Sim systems

[Tommi Brander]

I have traditionally liked GMing as running a setting, where players can do pretty much whatever they want. Sometimes in quite defined setting (http://s14.invisionfree.com/Tablets_of_Dleinr/index.php?showforum=1, sometimes a kitchen sink one (http://s14.invisionfree.com/Tablets_of_Dleinr/index.php?showforum=2).
I have used and designed basically two kinds of systems; those with a horde of rules and lists and stuff and minimum need for GM or player fiddling, and those with generic and broad rules that require creativity and adjudication in play and especially in character generation.
Of the first kind, most likely almost everyone has experience (think of D&D, GURPS, or most other published systems).
The second trend is something of an offspring of reading Over the Edge and realising just how great free-form ability setting can be.

Traditionally, the rules-heavy (sorry for using inappropriate words; is high points of contact what I am talking about?) systems have been dubbed simulationist or gamist systems.
So, here I was thinking, how do those huge lists of stuff promote simulationism? Creating them is simulationist (how would this work, and how do I best recreate it in this system?), but using them feels a bit bland. Think of playing chess with a computer program and having the option of "let the computer move". You are not doing anything, just seeing how something works or is done. Like watching a movie and not playing narrativist RPGs. You see something happening, it can be enjoyable, but is it really sim? As a GM, this applies to very defined settings (worlds), too.
When running a game in precreated setting, it feels like a huge mathematical formula (maybe because I am a would-be mathemathician, but anyway). The elves are here, the PCs hold something they want, they have this many and these kinds of agents there and there, what do they do?

As an AP content, just in the two previous weeks I have been running the heartbreaker I mentioned earlier. There is a link to the setting above. The PC dragon (young one, but not to be meddled with) was assaulting a group of bug creatures who were expanding a nest of theirs. She charged there and killed some. The rest run to hide (in the underground nest). Soon player (and char) realised that they had a hivemind or were one. After that, she sneaked there and killed one or two and flew away then.
My role? I compiled what I had decided about the creatures and thought of the most obvious countermeasures they could take. When I encountered something that hadn't been decided yet, I either made a decision on spot or made some neutral or ambiguous comment. It was an exercise in understanding how the bugs worked and how the setting worked.
Emphasis: how they worked.
I like doing that. Is this simulationism?

Usually I outline settings on broad strokes, leaving specifics to be desired during play or chargen. That gives something to do.
But, take some old ready-made adventure. Or town. Or setting, like Forgotten Realms. I don't see how a completed setting and ready, specific, rules promote sim. GM can't really adjudicate things because they are already outlined in the material. GM can't do that to rules, either, because they are ready, too. Players might be exploring the setting and liking that. What's a GM to do?
Players might be liking the gamist part in traditional games, and GM too. That wasn't the point.

Poorly defined rule and settings are favoured by me essentially because they give something to do to the GM. Apply the rules or think about the setting.

Is there a reason to create sim RPGs in the traditional way of covering as much ground as possible? Are there other ways of creating them?

[Kintara]

Yes, there are other ways.  Simulationism isn't at all tied to exploring pregenned setting material or systems like GURPS (though my experience with GURPS has been heavily Sim, though I didn't know about such stuff at the time).  It's just that both of those things cater to a certain sort of sim.

If you like creating things like kooky hivemind monsters and then letting your players interact with them just for the fun of doing so, that sounds like sim to me.  What they are exploring is your content.  If they like what they're exploring then they'll continue to be satisfied by your games.  I don't know enough about your players to tell you if that's what they are doing, for sure, though.

[Caldis]

The simplest way to understand Sim is to understand that certain aesthetic qualities of the game are more important to the players then their ability to conciously effect what is being imagined.  What that aesthetic quality is can vary from game to game, for you it's figuring out how the elements logically work together for others it can be enjoying and taking part in the gm's pre-planned plot line, or a 'realistic' system that gives true to life results.

