I have some muddled ideas that I've been thinking over, and I thought I would bring up for discussion. I've been thinking about the "it" of Sim.

In the infamous Understanding: the "it" of Simulationism thread, M.J. Young proposes that the "it" of Sim is discovery or understanding of knowledge. In general I agree, though the one issue I have is that the use of "discovery" or even "understanding" implies receiving knowledge.

Here's my idea: I think that's only half the picture. I think Sim is about both receiving and delivering/ creating knowledge. (I'm not sure if anyone else has brought this up, as my search-fu's not that great.) MJ may not have purposesly meant "receiving" to the exclusion of creating or delivering knowledge, but in that thread and some of the the other Sim threads I've looked at, receiving is implied.

Am I just debating terminology? I hope not! I think this subtle shift has significance for understanding Sim. If what I suggest is true, I see a spectrum for Sim play. One the receiving side, heavy actor stance. On the creation/delivery side, greater player empowerment for co-authorship. I also wanted to say that I think even in heavy actor stance Sim, I think this idea of creating or delivering knowledge is still present. Actor Stance is just used as a technique to create.

What do y'all think?

Hey Tim

As a good egocentrist the first thread that sprang to mind was my own Invention as a Creative Agenda

I don't have any problem with M.J.'s coining of Discovery as the 'it' of simulationism although I would add the associated natural drive of Curiosity.

This can be discovery of and curiosity about pre-established elements. In this mode, the apportionment mechanic relates in a straightforward way to credibility. If I say the third primogen of Clan Nosferatu is Trevor and I'm a player and happen to be the only one that owns Clanbook Nosferatu then I as a player may have the credibility to have that be accepted by all of the other players. The flow isn't necessarily GM to players, it's whoever has credibility to the audience.

Similarly if we are talking invention of elements now, while we are playing, then it's still Discovery. Nobody knew about Clan Uraboros until somebody invented it right now. Not even the person who invented it. It's still discovery of a sort. And again, who gets to invent stuff is still just a matter of credibility. It can be trad GM to players. Do a search on No Myth GMing for an example of high invention, GM as inventor players as audience, technique. Of course, you could follow the model of Inspectres, and distribute the ability to create around the table. In other words, creation/reception is separate from who gets to say what.

It is, I think, a very important realisation about sim because it leads to a couple of important things:

* sim is not monolithic - to the extent that different forms of sim are incompatible, in the sense of if two strongly different forms of sim are in the same group dysfunction will occur as surely as gamists playing with narrativists

* sim therefore covers a much larger spectrum of play than might be imagined, thus allowing the open-minded sim player access to a large number of techniques/ephemera that might have been conceived as "off-limits" (metagame currency, director stance, etc.)

Hi Timothy,

All Exploration (in the Agenda Theory sense of the term) is the sharing of imaginative content. Sharing requires communicating (verbally, primarily, in this case), which requires both "delivering" and "receiving." So "delivering" and "receiving" are both characteristic not only of Simulationism, but of all play, since all play involves Exploratation.

Where "creating" fits in has been the subject of a lot of discussion recently, with the "Understanding: the "it" of Simulationism" thread coming somewhere in the middle. Start with Invention as a Creative Agenda. and continue with Clarifying Simulationism. That thread led to the Understanding: the "it" of Simulationism thread which seems to be where you came in. A thread about so-called Zilchplay, or play without "creating" (if you regard "creating" to be more or less synonymous with "unexpected player actions in play") split off from there.

- Walt

Thanks guys! Yeah, I caught the latter two threads, but missed the 2 earlier ones. Everytime I think I've come up with a half-way original idea, it turns out there's already been mulitple discussions on it!

What Ian said.

Yeah, and what Walt said, too.

Every agendum (what we used to call "mode") has an active and a passive form; this we've discussed many times. Active gamism is meeting the challenges; passive gamism is supporting the play of others who are meeting the challenges, such as creating those challenges to be met, or playing along while praising those who stand up to the challenges. In simulationism, active play is creating that which is to be revealed; passive play is uncovering it.

It suddenly occurs to me (and this might be worthy of a new thread) that the major difference historically between Simulationism and the other two agenda are that the active and passive roles are reversed. That is, traditional gamism and narrativism has a passive referee supporting the play of active players, but traditional simulationism has an active referee supporting the play of passive players.

