I was hoping people could help me understand the role of risk in sim play.

I really like recent definitions I've seen of how risk is used in gamist play: the depth of risk the player takes on lets them demonstrate guts. The preparations the player makes for dealing with risk lets them demonstrate smarts.

Can anyone help me understand the role that risk performs in sim play?

Cheers,

Tony

Hi Tony,

The way I've been seeing it for a long time (and clearly this is a controversial topic), Simulationist play is based primarily on celebration of a shared imagined set of events. What makes it difficult to understand is that these events can range so widely, which (to me) doesn't matter, as the essential priority seems the same to me as I gaze over the diversity.

That's why I'm glad you asked this question, because it helps me articulate one of the "sameness" things. I don't think actual-person risk plays much role in Simulationist play in comparison with Gamist or Narrativist. It is ... well, "comfortable" in a way that the other two potentially are not, even when it's procedurally and intellectually demanding.

Some social or aesthetic risks are possible in Simulationist play, certainly. Here are the ones I can think of immediately.

1. Not getting the genre at hand. People who are enjoying a setting with a great deal of commitment to its (for instance) historical integrity are not going to like playing with someone who doesn't grasp that commitment.

Although this effect can be annoying in any sort of play which places some emphasis on its setting-integrity, I think it's more of a deal-breaker in Simulationist play.

2. Not depicting one's character well to a minimal degree that's set by the group.

3. In some forms of Simulationist play, inadvertently not cooperating with the story-goals of whoever is making a story happen (usually the GM).

In all the above, I'm not talking about a player who doesn't want to cooperate or participate in the celebration, but rather who demonstrates his or her incompetence at it. That's the risk: being seen as a poor contributor.

Bear in mind that the Simulationist concept is a bit of a controversy at the moment. I think a number of people would consider my #1-2 to be applicable to any play with a heavy emphasis on setting/character, period, and my #3 to be a dysfunctional situation from the get-go and not Sim.

Best,
Ron

Ron Edwards wrote: Simulationist play is based primarily on celebration of a shared imagined set of events.

3. In some forms of Simulationist play, inadvertently not cooperating with the story-goals of whoever is making a story happen (usually the GM).


Bear in mind that the Simulationist concept is a bit of a controversy at the moment. I think a number of people would consider <snip> my #3 to be a dysfunctional situation from the get-go and not Sim.

Valamir wrote:
Risk in a sim game is pushed down to the level of the characters. It is the characters who are at risk. It is they who may experience either success or failure. Ideally, in sim play, the players don't care which. They are there to "find out what happens" and if "what happens" happens to be that the characters fail, that is acceptable. Players may root for their characters to succeed. Indeed much of the adversity in Sim play is predicated on the players doing a good job at portraying their character's desire to succeed and the GMs doing a good job at portraying an enemy's desire to see them fail. But ultimately the player's don't want their characters to succeed badly enough to be willing to violate the integrity of the simulation to make that happen. In other words, no fudging, no illusionary technique, no Deus ex Machina to save the day. That would be worse than character failure to sim play.

Valamir wrote: The risk, then, that is faced by the players in all sim play is the risk of an unsatisfying climax.

Marco wrote: I believe much of the "desire to succeed" comes from the level of immersion or suspension of disbelief and how strongly the player relates to his or her character.

If the level is low then it's a scientific experiment.

If the level is high then it's a fundamental strong urge to succeed while staying in character.

If the level is high and the character is relevant in some way to the player then one finds an in and out of game emotional response to the situation (I think this may approach the boundary to Narrativism since I think relationship to the character comes from relating to human-experience stuff that etither a real person or even an imaginary one is going through).

What Ron said...

However, I'd sum up all the statements with:

The risk for the player is generated by how well he explores the "main subject of exploration" as defined by the group.

Of course, this statement is tru for Narrativist and Gamist CA's as well, so I'll narrow it down for Simulationist goals. In my view (which is controversial and carries less weight than the other posters here), a CA is defined by what it explores. Since Sim focuses on exploring a particular part of the game (setting, character, situation, even system), players risk not being in line with exploring that particular part of the game. Thus, I have played in a group where the healer Jedi character wanted to go explore the healing properties of plants on Hou'din, while the rest of us were trying to solve the mysteries of the cloaking device. She annoyed the most of us, but we attributed it to her being a "so-so" roleplayer. This comes back to what Ron said...

Ron Edwards wrote: In all the above, I'm not talking about a player who doesn't want to cooperate or participate in the celebration, but rather who demonstrates his or her incompetence at it. That's the risk: being seen as a poor contributor.

I think both of those risks are present Tony. There is the standard Peer Pressure risk that is present in all social activity as to whether you as a participant are going to let the group down because you're not good enough at the activity to do it as well as your peers. The risk of "I made the dream bad".

But I think there is also the "bad dream" risk where at the end of a campaign, the players look around the table at each other and say "man...that was really lame", "yeah, 6 months of weekly sessions and it ends like that?...that sucks."

In other words the players successfully remained committed to the ideal of "what happens", but in the end "what happened" stunk.

Dedicated sim players pick themselves up, brush themselves off and say, "oh well, what should be play next".

Others become disillusioned with the outcome and go in quest of techniques to help ensure that the next time they dedicate 6 months to a campaign the ending doesn't suck.