The difficulty with sim is that with the aesthetic qualities varying from game to game what's important in one sim game is not so important in another.  That's why sim can seem to be a vast sea of different CA's yet behaviourly they are all the same.  Valuing x above the players concious desires for the game, where x is whatever is the valued quality.


So to answer your last questions the traditional method of covering lots of ground gives plenty of possible quantities or a very detailed single quantity to latch onto.  Are there other ways to create them, sure if you are more concerned with the system then a highly detailed setting isnt as important (see Gurps)

[Callan S.]

Hi Tommi,

I think you've made some astute observations. This quote is from the narrativism essay (in the articles section), but it's just as applicable to sim. It starts with a quote from the game 'Over the Edge', then Rons comments.

... The first time I played OTE, I had a few pages of notes on the background and nothing on the specifics. I made it all up on the spot. Not having anything written as a guide (or crutch), I let my imagination loose. You have the mixed blessing of having many pages of background prepared for you. If you use the information in this book as a springboard for your own wild dreams, then it is a blessing. If you limit yourself to what I've dreamed up, it's a curse.

All I see, I'm afraid, is the curse. The isolated phrases "mixed blessing" and "(or crutch)" don't hold a lot of water compared to the preceding 152 extraordinarily detailed pages of canonical setting. I'm not saying that improvisation is better or more Narrativist than non-improvisational play. I am saying, however, that if playing this particular game worked so wonderfully to free the participants into wildly successful brainstorming during play ... and since the players were a core source during this event, as evident in the game's Dedication and in various examples of play ... then why present the results of the play-experience as the material for another person's experience?

But here's what I think sim players get out of it.

Lists of equipment and unending rules are sort of like narrativist relationship maps. Imagine instead of hundreds of bits of equipment listed, you had hundreds of relationships listed.
"Jim has the hots for Jane"
"Jim also has the hots for Jill"
"Jill is suppressing feelings for Jims brother"
"Jane has the hots for Jill"

This sort of list shows up relationship problems that can inspire play. In simulationism it's much the same, you might have lists of equipment, but there are certain causal irregularities amongst them. Like Axes are worth 8 gold, but swords do far more damage and are worth 4 gold. What's up with that? It inspires the simulationist to invent how the game world works.

Although I think many simulationists often try to iron out these issues before play, so as to present a beutiful dream, when really these problems being ironed out should be the meat of play itself, IMO.

[Silmenume]

Hi Tommi,

It looks to me, by your post count, as if you are relatively new to the Forge so I would like to offer you a hearty, "welcome!"

Traditionally, the rules-heavy (sorry for using inappropriate words; is high points of contact what I am talking about?) systems have been dubbed simulationist or gamist systems.
So, here I was thinking, how do those huge lists of stuff promote simulationism? Creating them is simulationist (how would this work, and how do I best recreate it in this system?), but using them feels a bit bland. Think of playing chess with a computer program and having the option of "let the computer move". You are not doing anything, just seeing how something works or is done. Like watching a movie and not playing narrativist RPGs. You see something happening, it can be enjoyable, but is it really sim? As a GM, this applies to very defined settings (worlds), too.

To no surprise to anyone who was involved in the theory boards over the previous 2 years, I agree with you completely that what you described is most certainly not coherent Sim.  I should let you know ahead of time that for all practical purposes I am pretty much a loner on this particular understanding of Sim so make sure you take that into account when or if you file any of my response away.

Based upon my own understanding and opinion I both agree with your conclusions and the reasons you provide for your conclusions.  If you wish to spend the time, here are a number of links that delve pretty deeply into Sim theory and analysis.  There are also some links, like the first, which lay the necessary conceptual ground work for talking about "Simulationism."