Anyway, it's just a sudden thought; might be completely wrong.

--M. J. Young

Actually M. J. I think you are on to something. My points that I have tried to articulate since I've been here at the Forge, however poorly, have been with the thought of active Sim players. Many of the complaints and the problems of defining Sim have had to so with the passive player/active DM paradigm. I do plan on dealing with this on another thread soon.

Aure Entaluva,

Silmenume

This may belong in a seperate thread but let me add the voice of dissension to this topic. I've been thinking about this for awhile and I have to state my disagreement with the term discovery being the "it" of simulationism or curiosity being linked to it.

While discovery and curiosity may be relevant when talking of simulationism it's only because they are relevant when talking about all role playing games. In the big theory Exploration is the level above creative agenda and when one explores one is trying to discover. The Narrativist seeks to discover premise through character and situation, the gamist seeks to discover tactics that allow him to beat the system and situation he finds his character in.

So what is the "it" of simulationism? Details. The minutae that the narrativist doesnt bother with because sweating over it will take away from his big premise statement. The complexities of reality that the gamist doesnt worry about as long as he has a chance to eek out a victory. To the simulationist the details matter. He wants to know why the orc band suddenly attacked, why dragons eat virgins rather than cows, and what affect the 7 moons have on the tides.

Caldis, let me try and resolve your points in a way that relates to Timfire's original post.

Of course discovery and curiosity are going to be part of most roleplaying experiences because they are the reward and drive pairing for exploration and exploration is the underpinning for the vast majority of role playing. Small d and small c accompanying the small s, which is to say the explorative elements of gamism and narrativism.

Detail is a false lead. I personally am not a big fan of high detail in simulationist play. Some people when they go on holiday, go to one place and spend a fortnight there, others prefer the grand tour. I'm a grand tour kind of a guy. As a counterpoint to that, I've known gamists who were freaks about the minutiae - just look at the level of detail in the three corebooks of D&D 3. All the different feat combos, inter-class synergies, spell selection and so on.

Now, with gamism that detail serves as grist for the strategic mill (and with narrativism as grist for the premise mill). But for simulationism aren't they an end in themselves? Details for details sake? No, they are details that feed our curiosity about the things we are interested in discovering. And our curiosity is our primary drive: we eschew the limitations that address of premise would place on us and the limitations that stepping on up would place to us.

To tie that back to Tim's original point, if people around the table are creating stuff on the fly you don't need a high level of detail in terms of prep, because the canvas has to be clean enough to allow creativity. The level of detail that's generated will depend on the breadth of the canvas and the time spent on the game. If you are playing a heavily received-world style of sim for a long period of time then high levels of detail will probably be a factor. We're back to the spectrum of sim play.

Hello,

Actually, I think Tim's onto something, and guess what? It's the same crucial thing that tends to get missed whenever anyone gets all excited about Simulationist stuff: in-game cause.

Tim, if I'm not mistaken, it's not the details that matter in your examples, but rather the whys. The key factor in Simulationist play is that any why-question is valid, relative to the current emphasis on the relationship among the five components.

Wow. If no one thought that last sentence is important, read it again.

In Narrativist play, any why-question is valid if it pumps Premise; these questions (which can be translated, I hope everyone sees, into any aspect of role-playing ranging from sudden character action to a call for a smoke break) become relevant play. Any other why-question is quite likely a pain in the ass; the dividing line varies greatly among groups and games.

Same in Gamist play: why-questions are expected to be strategically relevant (or, as I forgot to write above, possibly a moment of Color and treated as such), and anything else is plain bogus. Again, that doesn't shut out any and all Exploration - far from it! - but it gives the group a "relevance cutoff" when someone really is out there in the wilds, wonderin' 'stead o' playin'.

But with Simulationist play, all you need is that conformation of the five components. That might include story in the sense of planned events or it might not; it might include story in the sense of embedded theme or it might not. But it's dead-on necessary to know, in Simulationist play, just what that conformation is. And within it? Any why-question is just as good as any other.

Best,
Ron

Hey Ron,

I am embarrassed to ask this, feeling like a complete mallet head, but can you clarify or give some examples of the "why" questions? I have read and reread you post and I just can't get my head around what you are saying, and I have a feeling it is important.

