A look at what constitutes a Creative Agenda as defined.

Looking at the models of Gamism and Narrativism we see they are described as processes. Gamism is described as the game play where address of Challenge is prioritized. The end result of that address of Challenge is that there is a victor and a loser. Several things should be noted though. The model says that Gamism isn’t necessarily motivated by a desire for Victory or Loss but the process of attempting. The model is defined by that dynamic (the act of addressing the Challenge), not the metric (Victory or Loss). Does this imply that players don’t care about Victory or Loss? Not at all. Does this mean that Victory and Loss are irrelevant to the dynamic or the model? No. Victory and Loss can either be metrics, the stakes, or just an artifice that justifies the process of addressing Challenge in the first place (like the penny in penny ante poker – it legitimizes the betting process). However all that boils down to is players addressing Challenge for their own reasons, to their own degrees, in their own ways, with different levels of focus/emphasis on the other elements of Exploration, but doing so nonetheless.

By way of analogy I now turn to Simulationism. This would imply that knowledge or sensoria accumulation is to Sim what Victory is to Gamism and Theme is to Narrativism. But I do not believe that Discovery can be addressed. Why? Because Discovery is neither rooted in Situational conflict like Challenge and Premise are nor does it direct our efforts at dealing with Situational conflicts.

Here is where every conversation about Sim falls apart. Every time someone goes about trying to figure out how to define the Sim Creative Agenda, which as the model currently stands means how a player approaches Situational conflict i.e., Premise or Challenge or X (which I posit is Character specific, not necessarily driven, Situational conflict – but that is an extraordinarily controversial theory), not why they play Gamist or Narrativist or Simulationist nor what they get out of the process, all the Sim defenders go bananas saying, “I don’t play for that reason!” I am as guilty as anyone of conflating how, why, and what so I would like to help clear the air.

This thread is about the how to define the Sim CA. There are 3 things to consider when discussing CA, one of which is being hashed out in the Social model thread.

There is the self-limiting approach to Situational conflict – Challenge, Premise, X (Sim).
There is the inherent created product, which can be used as a metric, which helps to legitimize the process, but does not have to act in the role of player motivator – Victory, Theme, X (Sim).
Finally there is the Player Goal, that which motivates the player to Explore from the point of view of a particular CA - what the player wants to get out of the game process and why that CA is best suited to satisfying that desire.

Apparently why a player Explores using a certain CA does not map one to one to why said player Explores at all in the first place. This is the trap I keep falling into.

But the thing I want to focus on is that I believe that the Sim CA is defined by how players address Situation just as much as Gamism is defined by how players address Situation/Challenge and as Narrativism is defined by how players address Situation/Premise.

Why is Simulationism different from Gamism and Narrativism in its definitional elements? If the definition of the Gamist CA is rooted in Situation as the Narrativist CA is rooted in Situation why isn’t Simulationism’s CA rooted in Situation as well?

There is much less confusion about Gamism and Narrativism because they have been clearly defined and one could say they are both about conflict - certain types/forms of conflict. And we also understand as part of this process that additional player interests shape how that conflict is addressed. Is this particular game with these particular players focusing on victory itself or the process of addressing Challenge? Is it focusing on the Gamble or the Crunch? Is it about trying to win as the French at Waterloo or just experimenting with new tactics at Waterloo? Etc. The same can be applied to Narrativism as well. Is this particular game with these particular players focusing on the theme as a goal or the address of Premise itself? Are the players focusing more on the creation and manipulation of the Premise or on the resolution of story events? Are the players more focused on Character, Setting, or Situation based Premise?

I am sure I am going to get lots of reasons why not, but lets stretch a bit and find reason why it could. I believe that many definitional problems that still surround Sim, such as “Sim is Exploration Squared” would go away if we can solidly demonstrate that the Sim CA is as rooted in Situation as Gamism and Narrativism are. This would also explain away issues that keep coming up like Sim is about details or Sim is Exploration.