I don't think its any great speculation given the roots of roleplaying in wargaming to suggest that that was precisely the route that was taken historically as players less dedicated to the Sim aspects of roleplaying got involved in the hobby.

A common sim response to the risk of the sucky ending is to reduce that risk by front loading situation. The more compelling the initial situation, the less likely the ending is to suck.

I'll further note, that rewinding an unsatisfactory ending to a prior decision point and running it through again would also be completely conceivable as a valid sim solution...one that is very true to the roots of sim where gamers would take a given scenario and rerun it multiple times with different parameters (i.e. "what if this time, the German tanks weren't running low on fuel, would the 101st still hold out?"). While I don't have any significant anecdotal evidence to support groups doing this commonly, it would be a conceivable response to unsatisfying game endings that wouldn't necessarily violate sim sensibilities.


I'll also tangentally caveat the rather definitive statement I made above of

no fudging, no illusionary technique, no Deus ex Machina to save the day. That would be worse than character failure to sim play

Tony Irwin wrote:
Thanks Marco. Would you say then that all sim play enjoys experiencing or "apprehending" risk? Players may differ in the extent to which they desire certain outcomes (and that desire is rooted in character identification, not on winning kudos from other players, or on making a thematic statement) but at some level they all want to experience risk?

Valamir wrote:
I'll further note, that rewinding an unsatisfactory ending to a prior decision point and running it through again would also be completely conceivable as a valid sim solution...one that is very true to the roots of sim where gamers would take a given scenario and rerun it multiple times with different parameters (i.e. "what if this time, the German tanks weren't running low on fuel, would the 101st still hold out?"). While I don't have any significant anecdotal evidence to support groups doing this commonly, it would be a conceivable response to unsatisfying game endings that wouldn't necessarily violate sim sensibilities.

Marco wrote: Ralph said in another thread that he "didn't understand Sim"--and I agree with that.

Valamir wrote:

Marco wrote: Ralph said in another thread that he "didn't understand Sim"--and I agree with that.

Come again?

Did you mean Ron here?

Jonathon wrote: Since Sim focuses on exploring a particular part of the game (setting, character, situation, even system), players risk not being in line with exploring that particular part of the game. Thus, I have played in a group where the healer Jedi character wanted to go explore the healing properties of plants on Hou'din, while the rest of us were trying to solve the mysteries of the cloaking device. She annoyed the most of us, but we attributed it to her being a "so-so" roleplayer.

In a word... yes.

The group makes the statement (through action, not consciously) that we want our characters to develop in a certain way with certain goals in mind. My character simply wants to defeat the Empire and any dark Jedi in the process. (He's a Jedi.) Another character wants revenge against the Imperials for killing his family... Another just wants his life back. (he's wanted by the Empire.) But, the healer Jedi says, "I could give a hoot about fighting the Empire, and by in-game extension, finding the cloaking device, I want my character to become a very powerful healer."
We say, "I can't believe she doesn't want to go after the cloaking device!"
She is not following the group consensus of "we want to go after the Empire!"


OTOH, my character can face risk in-game, but to a Sim player, that's part of the game. In fact, in Gam and Nar games, characters face in-game risk and their players are quite happy as well. All that matters is that the game provides Challenge, or addressing a Premise, etc. Often this in-game risk looks the same no matter which CA the game is played with.

Cheers
Jonathan

Ralph if I get you right then a lot of good techniques for sim play are about diffusing or reducing the "bad dream" risk. Do you think there are conditions where sim players actively embrace that risk or at least somebody actively presents bad-dream risk to the players forcing them to deal with it?

Is it possible that good sim GMs present risk like this - genuinely threatening to sabotage the dream, forcing the players to "save the dream" and in doing so make it better. I know you played a lot of L5R (I'm guessing that like us you mainly drifted it into Nar though) did you ever have experiences where the GM purposefully presented situations where a likely outcome just "wasn't right" for the L5R dream? The players get all excited and united and put tremendous emotional investment in a particular outcome. Not because of its thematic significance, but because its right for L5R. Certain risks to the dream were tolerated and enjoyed.

On the other hand I can think of times I despised risk like that and used all the techniques you described to either diffuse the risk, or reverse the undesired outcomes. Do you have any thoughts on where the cut off point is? What decides the sim tolerance level for risk?

ErrathofKosh wrote: In a word... yes.

The group makes the statement (through action, not consciously) that we want our characters to develop in a certain way with certain goals in mind. My character simply wants to defeat the Empire and any dark Jedi in the process. (He's a Jedi.) Another character wants revenge against the Imperials for killing his family... Another just wants his life back. (he's wanted by the Empire.) But, the healer Jedi says, "I could give a hoot about fighting the Empire, and by in-game extension, finding the cloaking device, I want my character to become a very powerful healer."
We say, "I can't believe she doesn't want to go after the cloaking device!"
She is not following the group consensus of "we want to go after the Empire!"

Cheers
Jonathan

Tony Irwin wrote: Ralph if I get you right then a lot of good techniques for sim play are about diffusing or reducing the "bad dream" risk. Do you think there are conditions where sim players actively embrace that risk or at least somebody actively presents bad-dream risk to the players forcing them to deal with it?

