic that shows that it's much wider than we previously thought, in fact, it includes all almost roleplaying to some small extent.

My take is that Narrativism is based on emotional engagement with a problematic human issue, which seems a little more limited than what you're talking about.

This post isn't intended to derail or refute any aspect of your argument. This thread and its related threads are strong stuff, and I'm mainly just in listen-and-learn mode.

Best,
Ron