The Forge Archives

Okay, kids, look at this thread.

Back, now? I want to talk about Jared's comments. He may not be interested in it anymore, but I kinda am. I particuarly am interested in Ron's comment that is a view that several people hold, but are in the closet about. So here's the deal:

Does anyone else share Jared's view? And if they do, can they explain it in such a way that I can undersand it? Am I just dense? It seems to rely of defnitons of "play" and "game" that make no intutive or intellectual sense to me. I'm not trying to be pejorative, I'm genuinely confused.

Here's my definitions, when it comes to designing (and analyzing) roleplaying games. I know these aren't dictionary definitions, but they're much more useful:

Game: An act of entertainment with explicit rules, a goal of play, and an element of choice.
Roleplaying Game: A game where one or more participants roleplay a presence or influence.

War (the card game), Candyland, Snakes & Ladders and a rubber ball are NOT games, by my definition. The first three have purely random outcomes, and the participants have no choice in the matter. The latter example is not a game, because it is merely a ball: It can be a component of a game, but not a game by itself.

Likewise, a Roleplaying Game needs to include both Roleplaying and Game. D&D is a functional RPG, with a goal supported by its rules: How much monster ass can you stomp? Likewise, Call of Cthulhu: Can you survive to stop the horror?

GNS falls into this: GNS is about the time of decision; this is the choice inherent in a game.

D&D, CoC: Gamist
Sorcerer, (my own) Shadows: Narrative

I have trouble with Simulationist games, because many of them are presented as a System and Setting with no explicit goal. I think Exploring Character and Situation and stuff is great (contrary to Jared, I think), only there hasn't been enough structure given to it. Here's some examples:

Blue Planet: Great Setting, cool Situations, and so on, but what do I do? There's nothing in the first edition that lets me jump in and start. Our gaming group has to actually _add a piece to Blue Planet to make it playable_. Granted, there may be some "campaign suggestions" in the text somewhere, but there's no explicit, "here's how to play the game." It's just "here's how to resolve chancy situations."

Fading Suns: Again, cool Setting, neat Characters, amazing Flavor. How do we start?

Too many Sim games provide the toolbox, a pile of pieces, but no instructions. The Players are required to somehow implicitly know how to begin playing. In truth, a Sim game needs explicit instructions on actually playing to be a full roleplaying game.

The "you can do anything" attitude is a crutch. You can't do anything, especially given a specific System. You can do what is within the limits of the rules. And those rules need to include specific playing goals and not just means of modelling the game's plausibility.

I'm sure there's a counter-argument that goes: Sim games, by their definition of exploration, require the absence of structure. There should be freedom to explore the Situation/Character/etc. To which I respond: This is not a functional or complete game.

Quote from: Zak Arntson
Blue Planet: Great Setting, cool Situations, and so on, but what do I do? There's nothing in the first edition that lets me jump in and start. Our gaming group has to actually _add a piece to Blue Planet to make it playable_. Granted, there may be some "campaign suggestions" in the text somewhere, but there's no explicit, "here's how to play the game." It's just "here's how to resolve chancy situations."

And that's all the simulationist wants. Blue Planet presents a world - Poseidon. It describes the world, the creatures who live there, the various human groups and corporations. It talks about colonies, about industry, about space travel. It outlines a future history. It talks about the various conflicts and interesting things that happen there.

What's the point of it? It doesn't have a point. It's just there. It's a cool place to think about. One way of using the material is to create an avatar - a PC - for yourself, and mess around with that world.

QuoteToo many Sim games provide the toolbox, a pile of pieces, but no instructions. The Players are required to somehow implicitly know how to begin playing. In truth, a Sim game needs explicit instructions on actually playing to be a full roleplaying game.

Anybody who jumps into a complex sim setting, like Blue Planet, without first reading the books and working out what they want to do in the game is going to sink. It's up to the GM, and to a lesser extent the players, to decide what they're going to do in the game.