Ritual Discourse in Role-Playing Games
Not Lectures on Theory [LONG!]
Ramblings on the role of Mechanics in CA's (fishing)
On RPGs and Text [LONG]
The Impossible Thing Before Breakfast
Sim has not be discussed as process yet it needs to be so -
Sim is Bricolage and makes myth - comments?
Celebrating Theme is Nar Equiv of the Gamist Crunch.
Participationism with an Agendum
An effort to un-gum the Discussion.
1/3rd baked idea about Situation and Sim
Bricolage APPLIED (finally!)[/list]

My role? I compiled what I had decided about the creatures and thought of the most obvious countermeasures they could take. When I encountered something that hadn't been decided yet, I either made a decision on spot or made some neutral or ambiguous comment. It was an exercise in understanding how the bugs worked and how the setting worked.
Emphasis: how they worked.
I like doing that. Is this simulationism?

Absolutely – and in spades no less!  From my reading, it was not a process of trying to make sense of someone else's writings about their bugs and how the author explained how they worked, but rather you, as the GM, creating the understanding of how the bugs worked as you saw fit.  You, and the players, are creating the world and all its important elements through the Shared Imaginary Space.  IOW not by sitting around "discussing" the matter out of character, but rather by my making decisions and manifesting them through actions within the "Game space/SIS."

Usually I outline settings on broad strokes, leaving specifics to be desired during play or chargen. That gives something to do.
But, take some old ready-made adventure. Or town. Or setting, like Forgotten Realms. I don't see how a completed setting and ready, specific, rules promote sim. GM can't really adjudicate things because they are already outlined in the material. GM can't do that to rules, either, because they are ready, too. Players might be exploring the setting and liking that. What's a GM to do?

Indeed, what is a GM to do?  The answer, given the above, is nothing.  I.e., you can't do anything given the conditions above.  Again I believe that Sim (aka prioritized bricolage) cannot function when "all the pieces are already in place."  Your "broad strokes" are exactly what is best for allowing the maximum potential for the players to engage in mythic bricolage – expand The Dream though play.  You need enough background and rules to give a sense to the fictional world.  Too much and you've smothered the process because the players have little or nothing to add.  Too little and you don't have a strong enough sense to inform the process.  I fully agree that a "complete and specific rules" system and setting does not promote Sim.  By analogy this complete starting arrangement is the equivalent to starting a Nar game with a Theme already in place.  IOW there is nothing to do!  The Setting and the rules are what is created through protagonized Sim play!  In all fairness I should note that my assertion is not dogma here – in fact it is highly contested.

Poorly defined rule and settings are favoured by me essentially because they give something to do to the GM. Apply the rules or think about the setting.

A phrase that has been employed on these boards before that might be more fruitful is "deliberate ambiguity."  This phrase does away with the inherent negative connotations associated with the adjective "poorly," and actually has a positive goal built in!  Poorly defined rules typically are incoherent.  IOW such rules are thought to impede the expression of Creative Agenda because they are in conflict with themselves or with which CA they are trying to facilitate.  Conversely, "ambiguity" carries a similar connotation as your "broad strokes!"  This is not meant to nit-pick but rather to help frame the process with some sort of direction.

Is there a reason to create sim RPGs in the traditional way of covering as much ground as possible?

I think the answer is plainly, "NO."  I believe that such systems actually stymie Sim play.  Again my opinion is hot contested, but like your opening questions, what is a GM or his players, to do if everything is already worked out?

Are there other ways of creating them?

Now, this is the million-dollar question!  One, unfortunately, that I don't have much to say on at the moment.  It is a question that I am deeply interested in and one that I have been pondering for over a year, but as the central process of Sim play has yet to be understood clearly it would be darn difficult designing a system that facilitated something that we didn't understand.

For example, bricolage is a rules "building and altering" process.  This means that rules should and must change according to what is happening in game.  When and how do we do this?  Do we formalize the process or it something that works best ad-hoc or on an as needed basis?  If it is as needed how do we determine when the need is sufficient?  Who do we include in that process?  When do we formalize the change in rules?  Is it necessary to formalize that which is already happening in game?