Aure Entaluva,

Silmenume

Hi Ron,

I had to take some time to think about what you wrote, and I think I'm starting to get it. While I would love to take credit, you defintely connected a few dots I had not yet connected.

Ron Edwards wrote: If I'm not mistaken, it's not the details that matter... but rather the whys.

Ron Edwards wrote: The key factor in Simulationist play is that any why-question is valid, relative to the current emphasis on the relationship among the five components.

... But with Simulationist play, all you need is that conformation of the five components. That might include story in the sense of planned events or it might not; it might include story in the sense of embedded theme or it might not. But it's dead-on necessary to know, in Simulationist play, just what that conformation is. And within it? Any why-question is just as good as any other.

Hey Ron. I think you mistook me for Tim because your comments sure sound like they were addressed to my post, my fault for not signing my post. If not then my brain is wandering out in a field somewhere, my apologies.

I'm glad you found something of interest in what I said and you definitely nailed it, phrasing it far batter than my poor choice of words. When I used 'Details' I was talking slang really, as evidenced by the "dont sweat the details" line when talking about narrativism. I think this threw Ian off a little because I'm not talking about level of detail that he commented on as much as those why questions that Ron brought up. So I'll remove the label 'Details' and replace it with 'Reason', everything in sim has to be reasonable i.e you can back up its existance.

So as I said earlier discovery is not the 'it' of Sim because discovery is synonymous with exploration and exploration is the groundwork for all role play. Reason is the natural 'it' that hooks people because they are constantly exposed to it in their own lives. They make sense of the world by seeing how cause and affect plays out, go to school - learn some skill - get a related job. They seek to make sense of the imaginary world of roleplaying by assuming the same cause and affect pattern.

Sim also tends to blend well because it can allow for gamist challenge or narrativist address of premise as long as they remain reasonable. So when a player in a d&d game has his character jump off a cliff and survive the only answer necessary to the question of why he survived for a gamist is that he had enough hit points to survive the fall, in sim the why has to be more detailed. What did he do that let him survive? Brace for impact, aim for a bush, grab at roots on the way down?

I do think this generally means that Sim tends towards being more detailed, simply because it has to handle those why questions. Sure a gamist combat system can be complex but if it only considers game balance issues and not all the whys of realism then it will have less details.

I think I've rambled long enough and while I hope I'm making a point I detected a complexity to Ron's statements that I'm not sure I'm clicking with so I'll second Sil's call for example's.


Vernon M Ryan

Silmenume wrote: I am embarrassed to ask this, feeling like a complete mallet head, but can you clarify or give some examples of the "why" questions? I have read and reread you post and I just can't get my head around what you are saying, and I have a feeling it is important.

Hello,

Talysman nailed it, and yeah, Verron (Caldis), I got mixed up there re: whose post. Your response also nailed the issue.

Talysman, the one quibble I have with your post is that I'd pick Fudge as the uber-example of Sim Lite design, not The Window or Theatrix, both of which may have abashed/incoherent qualities when you hit actual play.

Best,
Ron

With the caveat the plausibility always trumps cause-and-effect reasonableness (I suspect if the big 80s sim systems had been designed by arts majors not physics/engineering majors you'd see a fundamentally different strand of sim design) this all makes sense. Plausibility - and a strong grasp of what that means locally for your actual play group - can render cause and effect a chimera. Speaking from experience, if you're at a table full of B.Eng bodies then the two will align pretty closely in the high detail sense Vernon is talking about, but if you're playing with a table full of BA bodies then you'll have a very different sim experience.

Ron Edwards wrote: *snip*
Tim, if I'm not mistaken, it's not the details that matter in your examples, but rather the whys. The key factor in Simulationist play is that any why-question is valid, relative to the current emphasis on the relationship among the five components.
*snip*

Hi Callan,

It seems to me as if you're thinking mainly in terms of Purist for System Sim. If we focus on that application, then yes, the process of in-game cause does count more than the various results/outcomes in terms of content. That's what "prioritizing Exploration of System" means.

Other applications of Sim put more emphasis on (e.g.) Situation, in which getting into the right Situation, with full commitment to resolving it appropriately, is more important than how it's done, as long as some effort is made to justify in-game cause in a linear way.

Best,
Ron

P.S. And just in case anyone's going to bring it up again, various different ways to prioritize the five components of Exploration have equally profound impacts on the potential diversity of Gamist and Narrativist play too.