QuoteThe "you can do anything" attitude is a crutch. You can't do anything, especially given a specific System. You can do what is within the limits of the rules. And those rules need to include specific playing goals and not just means of modelling the game's plausibility.

Most Sim games try to cover all the situations than can reasonably occur in the Sim, and extrapolate from those rules when something not covered comes up. It's not "you can do anything", it's "there are no goals within the sim other than those of your character".

QuoteI'm sure there's a counter-argument that goes: Sim games, by their definition of exploration, require the absence of structure. There should be freedom to explore the Situation/Character/etc. To which I respond: This is not a functional or complete game.

To which the Simulationist reponds: "For you, perhaps, the lack of defined structure makes the game useless. I, however, prefer to build my own structures within the Sim. Forcing the game into a tight play structure from the start, one that's often external to the world, reduces or negates the appeal of the game for me."

That's just it. "Working out what they want to do in the game."  That's a presupposition of Sim design that doesn't need to be there. I could write a Sim game that, in addition to detailing the XYZ bits you are to explore, lays out what to do and voila! You've got a functional Sim _game_. Note that I'm being a stickler on what game means (using my own definition above).

Quote from: MytholderIt's not "you can do anything", it's "there are no goals within the sim other than those of your character".

I believe this is an untrue statement. Ron breaks it down into Exploration of System/Setting/Color/Situation and/or Character. So there is a goal: Exploring something. Without that goal it's a like the ball without rules. Sure, you can throw it around with your friends all you want if that's more fun. But you have to add a layer onto it before it's a valid game.

The play structure does not have to be tight. I just don't consider it a complete (oop! There's another semantic argument!) roleplaying game if the participants need to have implicit knowledge on how to turn it from toolbox into game.

I have a feeling we'll just keep discussing back and forth. I feel like we've just laid our cards on the table and no amount of discussion will convince the other. So I'll curmudgeonly give my position and bow out of discussion (unless asked to continue):

A complete and functional game requires play structure within the rules.

So, if Blue Planet has a chapter (which I don't remember, but it might) on how to explicitly craft a gaming session/campaign, then it's a complete and functional rpg. Otherwise it's a game the participants make complete, and it ceases to become a game and is now in the vague realm I call "hobby" (Which includes going beyond the rpg's rules and becoming a game designer in order to play)

As a closing example, Blue Planet is a game if it discusses explicitly what you do, "In this game, you explore Setting, Character and/or Situation. Here's the methods to do so." These rules don't have to be charts or hard requirements. In d20 CoC, There is a chapter that explains how to design a scenario (all th eway from Hook to Climax); bringing d20 CoC from a System to a game. Blue Planet could conceivably have the same: An explicit method for running sessions/campaigns. If it does this, then I'm using a bad example.

Interesting. Given Gareth's reply, which I agree with, it would seem that this is a case of "To what extent does system matter?" Apparently to the Simulationist, the system only matters so far as it allows him to explore something. To the Gamist or Narrativist, the system must enable the sorts of conflicts that are important for each in addition. So system not only matters, it is critical.

I just bought my wife Myst III - Exile for mother's day. She loves these games, and I like them too. They are a perfect example of a completely railroaded Sim. Often there aren't even two choices as to what to do next, it's just a matter of finding it. I'm willing to bet that this sort of game is liked by Simulationists, but disliked by Narrativists. Gamists might see it as a puzzle to solve, and like it for that. But the Simulationist like myself just like ambling about the nifty landscapes and seeing what comes next. To be frank the puzzles annoy me quite often. I just want to immerse myself in that world, and see what's to see.

Does that explain it at all? I fear that those who find Myst boring or Simulationism for that matter will probably never understand the motivation. I think it's a very primal thing that some people like myself have to see what's over the next hill, just for the sake of seeing what's over the hill. Apparently you either have it or you don't.

We're getting caught up in terminology again. Maybe Sims are not games. So what? Neither is taking a walk over the hill, but I still want to do it.