All the above is subject to the local aesthetic of the players.  How do go about inculcating an awareness of that aesthetic so that the end users can use it as part of the game process?  In my musing I have come to believe that the "local aesthetic" is to Sim as the Premise is to Nar.  It is what informs all the decisions that are being made in the moment.  It is what helps make the world "act and feel" in a way that is consistent and enjoyable to the players.

That's my 2 cents at any rate.  I am interesting in reading your future postings!

This post come online before I finished composing mine and there are many really cool ideas in it, but I would like to address the following –

Lists of equipment and unending rules are sort of like narrativist relationship maps. Imagine instead of hundreds of bits of equipment listed, you had hundreds of relationships listed.
"Jim has the hots for Jane"
"Jim also has the hots for Jill"
"Jill is suppressing feelings for Jims brother"
"Jane has the hots for Jill"

This sort of list shows up relationship problems that can inspire play. In simulationism it's much the same, you might have lists of equipment, but there are certain causal irregularities amongst them. Like Axes are worth 8 gold, but swords do far more damage and are worth 4 gold. What's up with that? It inspires the simulationist to invent how the game world works.

The aforementioned "relationship map" is just as functional to Sim play as it is to Nar play.  IOW the people have conflicting relationships and sorting them out is as a perfect example of Sim play as much as sorting out the relationships among the pieces of equipment.  What keeps it from becoming Nar play is that "a human issue" is not the central driving focus of play.

Although I think many simulationists often try to iron out these issues before play, so as to present a beutiful dream, when really these problems being ironed out should be the meat of play itself, IMO.

This I agree with completely and support wholeheartedly!  Hopefully the contradictions aren't so out of hand as to "break" the dream, but sorting all this stuff out in play is certainly a prime target for Sim mythic bricolage.  One could either "make things right" or could create in game reasons for this inconsistency and both are perfectly valid Sim solutions!

[Somehow(!) was able to edit to include link to 1/3rd baked idea about Situation and Sim]

[Justin Marx]

Jay,

Maybe you want to PM that list of Sim threads to Ron if he is still compiling RPG theory/GNS threads together now that those boards are closed?

[Tommi Brander]

Hi Tommi,

It looks to me, by your post count, as if you are relatively new to the Forge so I would like to offer you a hearty, "welcome!"

I have lurked around a bit.
Thanks.

To no surprise to anyone who was involved in the theory boards over the previous 2 years, I agree with you completely that what you described is most certainly not coherent Sim.  I should let you know ahead of time that for all practical purposes I am pretty much a loner on this particular understanding of Sim so make sure you take that into account when or if you file any of my response away.

I read that AP thread of yours, and some other one of the theory fora. I was hoping for you to drop by.

Absolutely – and in spades no less!  From my reading, it was not a process of trying to make sense of someone else's writings about their bugs and how the author explained how they worked, but rather you, as the GM, creating the understanding of how the bugs worked as you saw fit.  You, and the players, are creating the world and all its important elements through the Shared Imaginary Space.  IOW not by sitting around "discussing" the matter out of character, but rather by my making decisions and manifesting them through actions within the "Game space/SIS."

Pretty much. I'd like to give the players more power, but they are kind of resisting it. The standard "GM is God"-mode. Frustrating.

A phrase that has been employed on these boards before that might be more fruitful is "deliberate ambiguity."

Better than mine. I'll use that from now on.

Now, this is the million-dollar question!  One, unfortunately, that I don't have much to say on at the moment.  It is a question that I am deeply interested in and one that I have been pondering for over a year, but as the central process of Sim play has yet to be understood clearly it would be darn difficult designing a system that facilitated something that we didn't understand.

Well, a beginning needs to be established. What kind of system do you use?

For example, bricolage is a rules "building and altering" process.