Do you have any thoughts on where the cut off point is? What decides the sim tolerance level for risk?

Is it possible that good sim GMs present risk like this - genuinely threatening to sabotage the dream, forcing the players to "save the dream" and in doing so make it better.

I know you played a lot of L5R (I'm guessing that like us you mainly drifted it into Nar though) did you ever have experiences where the GM purposefully presented situations where a likely outcome just "wasn't right" for the L5R dream?

Is it possible that good sim GMs present risk like this - genuinely threatening to sabotage the dream, forcing the players to "save the dream" and in doing so make it better.

Interesting question. I think I'll have to punt on this one for now. When I was playing in what I'd today consider a Sim fashiony, I certainly didn't have the tools to frame what we were doing in this manner. I'm not sure looking back through the years with the lens of nostalgia would provide any good answers.

Marco or John Kim might have a better notion being more currently involved in this play style.

Marco wrote: My experience with virtuality has gravitated towards actor-stance (and when I GM I see that as well, IMO). This means that "threats to the dream" (whatever that is) would be like the GM threatening to do something that would break cause-and-effect ("If you don't get me a pizza right now I'll tripple the number of bad guys!").

Edit: Double posted

Tony Irwin wrote:
In sim play I have experienced that "Yikes! I'm gonna lose it all" sensation and loved it. Other times its annoyed me that the GM is messing about with my character, with my dream of how things should be. Any thoughts on what the cut off point might be?

The cut off point is (in Sim) defined by what the dream is about. This means that players will accept obstacles if they expect obstacles and they won't if they don't! If know that taking down the Empire is difficult, I expect to run into speed bumps while attaining this goal. OTOH, if I'm flying to the next planet, have done it a hundred times before, there'd better be a damn good reason I end up in a meteor shower! (It's been blown away...)

If the bump is there to help me explore then I accept it. If it's there for any other reason, I resent it.

My character...

If my character happens to die, I have lost. I feel sorrow, I mourn him. However, as long as he died 'in character' I don't look to the GM for an explanantion.

A good example (in which the character doesn't really die):

Back in the old days of WEG Star Wars, a character could go over to the dark side fairly easily if he wasn't careful. I created a character that tried to do the right thing, but he was eventually seduced by the dark side. As a player, I did not want that. However, I didn't feel cheated or dissatisfied. After all, I had rolled... However, I felt sad that my character was no longer good.
Fortunately, I didn't lose him forever. Eventually I had the chance to allow him to redeem himself and he returned to the light side. However, even that experience wasn't without great cost and sacrifice. He lost the woman he loved...

Cheers
Jonathan

Tony Irwin wrote:

Marco wrote: My experience with virtuality has gravitated towards actor-stance (and when I GM I see that as well, IMO). This means that "threats to the dream" (whatever that is) would be like the GM threatening to do something that would break cause-and-effect ("If you don't get me a pizza right now I'll tripple the number of bad guys!").

Thanks for replying Marco. Say if in the middle of your latest game in Actual Play you had said to Stephanie's player "Oh and there's a message on your answering machine. It's from Xeron Energetics, problems with funding, they need to speak to you about clawing back half the grant they sent you by mistake". You're presenting this player with the risk that its going to turn out to be a very different game from the one they're currently enjoying. Do they jolt up in their seat and say "Hell no! I'm gonna sort them out", and give another one of their great in-character speeches to the XE suit, or do they hiss in annoyance at this interruption to the fun they're having with their investigations?

Tony Irwin wrote: Is it possible that good sim GMs present risk like this - genuinely threatening to sabotage the dream, forcing the players to "save the dream" and in doing so make it better.

timfire wrote: I agree with Marco that I can only see risking the Dream as being dysfunctional. I mean, risking the Dream would be equalivent to a Nar GM trying to block a player's ability to adress premise. The ability to express CA in the desired fashion is vital to functional play.

The GM's job is always about providing opportunities for the players to express their CA in the desired fashion. In Gam, it's about setting up situations that provide challenge, so that the players can Step on Up. In Nar, it's about setting up situations that provide the players opportunities to address premise.

Marco wrote: Well, I think it's always possible for one person's input to take the game in a direction someone else doesn't want it to go. After all: if Player X says to Player Y "let's go on a sea-voyage" player X might 'hiss in annoyance'--and really be annoyed if they'd been hanging out together as a team and hated to see it split up.

... But I think a real "threat to the dream" in the sense you mean it is more an example of dysfunctional play cropping up.

Tony,

I think that by equating in-game risk to player risk you may have a point. I've noted that *terminal conditions* have a strong effect on my play. If I think something will either explicitly (death) or effectively (jail) end the game then I'm far more concerned by it than something with less severe consequences.

In other words, I interpert some of in-game risk as player-risk (I expect that's true for everyone to some degree--gamist, I expect, would certianly react more strongly to a deadly threat that could end the fun than to a less severe form of risk).

But also: when I'm immersed I play my character as I see my character--and that's usually 'to win'--I have a hard time setting up a dramatically pleasing loss when role-playing because even though I as a player might enjoy seeing that play out, if I maneuver my character to lose in a way that I feel breaks plausibility it hurts my enjoyment.