Mike

Quote from: Mike HolmesWe're getting caught up in terminology again. Maybe Sims are not games. So what? Neither is taking a walk over the hill, but I still want to do it.

I'm saying Sim rpgs can be games, just like Myst can be a Sim video game. SimCity, by the same token, is also a game. You can't do _anything_ you want. The minute a GURPS supplement outlines how to run a session, it becomes a Sim game.

QuoteI'm willing to bet that this sort of game is liked by Simulationists, but disliked by Narrativists.

Actually, I adore Myst & Riven. Great stuff. If I were doing that as an RPG experience, I'd be bored as hell, though.

Hello,

I'm confused about the question. The title of the thread says, "Is Pure sim a game?" I have two sources of confusion.

1) I think that the accompanying thread illustrates that the term "game" is problematic enough by itself to preclude being a criterion for anything.

2) What's all this stuff about "pure"? I have no idea what "purity" refers to in GNS terms. A given instance of play is one of G, N, or S, by definition.

Best,
Ron

Ron,
I'm guessing the body and subject of the first post are disjoint. I responded to the post's body (do you share Jared's view on Sim not being an rpg).

Yeah, "game" is a problematic concept. It looks to me like we have essentially two different views that aren't likely to come to an agreement.

Zak,

Ah, so the question is, "Is Simulationism actually role-playing?" (Is this right, Kirt?)

My answer is contained in my essay. It differs from Jared's, I think - although certainly he and I share similar preferences regarding this mode of play.

Best,
Ron

Zoiks! If it's "is Sim roleplaying" then I should put my thoughts in Indie Game Design. My opinions would be better over there than this semi-debate (it's more like a clarification of different opinions). My big contention is that there's a slew of incomplete Sim games published; something to be addressed more in design than theory.

Quote from: Ron EdwardsI'm confused about the question. The title of the thread says, "Is Pure sim a game?" I have two sources of confusion.

I guess part of my answer is, Ron, I'm confused as well, which is why I started the thread.

Quote1) I think that the accompanying thread illustrates that the term "game" is problematic enough by itself to preclude being a criterion for anything.

2) What's all this stuff about "pure"? I have no idea what "purity" refers to in GNS terms. A given instance of play is one of G, N, or S, by definition.

And I think this succinctly covers what I'm confused about. Are you saying that this is a nonissue, because of equivocation on "pure" and "game"?

Confused, rambling text follows:

I think answering the question is important NOT to dismiss someone else's idea of a good time, but rather to try and figure out what people are gonna clash once they sit down at the table.

Look at any Vampire LARP and you see the problems which arise from mis-aligned goals. The players locked in sim mode are not looking past their characters...I get frusterated because NOTHING gets done and we all end up standing around in some underground parking garage with our thumbs up our asses.

Frankly, the people who really really enjoy sim play...well, playing in a game with them (for me) would be akin to jamming a needle through my eye. And above and beyond all this, I think that game design can only improve once sim play is discarded as any kind of goal. I really do. Games like Blue Planet, Fading Suns, Vampire...they're NOT games. They suffer from a lack of design. I'm a game designer...of course I'm puzzled/frusterated by peoples' enjoyment in an activity that (to me) is meaningless.

Roleplaying as an activity is just that: an activity. Something to do. But it's unfocused, unstructured play. It's "let's pretend." And while I recognize that playing "let's play that we're pirates" can be a lotta fun, I don't think that it works in the context of an RPG. If it does, please show me...because although I can pick out elements of sim RPGs and say, "Oh cool." I can't see how they're anything but fuel for someone else's playtime. In other words, why isn't everyone playing (frex) GURPS: (your favorite setting here?). Because to my eyes, there's no difference between Blue Planet, Talislanta, Fading Suns, Ars Magica, etc. and you might as well just use GURPS.