How can this be done? By trying to define what that self-limiting and self-directing “address” of Situation might be. I have my own thoughts, but I think that framing the question is better than thrashing around blindly for solutions.

I look forward to any responses.

Aure Entaluva,

Silmenume.

I yapped about this a couple of days ago in some thread, if memory serves. Let's see what I come up this time. Never know, you know.

As far as I'm concerned there's no use in trying to define CAs as different emphasis on Situation. Situation is situation, and that's it. What the CAs are, is motivation as psychological mechanic.

What this means is that it's in the end only blurring the issue to refer to gamism as "addressing Challenge". That's a complex way to think about it. What gamism is, though, is significance humans place on conflict. In the same way there's no problem in defining simulationism - it's simply curiousity, a psychological mechanism that's satisfied by simmy actions, the same as gamism is predicated on challenge as personality-defining tool, and is thus satisfied by challenge.

Simulationism is not "exploration squared" (Whatever that even means? Is it some more intense exploration or what?) or lack of motivation or whatever. It's just a central part of being human. It's an imperative of survival and intelligence to be curious about matters, and that curiousity finds a great outlet in roleplaying games. This is different from how gamism and narrativism use exploration - the former needs exploration elements for and arena for challenge, while the latter needs them to hook thematic elements. The simulationist needs exploration for it's own sake, to satisfy his own curiousity about the matter explored.

Your question: how to define simulationism the same way gamism and narrativism are defined, through it's relation to Situation? My answer is that you need a new word to go along with Challenge and Premise. This word would define as noun the thing done in simulationism, which by the above is satisfying curiousity by exploration. Let's call this thing the Query, for now. I claim that simulationist motivation is predicated on the players devising a Query and answering it through play. The Query itself is the subject matter of interest, and can usually be spelled out as a question. "What happens when this character goes out against a dragon?" is a classical example.

Now, usually the Queries are not spelled out so clearly, and they tend to get dished out and answered relatively quickly in some situations (plot twists and other such), and really slow in some others (themes and such). The fascination with process sometimes evidenced by the simulationist is a natural feature of the Query: in many cases the player does not really want to know what happens, but why.

I still think that it's clearer to consider CAs as psychological mechanisms, but if it helps you to clothe them in Exploration terms, the above should do the trick. Simulationism is defined by the player addressing Situation as Query.

Eero Tuovinen wrote: Your question: how to define simulationism the same way gamism and narrativism are defined, through it's relation to Situation? My answer is that you need a new word to go along with Challenge and Premise. This word would define as noun the thing done in simulationism, which by the above is satisfying curiousity by exploration.

I want to thank Jay for raising the question, and Eero for that excellent answer. I really like the notion of the query.

When I was reading the question, my thought was this: in simulationism, curiosity (thanks to Ian for that) drives investigation toward discover. In this construct, investigation is the way conflict is faced and overcome. Conflict is that which blocks discovery, and investigation is that which overcomes conflict.

Now, can I work query into this? Query is that which identifies what is investigated. So curiosity focuses in a query, and investigation springs from the query driven by curiosity toward discovery.

I think that takes care of your interests in conflict and situation, yes?

I'm almost afraid to ask, but what were your thoughts?

--M. J. Young

Hello,

I think a couple of things should be made very clear, if possible.

1. John (talysman) nailed it: "the Dream" is the term you're looking for, Jay. Similarly, your fairly odd focus on Challenge regarding Gamism, as opposed to Step On Up, may represent a parallel mental stumbling block.

2. Simulationist play does differ from Gamist and Narrativist play in that the necessary focus on Situation for the latter two does not have to hold, and even when it is the Explorative focus, the payoff is still in terms of "let's imagine," first and foremost.

So, can you have, for instance, Simulationist play in which the Exploration of Character never includes a dynamic decision for that character? Yup. Or in which the Exploration of Setting never yields a serious conflict of interest which piques the application of player guts and strategy? Yup. Or conversely, can you have Simulationist play in which the Exploration of Situation is the key, in which case Situation does "get there" consistently? Yup.