Thus, as we saw, the players took the holes in the world very seriously (even though, had they fallen down them it would not have ended the game)--and most of the drama was with dealing with the situation (examining the holes for the scientist and interacting with authority figures for the artist).

So, yeah, tentatively, while I don't see "revolting developments" as "threats-to-the-dream" per-se (after all, no one was "enjoying" just 'being'--as Ralph pointed out there needed to be some conflict in their lives as the engine to drive play)--I think that I'll agree that in-game risk is assumed as player risk for much of my play.

What it isn't, especially, is social risk, I don't think. Certainly there are some social ramifications for not playing well with others. And there is even, I'd say, social pressure for players and the GM to present a consistent "realistic" (what-if) portrayal of character and situation.

Maybe the social cred is gained by adding versimilitude to the simulation? I'm not sure.

-Marco

Tony,

I think you're getting hung up on trying to make direct connections between the 3 CA's. Something that may seem counter-intuitive at first is the fact that the 3 CA's all function a little differently. Sim especially is different from the other two.

There's "risk" in all 3 CA's, but because the 3 CA's prioritize different things, what risk is and what risk looks like is different for each CA.

Gam is the only CA where players are overtly competing with each other. Players are overtly vying for social esteem by proving they have more guts than everyone else. Because of that, it's the only CA where players risk tangible loss. I mean, you can't Step on Up without risking something, 'cause its all about guts.

In Nar its all about creating theme through addressing Premise. In a sense, Nar play forces players to take a stand on moral issues. That takes some guts, but I don't believe that Nar players are really "risking" something in the same way that they do in Gam play. (If Nar players are unwilling to take a stand on issues, they would probably be looked down on by the other players, but its not a situation where they have to prove themselves like in Gam play.)

Risk in Sim play... well, that's obviously what we're trying to discuss in this thread.

Tony Irwin wrote: I've gotten bogged down into identifying risk only in Situation. The Universalis challenge mechanic is a great way that one player can say to another narrativist "Show us how much your answers matter, how far will you commit to your agenda before backing off?" or say to the simulationist* "Show us how much you believe in your dream, how far will you commit to this agenda before backing off?", but the challenge mechanic has got nothing to do with Situation.

timfire wrote:
Gam is the only CA where players are overtly competing with each other. Players are overtly vying for social esteem by proving they have more guts than everyone else. Because of that, it's the only CA where players risk tangible loss. I mean, you can't Step on Up without risking something, 'cause its all about guts.

In Nar its all about creating theme through addressing Premise. In a sense, Nar play forces players to take a stand on moral issues. That takes some guts, but I don't believe that Nar players are really "risking" something in the same way that they do in Gam play. (If Nar players are unwilling to take a stand on issues, they would probably be looked down on by the other players, but its not a situation where they have to prove themselves like in Gam play.)

Timothy wrote:

Tony Irwin wrote: I've gotten bogged down into identifying risk only in Situation. The Universalis challenge mechanic is a great way that one player can say to another narrativist "Show us how much your answers matter, how far will you commit to your agenda before backing off?" or say to the simulationist* "Show us how much you believe in your dream, how far will you commit to this agenda before backing off?", but the challenge mechanic has got nothing to do with Situation.

Maybe you didn't intend it to be that way, but Dude, that's such a Gamist attitude! "Show us... how far will you commit to your agenda before backing off?" That's pretty much a straight-up challenge to show your guts!

Tony Irwin wrote: Hey Timothy, I think for Nar the comparative risk is that the player will be unable to make the thematic statements they desire. Your TROS character dies a meaningless death, you get the wrong epilogue for your MLWM minion, everyone challenges away your idea in Universalis.

Tony Irwin wrote: That's my understanding of Bangs, the GM is effectively yelling "What matters? Quick! Right now! What matters?!" The players face the risk that "Despite all the investment* I have made in trying to make this thematic statement, I may never get to see it in the SIS".

Tony Irwin wrote: I think it's a demand to "Show us what matters..."

I think the discussion is blurred by the types of risks that one takes in roleplaying. The big two are: social and in-game.

Certainly G players gain satisfaction in a challenge well met because it advances their status socially. But, they also revel in avoiding the price of failure for their character. Thus, they have risk at both levels. If I, the G player, don't overcome a challenge through my own bad planning, I lose socially and in game.

In S and N, this is less than clear. In N, if I fail to address the Premise, where is the in-game risk? My character doesn't neccessarily suffer consequences for failing to address the Premise (though he could). In S, where is the social risk in character failure. If my character dies, I accept it as what is supposed to happen. But, the other players don't look at me and say, "dude, you suck!"

I would propose that in S, the social risks are all about envisioning at least similar Dreams. If one player isn't onto the premise of the group Dream, they lose socially.

I have difficulty with N, but I think the in-game risk is the character's relevance. If a character dies, but adds to the theme, no risk for N player. However, if the character no longer makes valid points in the story, the player really loses them.

Such are my thoughts.

Cheers
Jonathan

Oh and Marco, you're right, what I'm talking about is not limited to a single CA, just the example is.

A lot of the threads trying to divine Sim have clouded my head a bit.

This discussion keeps bringing to mind a bit of unsatisfying play in my group's first TROS campaign. I created a character that was trying to force his view of justice onto reality by robbing a man of priveleges he didn't deserve. I had an elaborate plan layed out to bring him to his ruin.