End rambling text, enter worthwhile line of thought:

If someone wrote an RPG that was explicitly focused on "exploration of setting/character" (esp. character) and had the system to back that up, THEN I would be interested. I have a sneaking suspicion that such a beast would drift heavily toward Narrativism (if not BE a Narrativist game outright). So if you know of any, or are working on any, please let me know...

Edited to add incendiary closing statement:
Ultimately, I'm thinking that GNS could be appended/replaced with "Game X has a point, Game Y doesn't." N and G are so closely aligned...and S is way the hell out there in left field. I think that's my biggest problem: S-styled play is dominant "out there" but it's also so far removed from the other two modes of play that it seems like comparing two types of apple with one orange.

Quote from: Mike Holmes
I just bought my wife Myst III - Exile for mother's day. She loves these games, and I like them too. They are a perfect example of a completely railroaded Sim. Often there aren't even two choices as to what to do next, it's just a matter of finding it. I'm willing to bet that this sort of game is liked by Simulationists, but disliked by Narrativists. Gamists might see it as a puzzle to solve, and like it for that. But the Simulationist like myself just like ambling about the nifty landscapes and seeing what comes next. To be frank the puzzles annoy me quite often. I just want to immerse myself in that world, and see what's to see.

Does that explain it at all? I fear that those who find Myst boring or Simulationism for that matter will probably never understand the motivation. I think it's a very primal thing that some people like myself have to see what's over the next hill, just for the sake of seeing what's over the hill. Apparently you either have it or you don't.

We're getting caught up in terminology again. Maybe Sims are not games. So what? Neither is taking a walk over the hill, but I still want to do it.

And Mike has put his finger on it.

Sometimes, I'd just like to play to imagine.  I don't care if there is a thematic story that arises.  I just want to create an imaginary world and share it with my friends.  I think that I'll probably approach Nobilis this way, and I know that Ars Magica appeals to me for the same reason.

Is this the only way I like to play?  Of course not!  For instance, Alyria is intended to be a hardcore Narrativist game, and I obviously enjoy playing my own game.  I also enjoy hauling out Rune, and I think that I'll end up approaching Whispering Vault from a Gamist perspective (but still with a heavy Exploration emphasis).

Now, some folks may not like to play this way.  They may not "get it" or may not appreciate it.  That's fine.  Hardcore Gamism in RPGs doesn't usually appeal to me as much as other options as well.  Nevertheless, the whole point of GNS analysis is to determine what you like and don't like, and to enable you to cooperate better with your gaming fellows.  So you don't like Sim games.  Don't play!  You're not a stink-head for not liking it.  We just don't like the same things.

No big deal.  I'll still talk to you.  :-)

Hi Zak,

The sim systems you're discussing require gamemasters. The gamemaster may or may not define goals. If the GM delineates goals, then there is no question that for the non-GM players at least, it's a game. If the GM does not delineate goals, then perhaps the ensuing play will be technically not a game, but more likely the players will choose their own goals, which is also sufficient to make it a game.

You're correct, I believe, that there's potential for trouble here. If the GM invents goals and assumes the players will follow them but fails to communicate those goals to the players; if the players self-select goals that conflict with one another; if the GM selects goals the players aren't interested in pursuing; if the players are expecting the GM to establish goals while the GM expects the same of the players... all potentially dysfunctional. (And note that this is all entirely within Simulationist play -- by goals I don't mean G, N, or S, I mean "what issues are our characters supposed to be addressing in this world?" -- that is to say, what is the simulationist premise?)

But the scenario you seem to be suggesting, a group of players buys a simulationist game book and then sits around confused wondering what they're supposed to do with it, is reckoning without the gamemaster, who's usually a very important part of the simualtionist equation. The lack of a built in goal of play means that a player cannot tell what the goal of play is just by reading the book; dialog with the GM is required. But is that such a big drawback? How far are you going to get without communication with the GM in any event? On the other side of the coin, how much do GMs really suffer from the absence of instructions for how to begin playing? Don't those that wish such handholding choose systems that provide it?

- Walt