Whereas no matter what else gets Explored in an instance of Gamist or Narrativist play, Situation gets hit now or later, at whatever pace or with whatever pauses, but yes it gets hit.

Why is this a difficult concept? Perhaps M.J.'s comments on query and discovery help, although to me, they merely add extra terms for stuff that's already accounted for. My take on the topic at the moment is that it needs paring down, not naming all the little sticky-outy parts, but others may differ.

Best,
Ron

Question: If you want a process-like description of The Dream, wouldn't that be something like: the players ask questions about the SIS and use the answers to create new questions?

In N or G, the answers serve the purpose of Story Now or Step On Up, in S, the answers are the way questions make new and better questions.

SR
--

Hello,

Rob, that works pretty well, except that it's more suited to Exploration in general rather than to the Right to Dream specifically.

Few, if anyone, who post about this topic regularly seem to process that "right to" part of the catch-phrase. The Right to Dream - it means, "listen, this is what I want, the fascination and attention to the imagination qua imagination."

Best,
Ron

I believe that Sim builds towards something, much like Gamism and Narrativism. Whether a particular game focuses on the process of building or that which is built is not the issue. That which is built is the Dream. I have no problems with that.

When we diagnose play and we say it is Gamist it is because Situation is addressed in fashion that precludes both Premise addressing and X addressing (Sim). The same is true for Narrativism. When play is diagnosed as Narrativist it is because Situation is address in fashion that precludes both Gamist addressing and X addressing (Sim). How can I say this? Because if an instance of addressing Situation appears to cover more than one CA, i.e., addressing Challenge and Premise and X (or just two of the three) then that particular act is said to be congruent. IOW it is impossible to say which CA was in operation at that moment. Only when the address of Situation clearly excludes both the other CA’s is it possible to make a clear statement of diagnosis.

Since there isn’t an agreed upon approach-to-Situation that is said to be indicative of Sim it follows that Sim can be diagnosed in reference to Situation only in the absence of any data indicating Challenge or Premise addressing. Given the above Simulationism can only be diagnosed precisely because we can’t figure out how to interpret the significance of acts of the players during the addressing of Situation. Diagnosis functions by exclusion. IOW as the model stands we can only diagnose Sim when we can’t figure what the hell is going on. This brings us back to Sim by default.

Assuming this to be true, let me propose game play whereby it would be, for the sake of argument, impossible to diagnose. A player comes to the table, is well mannered, agrees to the Social contract, and engages in Exploration effectively. However, entirely within the Exploration process he wrecks everyone’s night by purposely ruining everything they try and do. His true motives are hate and anger and he uses the game, because he knows it emotionally significant to the players, to rain as much pain down upon the players as he can, via the SIS.

Clearly this manner of addressing Situation is not any CA as described. One could argue that he is playing a serial killer and thus the game is Sim. Again for the sake of argument we propose that the Character he rolled up and is playing is a Paladin. This manner of addressing Situation is so out of Character that it to becomes impossible to diagnose it as Sim. However, under the current structure of the model the diagnosis would default to Sim because it is not-G-not-N. The problem with that is that the player is clearly NOT pursuing The Dream, but attempting to destroy any all addressing efforts of the players.

What is the significance of this example? That Sim too has some positive (non null/non default) defining approach to addressing Situation that separates it from yet another (Social?) agenda.

Ron Edwards wrote: 1. John (talysman) nailed it: "the Dream" is the term you're looking for, Jay. Similarly, your fairly odd focus on Challenge regarding Gamism, as opposed to Step On Up, may represent a parallel mental stumbling block.

Ron Edwards wrote: So, can you have, for instance, Simulationist play in which the Exploration of Character never includes a dynamic decision for that Character? Yup. Or in which the Exploration of Setting never yields a serious conflict of interest which piques the application of player guts and strategy? Yup. Or conversely, can you have Simulationist play in which the Exploration of Situation is the key, in which case Situation does "get there" consistently? Yup.