By the second session, I became frustrated by stuttering at the stage of Intent, inability to escape troupe play, inability to frame outside the clock face, etc, and I took the lead, explicitly wrote my declarations as Initiation, fired off every SA and stormed his estate. And poof, nothing happened. I had my character retire to his apartment and stare at shadows.

(I realize now that I was crying out for a Bang; and that my Seneschal was going the "discover the back-story plot twists" route, to which my agenda was only peripherally related.)

My behavior made everyone uncomfortable. I moped through the second session; my Seneschal made a plan to kill off my character, unbeknownst to me. Mercy for the group? Vindictiveness? Maybe. I give him the benefit of the doubt.

At the start of the third session, someone knocked on my character's apartment door. I stepped outside to find a basket . . . with a head in it! It belonged to the man I sought to destroy! I had two reactions: on the one hand, I was glad to finally be part of my story; on the other, it was based entirely around tearing this man to pieces, . . . and now he was dead! So what the hell was I supposed to do?

I don't know if you'd call our play Sim or Nar, but if game play was a VCR, I'd be pressing rewind and then start making objections. I guess you could say my Seneschal put my Dream at risk.

Timothy wrote: You're insinuating that a Nar player would risk his ability to address premise? Why would a Nar player risk the very thing he finds fun?...

Timothy wrote: ...Or let me put it another way, why would another player/GM attempt try to limit the player's fun?

Timothy wrote: Your examples above, why would a TROS player put his character in a situation that might result in a meaningless death? The whole point of TROS is you *only* do things that are important to your character. (I'm sure that type of thing does happen, but who would consider it a good thing?)

Timothy wrote: While I've never played MLwM, it sounds like it would be fairly easy to engineer a certain epilogue if the player really wanted to.

Timothy wrote:

Tony Irwin wrote: I think it's a demand to "Show us what matters...(talking about bangs)"

Ahhh, but that's not what you said earlier. You said "Show us ... how far will you commit to your agenda before backing off?"

"Before backing off" is a challenge. It implies that someone is purposely trying to break the player. That's competition.

Bill wrote: I don't know if you'd call our play Sim or Nar, but if game play was a VCR, I'd be pressing rewind and then start making objections. I guess you could say my Seneschal put my Dream at risk.

Tony,

All wrecking the dream is in-game challenge the way you're putting it (and I think it's a reasonable way to put it)--it's just high stakes adversity. Sauron is going to march on the world: well, roleplaying one of Sauron's flunkies would suck (and you'd probably be dead anyway)--so you have to do something.

Interperting in-game adversity as meta-game adversity (I think I'm misusing 'Forge' adversity in one case there) is, IMO, reasonable since, you know, that's how I see it ... mostly.

There is something about the case where the player wants to see the character fail but has the character try his hardest to succeed that I think isn't fully encapsulated there.

But for the most part, I would say that any in-game adversity is, in my case at least, precieved as meta-game adveristy (i.e. if this isn't checked the game will become not-fun for me).

-Marco

ErrathofKosh wrote: I think the discussion is blurred by the types of risks that one takes in roleplaying. The big two are: social and in-game.

Certainly G players gain satisfaction in a challenge well met because it advances their status socially. But, they also revel in avoiding the price of failure for their character. Thus, they have risk at both levels. If I, the G player, don't overcome a challenge through my own bad planning, I lose socially and in game.

In S and N, this is less than clear. In N, if I fail to address the Premise, where is the in-game risk? My character doesn't neccessarily suffer consequences for failing to address the Premise (though he could).

In S, where is the social risk in character failure. If my character dies, I accept it as what is supposed to happen. But, the other players don't look at me and say, "dude, you suck!"

Whoo Hoo!!! My 100th post...

Yeah, I could agree with that. However, I tend to think that the social risk for N players is higher than that for S players. Maybe that's a perception based on historical "storytelling games," where players are assumed to be mature enough to play "for the good of the story."

In the Window, for instance, violating any of the Three Precepts is a violation of the explicit social contract. IME, these types of games, in general, specify certain points of the social contract that generally not present in S play. But that's based on my experience, so take it with a grain of salt...

Cheers
Jonathan

ErrathofKosh wrote:
Yeah, I could agree with that. However, I tend to think that the social risk for N players is higher than that for S players. Maybe that's a perception based on historical "storytelling games," where players are assumed to be mature enough to play "for the good of the story."

Cheers
Jonathan

Marco wrote: Tony,

All wrecking the dream is in-game challenge the way you're putting it (and I think it's a reasonable way to put it)--it's just high stakes adversity. Sauron is going to march on the world: well, roleplaying one of Sauron's flunkies would suck (and you'd probably be dead anyway)--so you have to do something.

Marco wrote: Tony,

All wrecking the dream is in-game challenge the way you're putting it (and I think it's a reasonable way to put it)--it's just high stakes adversity. Sauron is going to march on the world: well, roleplaying one of Sauron's flunkies would suck (and you'd probably be dead anyway)--so you have to do something.

As I stated over in this thread, I think the risk that S players run is the acceptance of their contributions to the Dream.

Example:

I have a character who badly wants to forge a magical sword. He has taken months in prep and is now in the forging process. I roll the dice and dammit! I fail...