Universalis? I don't have it, but something to that effect might work.
Personally I use the established rules quite precisely, and suggest changes after playing. A bit of lag there, but more aggressive altering would hurt immersion that my players appreciate.
Alternating sessions between redefining rules through something resembling Universalis and using those rules, perhaps? A bit clunky and not one coherent system, but it could work.


I'll be reading those threads for a few days.

I think the answer is plainly, "NO."  I believe that such systems actually stymie Sim play.  Again my opinion is hot contested, but like your opening questions, what is a GM or his players, to do if everything is already worked out?

Do other people have opinions on this?
How would others construct sim systems?
Does anyone have examples that are not bogged down by comprehensive rules, or systems that have a rule that allows changing rules in a formalised way?

Another general question: If there are people here who have played coherent simulationism, did it have very restricting setting and rules? If it did, what did the GM do, if any? Links to AP threads appreciated, too.


With other posters I don't have much to say. Callan I agree with, to specify a little.

[Silmenume]

Hi Tommi,

Well, a beginning needs to be established. What kind of system do you use?

I only have a moment to dash off a quick reply, but here is a link of my 1st AP thread where I do talk about the system I play in - [Middle Earth - home brew] 1st day in July 4 week of play.

I hope there is enough in there to give you a feel for what you are looking for.  Feel free to ask any additional questions you see fit.

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

Jay, I think you have that backwards. Tommi is the final judge of what's being sought, via this thread. You don't have the "answer." You have your own experience to offer in comparison, that's all.

Best,
Ron

[Silmenume]

Hey Tommi,

Universalis? I don't have it, but something to that effect might work.
Personally I use the established rules quite precisely, and suggest changes after playing. A bit of lag there, but more aggressive altering would hurt immersion that my players appreciate.

Sure!  There's nothing "wrong" with "waiting until after play" to make whatever changes you and/or the players see fit.  The "when and where" are very flexible and are a part of the group aesthetic.  Thus, if keeping in play (immersion) is important then that aesthetic needs to be observed.

Alternating sessions between redefining rules through something resembling Universalis and using those rules, perhaps? A bit clunky and not one coherent system, but it could work.

I would imagine that you wouldn't have to spend whole sessions tweaking and/or creating the rules.  I would also suspect that once you get moving along there will be less tweaking that will need to be done, though it would in all likelihood never cease.  But who knows for sure – and that ambiguity is really cool!

Hi Justin,

As per your suggestion I did forward the list of links to Ron.

[Silmenume]

Hey Tommi and all those who have read this thread -

Hello,

Jay, I think you have that backwards. Tommi is the final judge of what's being sought, via this thread. You don't have the "answer." You have your own experience to offer in comparison, that's all.

Best,
Ron

Apparently Ron as the moderator interpreted my earlier response -

Well, a beginning needs to be established. What kind of system do you use?

I only have a moment to dash off a quick reply, but here is a link of my 1st AP thread where I do talk about the system I play in - [Middle Earth - home brew] 1st day in July 4 week of play.

I hope there is enough in there to give you a feel for what you are looking for.  Feel free to ask any additional questions you see fit.

- to mean that I was trying to "prescribe" or tell Tommi what system he "should" be looking for. 

For clarity's sake let me clearly state that is most certainly not what I had intended to communicate. 

As the post had I linked to did not have, what I felt was, an unambiguous example of my system as per the direct request by Tommi, I deemed that qualifying my proffered example by saying that he should (as in he should have a reasonable chance of success to) get a "feel" for my system would be helpful.  I simply reasoned that the requested example was neither particularly concrete nor complete so the best all one could hope for was a general "feel."

I certainly hope that no one, especially Tommi, read my earlier response as an attempt by myself to prescribe what system one ought to use!  Sheesh!  This whole narrow-band internet communication medium can certainly make communicating prone to erroneous interpretation!  Especially baffling since I have never in my two and quarter years here tried to tell anyone what they ought to do or think.

[Tommi Brander]

No miscommunication, as far as I am considered.