Ron Edwards wrote: Few, if anyone, who post about this topic regularly seem to process that "right to" part of the catch-phrase. The Right to Dream - it means, "listen, this is what I want, the fascination and attention to the imagination qua imagination."

Silmenume wrote: So far the model says two CA’s G/N can be positively differentiated from each other by observing how players approach Situation. If approach to Situation (addressing Challenge/Premise) is the means by which G and N are identified then it follows that Sim play must also be identified by “testing/observing” the same referent, i.e. how players approach Situation. There is a method to my madness here folks.

The Gamist and Narrativist CA’s both build out of conflict. Victory can only be built out of conflict. Theme can only built out of conflict. Why can’t The Dream be built out of conflict? We have already discussed and dismissed “adding detail” as being definitional of Sim so what does that leave? Addressing conflict.

Hey John,

Thanks for taking the time to thoughtfully reply to my post!

talysman wrote: …see, you're assuming that because G and N are distinguished from each other by how they address conflict/Situation (Challenge or Premise), they must therefore both be differentiated from S by how they address conflict as well.

Hello,

Jay, I'm gonna have to call you on something.

Going by the definition provided in the glossary of Exploration, “The imagination of fictional events, established through communicating among one another…” then the above is just saying that someone is fascinated and wants to spend a lot of attention Exploring. Once again we are back to Simulationism is Exploration, which I don’t buy.

There is nothing definitional about the “Right to” that precludes it from being applied to all three CA’s. All the CA’s are about the "Right to" Step on Up, the "Right to" Story Now, or "Right to" The Dream.

Ron Edwards wrote: Everything in the text you're referring to is about the social support of the Exploration, which mysteriously seems to disappear in all of your paraphrases. Exploration, in successful Simulationist play, is explicitly not internal - it's shared, supported, enthused about, and prioritized. (I wonder if anyone understands what that word is doing in the argument?)

Ron Edwards wrote: Now, to bring a more positive contribution to this thread, I do agree with your points about Situation, in full, and if I'm not mistaken, I believe these points are explicit in my essays. I think this may be another situation of "say it for yourself."

Greetings, all.

I want to say I side with Silmenume in this discussion. I also believe that the Simulationist definition is the greatest flaw in G/N/S theory and that following this line of questioning is the biggest step we can take towards refining that theory, even if Ron thinks it's a non-issue. Allow me to assert the following in defense of my point:

1. A theory is only as useful inasmuch we can draw useful conclusions from it. If a theory tells us nothing useful about the system which it models, it is discarded.

2. We can draw several useful conclusions from G/N/S theory when we apply it to Game design, Player profiling, Story creation, and many other activities. However, when we approach Simulationist mode, the theory breaks down somewhat. We can no longer draw as many useful conclusions when we are, say, designing system features to encourage Simulationist mode; most people say that pinpointing particular overtly Simulationist methods is "difficult", and say generalities about "encouraging Exploration".

3. Simulationist mode is not fundamentally different from Gamist or Narrativist modes to such an extent that they cannot be compared meaningfully.

What this boils down to is that, as it stands, G/N/S theory is broken. Now, it doesn't mean it isn't useful for anything (in fact, it's extraordinarily useful for Gamist and Narrativist modes, and still somewhat useful for Simulationist mode). However, the model to explain the differences between the modes such that we may unequivocally characterize them is, how can I say it, hodge-podge. Simulationism does seem like the odd man out, which is why others have put its existence in question in the past.

In light of that, it's important that we define a methodology that we can apply to characterize all three modes pointing to the same object, be it Situation, Exploration as a whole, or whatnot. Regardless, here is my own hypothesis on the matter:

First off, it seems we have a discrepancy in the definition of what exactly is the Situation in each of the Modes. In both N and G, the Situation is a concern which is put to the players directly: a Premise or a Challenge is given to the players, not their characters. On the other hand, in Simulationism, the Situation is something that is defined within the Exploration, such as defeating the Galactic Empire or cracking the murder.