Whether I used strategy or not (I probably did, because he prepared for some months), if all I care about is that my character failed and doesn't get his magic sword, then I have S motives. If I worry now that my character won't be able to use the sword as an advantage in my upcoming fight, then I've G motives.

To highlight this difference even more...

Suppose the system allows my character to make the magic sword, but all it's good for is Color. The sword burns brightly and makes devastating attacks, but I could get the same result (damage-wise) from buying a well made sword without the months of prep! Now, unless the sword gives me some advantage that a well made store bought sword cannot, my reasons for making it are pure S.

The goal and satisfaction of Sim play is creation. And revelling in that creation.

There, I've said it! - God is a Simulationist. :) (That last was intended as humor, please don't consider it to be inflammatory...)

Cheers
Jonathan

Jonathon wrote: I have a character who badly wants to forge a magical sword. He has taken months in prep and is now in the forging process. I roll the dice and dammit! I fail...

The risk in Simulationist play is that the outcome won't be as you expect or hope it will be.

A vacuous statement, perhaps. After all, the risk in all modes of role-playing is that the outcome won't be as you expect or hope it will be. In fact, all risk in all endeavors is that the outcome won't be as you expect or hope it will be. That's just the definition, more or less, of "risk" itself.

But still, stating the obvious is better than overlooking it.

The thing is, I've never met one of these Sim players described in the course of the recent raft of Sim threads -- these mysterious folks who are indifferent to the outcome, more specifically to what happens to their characters, as long as the agreed-upon constraints and procedures are observed in determining it. Some players are more patient than others about accepting temporarily unhappy circumstances or turns of events for shorter or longer periods in the hope or expectation of eventual turns for the better. Some players are more mature or stoic than others about accepting ultimately unhappy outcomes. But I've never met one who didn't, generally speaking, prefer character success over character failure, prefer that the player-characters succeed in rescuing the hostages rather than seeing the hostages killed, prefer that a player-character become wealthy rather than broke, influential rather than marginalized, respected rather than mocked, and healthy rather than sick. There can be, and often are, narrow exceptions, such as a character with a "chronically broke" concept -- but even then that character's player still prefers the character to be successful in achieving objectives, healthy, respected, etc.

There has been, I believe, a tendency to see this widespread preference for character success as not particularly significant in Simulationism. It’s been explained away in three ways in particular:

1. Preference for character success is caused by the action of reward mechanisms. Such reward mechanisms, in Sim, empower the player to do "more" Exploration. Character success is thus not itself an inherent part of a Sim Creative Agenda, but a mere means to that end, by virtue of reward mechanisms such as character advancement.

2. Preference for character success is caused by the infiltration of Gamist attitudes into play. Step On Up is in action; the player is seeing his or her own social esteem at stake in the character’s happiness.

3. Since people ususally attempt to act to increase their own happiness, playing them as characters requires players to act that way too. But it’s all just role-playing. The players don’t actually care about character happiness, they just act like they do, for the sake of verisimilitude.

I can’t prove that players have a prevailing preference for character happiness for reasons outside of these three factors. But there’s every reason to expect them to. Watching a movie involves no stake in social esteem, reward mechanisms, or acting, but movie audiences still generally prefer happy endings to unhappy ones (even, notoriously often, at the cost of weakening the work’s internal fidelity and/or literary merit). The same is true for audiences of all types of non-interactive fiction in all media. The reason appears to be emotional identification with the character, without requiring any other stakes or agendas.

Some will no doubt wish to dismiss this reasoning, as some have before, with the deeply insightful observation that "role playing games aren’t movies." While that does help explain why my repeated attempts to thread a Player’s Handbook into my 16mm film projector have been strangely unsuccessful, it’s beside the point here. Whatever else role players might be or do, they are also, inevitably, the audience for the outcome of play. If people want to claim that Simulationist role players differ from all other audiences by not preferring, generally speaking, that the protagonists achieve success and happiness, the burden of explaining why that should be so should be on them. Especially because we might expect the emotional attachment to the character, in a role-playing game, in which the character was personally created by the player and is commonly spoken of (in first and second person phrasing) as if the player were the character, to be rather stronger than a moveigoer’s emotional attachment to an arbitrary character just introduced a few minutes before.

Where there’s a preference for some particular aspect of the outcome, there is a risk that the preference will not be met. Hence, for instance, Jonathan’s "risk" that the character will not get a magical sword, and Marco’s point, an elephant that’s been stomping around in the room unnoticed for quite some time, that in-game adversity is perceived as meta-game adversity -- due to, I submit, emotional sympathy with the character, pure and simple. It doesn’t have to be "deeply personal" in any way beyond that, in order to be real stakes for a real risk.

The preference for character happiness and the concomittant risk of character unhappiness is not specific to Simulationism. It can exist within, and potentially compete with, any Creative Agenda. I belive it might be valid to define the "hard core" of any agenda as play in which the "emotional concern for character happines" dial is way down. In hard-core Gamism, for instance, sacrificing a character in order to gain the resouces to create a better character can be seen as a valid and bold strategy. (In general, though, there are congruences in hard-core Gamism that make character happiness a priority even in the absence of any emotional sympathy with the character, with issues #1 and #2 above predominating.) In hard-core Narrativism, as in hard-core literature in general, addressing the Premise is paramount and any concern for character happiness is likely to be seen as hackneyed or juvenlie. There are apparently styles of Simulationsim in which concern for character happiness is dialed way down too, such as "virtuality" and "purist-for-system Sim" in which the important thing is finding out "what if" in a clinically detached way, and high-concept Sim in which the genre/concept makes character happiness an impossibility or a moot point. But these cases are "hardcore" in a particular way. Regarding them as representative of all Sim leads to a rather distorted picture.

- Walt

Ahhh...

Walt,

That's what I've been trying to say and not doing very well. I make this statement:

The risk in Sim is predicated upon the extent to which your contributions to the SIS influence the Dream.

This includes your character's successes and failures as well as your own credibility to contribute to the SIS. I think Sim satisfies some vicarious need to be whomever we have created as our character, and like Walt says, we enjoy victory more than defeat, even vicariously.

Walt Freitag wrote:
The preference for character happiness and the concomittant risk of character unhappiness is not specific to Simulationism. It can exist within, and potentially compete with, any Creative Agenda. I belive it might be valid to define the "hard core" of any agenda as play in which the "emotional concern for character happines" dial is way down. In hard-core Gamism, for instance, sacrificing a character in order to gain the resouces to create a better character can be seen as a valid and bold strategy. (In general, though, there are congruences in hard-core Gamism that make character happiness a priority even in the absence of any emotional sympathy with the character, with issues #1 and #2 above predominating.) In hard-core Narrativism, as in hard-core literature in general, addressing the Premise is paramount and any concern for character happiness is likely to be seen as hackneyed or juvenlie. There are apparently styles of Simulationsim in which concern for character happiness is dialed way down too, such as "virtuality" and "purist-for-system Sim" in which the important thing is finding out "what if" in a clinically detached way, and high-concept Sim in which the genre/concept makes character happiness an impossibility or a moot point. But these cases are "hardcore" in a particular way. Regarding them as representative of all Sim leads to a rather distorted picture.

- Walt

Thanks for responding Walt,

Walt Freitag wrote: The risk in Simulationist play is that the outcome won't be as you expect or hope it will be.

A vacuous statement, perhaps. After all, the risk in all modes of role-playing is that the outcome won't be as you expect or hope it will be. In fact, all risk in all endeavors is that the outcome won't be as you expect or hope it will be. That's just the definition, more or less, of "risk" itself.

Walt wrote: The preference for character happiness and the concomittant risk of character unhappiness is not specific to Simulationism. It can exist within, and potentially compete with, any Creative Agenda. I belive it might be valid to define the "hard core" of any agenda as play in which the "emotional concern for character happines" dial is way down.

ErrathofKosh wrote: Ahhh...

That's what I've been trying to say and not doing very well. I make this statement:

The risk in Sim is predicated upon the extent to which your contributions to the SIS influence the Dream.

As I see it, all activity comes down to a statement by one player about what should be inserted into the SIS and it's approval or rejection by the other players. Thus, the only "real" risk in any CA is that your statement is rejected. Now, what you've anted up in emotions, esteem, resources, and character depends upon the circumstances and your CA, but these are the "chips" in your bet, not the "cards." By putting a lot of emotion or resources on the table, you're signalling to your group that this is an important gamble for you. They may raise, fold or come in along side you to add their own "chips." Because the bet is always the same, the only means of classifying differences in risk is to determine what's at stake. I think that's question you originally asked. Looking at it from the perspective CA, one must assume that the stakes are about what's important to each.




So, is about the player influencing the SIS or is about the SIS affecting the player? Both. The player gambles that he can influence the SIS in a certain way and he antes up certain resources to make that bet. But, win or lose, the SIS is now going to affect the player.
For Sim I said the stakes were, "the extent to which your contributions to the SIS influence the Dream." To clarify, on the level of S CA, what you've wagered is your contributions to the SIS. (As well as your attachments to said contributions.) These contributions are not about your social credibility. The contributions are about in-game credibility, your character and his ability to explore or influence situation/setting. This can have both immediate and future effects... To contrast, the stakes are different in N and G. In N, players don't really worry about risking their characters and their ability to affect the situation/setting "physically." They risk their ability to (now and in the future) address the Premise in the manner they find appropriate. In G, Challenge is similar to Premise. (Usually in G, the "manner appropriate" is victory...)




Here are some examples: (these assume the players care about the stated game effects...)

The player announces his character's intention to forge the formerly mentioned magic sword. In the game he is playing, the sword will raise his character's reputation and allow the player to use interesting "special effects" in battle. However, the sword does the same damage as any other well made sword. If the player's statement is accepted into the SIS, he receives all the mentioned benefits, if it is not, he loses the ability to use that contribution from that point onward. (If he tries again, he is making another contribution, not the same one...) In addition, he may have lost in-game time, resources, and reputation. And the player may feel a little upset... That's Sim risk.

The player announces his character's intent about the sword. Now, the game allows the character to use the sword to raise his combat bonuses and even his intimidation bonus. It will be of great use in the upcoming showdown with a horde of orcs. If successful, the player now has additional tool to face the upcoming challenge. If the forging is a failure, not only has the player lost that tool, he's probably lost time, resources, etc. that could have been used to his advantage. The player may feel frustrated... That's Gam risk.