That isn't to say that in N and G the Premise or Challenge isn't presented to the characters, but it is in a different way than it is presented to the players themselves. Therefore, we have two Premises, two Challenges: the one presented to the players and the one presented to the characters. The two Premises and the two Challenges are closely intertwined, but differ in respect to context: within and without the game (Exploration and Social Contract, respectively?).

S, on the other hand, only seems to have one Situation, within the Exploration context. What Situation are the players themselves faced with? I hypothesize that the task of Immersion into the Exploration is the Situation that the players must address. The characters, on their part, are also faced with a task of Immersion into their own world: to react according to their own Character characteristics to their Setting, using Rules as a medium and generating Color. Like in N and G, these are two subtly-different and very much intertwined Situations presented to the Players and the Characters.

But what about destroying the Galactic Empire? Well, maybe some might feel as a cop-out, but I believe that what we today refer to as Situation in a Sim game is actually a subset of Setting: we have a world where there is a wrong to be righted, and that is why it's not necessary that it become a focal point to the story. The players may ignore the overarching conflict in a Sim game and have very enjoyable time, just as they may ignore the existence of combat and have a good time, as well. It's all Setting. The Situation is Immersion, instead.

As I said in the beginning, a theory must be able to let us draw plausible conclusions about the system it models. One might say that the last conclusion I reached is useful, though I cannot vouch for that. Regardless, I eagerly await your peer review to help corroborate or discard my hypothesis.

-T

Hi Tiago,

That was a great post.

Except ... well, I can't see how anything in it disagrees with anything in my essays. Your conclusions seem to me to re-state, in full, all of my points about why "one of these three is not like the others."

Sometimes, people seem to require some sort of necessary parallelism among the three Creative Agendas. If G and N have certain features and levels, they ask, then where the hell are those levels in S? It just doesn't seem to satisfy them to say, "S is not like the others."

So far I don't see a problem with that answer. There's no reason to expect any of the three modes to be internally consistent with the others, and the fact that G and N do show those consistencies is what's interesting to me, not that S doesn't.

Best,
Ron

I think a number of things should be noted.

One is that although G and N have some common features, each of them also has features in which they are at odds with each other but in common with S. For example, Gamism and Simulationism tend to require reliability in mechanics, which Narrativism does not need. Narrativism and Simulationism tend to require strong characterization of character, which is much less necessary in Gamism.

Ron says, "One of these things is not like the other," but the fact is that each of these things is discrete, different from each of the others in various ways. Yet they are similar in various ways as well, all together and in pairs.

I think we can draw conclusions when designing features for simulationist play; my Applied Theory article made it clear that I believed such design features were identifiable and useful. As a recent posting on another thread observed, though, there is no single feature which of itself fits a single mode. It is the combination of features and the specific application in play that supports an agendum. It is no more difficult to answer the question of how to design a simulationist game than it is to answer the same question for narrativist and gamist games. Of course, if you ask people who design primarily for one agendum, they're not going to be as able to answer how to design for another. Sports cars and pickup trucks have a lot of common features, but someone who always designs one isn't going to have a lot of familiarity with the best ways to design the other.

The distinction between the situation as posed to the player and that as posed to the character already exists recognizably in simulationism. For the player, the objective is to discover. That indeed may be immersive discovery, trying to experience what it would be like to be a certain kind of person in a certain kind of situation. It may however as easily be objective discovery, trying to observe how things happen and what the consequences are. Ralph Mazza has spoken of the excitement that springs from having characters jump off incredible cliffs because the system says they will survive that kind of fall, and it's neat to watch it happen--simulationist exploration of system, no immersion in the character at all, but the discovery of what the world would really be like if those were the rules. The situation posed to the player is how do I use the tools given to me in this game (whether just the character or including more empowering techniques) to learn more? The character need not have any interest in learning more. The desire to learn is the metagame; it is what the player wants.

In all three modes, the player objectives and the character objectives may be closer together or further apart. You can have a gamist situation in which the character wants to beat the dragon and the player wants to beat the dragon. You can have one in which the character just wants to put all this behind him and go home to his wife, but the player just wants to win the war. So, too, you can have simulationist play in which player and character are both out to discover the same thing, but you can also have such play in which the character isn't particularly interested in what the player wants to know, but reveals it incidentally as he moves through the world.