Once, again the sword... In this game, the sword will give the character the ability to fight and destroy a powerful despotic sorceror who is threatening innocent lives. However, the sorceror is the character's ex-best friend, to whom the character has sworn a blood oath. If there is no other way to destory the sorceror, the success or failure of forging the sword affects the player's ability to address the particular premise of, "should I kill my blood brother because he's evil?" However, should he succeed at making the sword (a likely thing in a N game), making it may have tainted him because it required binding a demon. Now the player's ability to address the Premise has been altered, perhaps in unexpected way. That's Nar risk.

(I hope this last example is not too much of a stretch for N, using the same situation may not have been the best idea, but I wanted the contrasts to be clear.)

Hope that clears up the issue a little more...

Cheers
Jonathan

Jonathon wrote: So, is about the player influencing the SIS or is about the SIS affecting the player? Both. The player gambles that he can influence the SIS in a certain way and he antes up certain resources to make that bet. But, win or lose, the SIS is now going to affect the player.

For Sim I said the stakes were, "the extent to which your contributions to the SIS influence the Dream."

Tony Irwin wrote:

Jonathon wrote: So, is about the player influencing the SIS or is about the SIS affecting the player? Both. The player gambles that he can influence the SIS in a certain way and he antes up certain resources to make that bet. But, win or lose, the SIS is now going to affect the player.

"the SIS is now going to affect the player" Perhaps as in excite the player? Dissapoint the player? Are those the kinds of things you mean by "affect"?

For Sim I said the stakes were, "the extent to which your contributions to the SIS influence the Dream."

Help me understand - what do you mean when you say "Dream"?

Tony

Right to Dream, the
Commitment to the imagined events of play, specifically their in-game causes and pre-established thematic elements. <snip>

Ok, I got it, thanks for taking the time to explain it all for me. Now for the big question that I'm stuck on Jonathon:

Jonathon wrote: Those are ways the player is affected. But, he is also affected if his character is limited in some fashion, for instance. These are all a part of the stakes. I risk my emotional state, my character's health, etc. If I win I can gain happiness, experience for my character, etc. If I lose I can suffer depression, my character may die, and so on.

My recent computer problems have left me a bit overwhelmed by the sheer volume of backlogged posts; thus I may have missed quite a bit in this thread. However, I'll venture to address the most recent question.

I think there's a risk to the simulationist that he will push his curiosity beyond the ability of the elements to provide answers--walking off the edge of the map, as it were, although it can be in any of several directions, such as delving too deeply into game world physics, or trying to meet everyone in New York City, or studying the peripheral religions of an alien culture. There's a similar risk that in pushing discovery too far you might "break" the scenario--after all, the world is ultimately cardboard fronts with no buildings behind them, even if they're pretty thick fronts; eventually you'll discover that it isn't real, and it doesn't hold together, and then the dream starts to fray, perhaps to crumble.

I suppose sometimes he might discover something he didn't want to know. Perhaps he'll discover something he didn't want his character to know--discovering the Deep Ones in Call of Cthulu, or in something modeled on The Last Action Hero learning that you're really just a fictional character in a movie.

I think there probably are other things that a sim player can have at stake that are particular to sim; it's difficult to identify these, though, as arguably there is a great deal of overlap.

--M. J. Young

Thanks for responding M.J.! Great post.

To summarise what you've said in my own words (and throw in some terms from Ron's "Right to Dream" essay) - is Sim risk that the player's exploration will be too intense and sincere for X to cope with?

Does that capture what you're saying M.J.?

So what is X? You've offered "the map", game world-physics, real life time constraints, the scenario itself, the sensation of reality, I suppose even the GM's capabilities... do you have an umbrella X that is put at risk by the demands of exploration squared?

Tony

"X" is anything that that can be explored. In my own view, I hold that the modes of exploration are themselves explored in S play. Thus, what MJ is saying (if I reading him right...) is that the setting may not contain enough information for where you want to go, or that the system doesn't allow you to invent new technologies, etc.

On the other hand, I would like to point out that, in general, S players are more emotionally attached to the "life" of their character than N or G players. A true N or G player will sacrifice their character's life if it makes sense to further their CA. The end of a character in S player is the end of the "experiment," and usually it's not a very satisfying end. Conceivably their could be a game where character death is the point, but I would see that as a small niche in S game style. So, even though N and G CA's often risk the "life" of the character, I don't see that as a primary risk for their players.

Cheers
Jonathan

M. J. Young wrote: I think there's a risk to the simulationist that he will push his curiosity beyond the ability of the elements to provide answers--walking off the edge of the map, as it were, ..

I think that Jonathan has put it well.

I'm going to caveat the point about death of the character being very dissatisfying in sim play. Multiverser can be played very simulationist, but the sting of death has been severely attenuated--death has become the means by which the story moves to the next chapter. Thus the "end of the experiment" may be annoying, but the beginning of the next one comes on its heels, so that's not as much of a problem as it is in most games.

But then, that just means we've changed the definitions--death is no longer the end. The end of the character could be very dissatisfying, but the way Multiverser is set up, it's very nearly impossible for the character to reach that point unless player and referee collaborate on bringing it about.

--M. J. Young