I think of the video game Maniac Mansion. Anytime I've seen it played, the players use the characters to wander around the house trying things, and get really excited if they melt down the nuclear reactor and kill everyone. Those can hardly be said to be the objectives of the characters. They're essentially pawns in the game--yet the exploration for the sake of discovering how the place works is clearly a simulationist pursuit.

--M. J. Young

Perhaps my vision is skewed.

I am not really trying to make Simulationism "like the others". However, it is my impression that, all things being equal, the analysis of Simulationism through G/N/S doesn't yield as much information as the analysis of Narrativism or Gamism. Since I initially reject the notion that Simulationism is somehow more "unknowable" than either Narrativism or Gamism, I have to infer it is a limitation of the theory.

The second part, which you have probably taken as the main part of my post, was merely an attempt of mine to come up with an alternative so as not to expend the post in empty rhetoric. Naturally, given my Math/Engineering/CS background, I wound up trying to generate an analogy between the three modes in order to study them, because that's the standard fashion in Engineering theories. I do recognize, however, that it certainly need not be so; Social theories, of which G/N/S is one by virtue of modelling a social endeavor, certainly don't need to abide by the strictures of Engineering or mathematical theorems. I just don't have enough knowledge of those to propose one that doesn't look like an Engineering theorem. Well, minus the mathematical model, anyway.

However, MJ, your post has me thinking that maybe I'm figuratively barking up the wrong tree. I'd read your essay before, but did it again anyway, and I really have to consider if what I perceive as an inability of the theory to draw (as many) useful conclusions about S isn't my inability to draw useful conclusions about S using the theory. The jury's still out on that one, so make of it what you will.

-T

The relationship of conflict to simulationism is a different kind of relationship from the one it has to the other agendas.

In simulationist play, conflict exists, not as a tool to drive exploration or agenda, but as part of The Dream itself, required for the consistent imaginary experience because conflict is part of our very expectations of reality. Without it, The Dream loses verisimilitude.

Hey Tiago!

Welcome to the never ending round about of "What is Simulationism"!

From my perspective - your position is not skewed. You're doing the exact thing that I asked those who posted to this thread to do - find a way to set up the Agendas in such as way as they can be studied.

The problem and the confusion you are having about Discovery and what not is the very problem with the description and understanding of Simulationism as it stands now and exactly what I am trying to cut through. Your attempt to make the model work is the very same thing that I am trying to do.

The problem with the prevailing idea of Discovery as the driving force behind Sim is that it fails on two accounts. As Discover does not harness conflict towards an end like Challenge or Premise, and two it doesn't limit player activities like Challenge addressing or Premise addressing IOW it is neither prescriptive nor descriptive. Gamism and Narrativism are basically defined by how they address conflict - Gamism is addressing Challenge and Narrativism is addressing Premise. Both Challenge and Premise are conflict driven, and in both cases define which conflicts are of interest to the play to the players and thus guides play as which conflicts to create. Discovery does neither. The basic defense of Discovery is player intention, but the model does not support player intention, but player action. If a player wishes to see which tactics to employ in order to gain a victory the success of that act is an act of Discovery - a new piece of information has been Discovered. But the proponents say that the discovery of information does not include Step on Up. But that this an artificial distinction based upon intention rather than observing player actions. So Discovery is too broad, it defines nothing because it covers all of Exploration. This is where much confusion still reigns. The other problem with Discovery is that by not being defined as a goal oriented action it does not limit or focus what the players are doing so once again the definition of Sim is left vague and non predictive - Discovery as an Agenda is passive.

The reason I focus on conflict is that over the years every other distinction between the CA, as viewed via the elements of Exploration has been debunked. Lots of mechanics or few mechanics is not indicative of CA. Published mechanics cannot enforce a CA, its what the players do that determines CA in action. Verisimilitude is not a definer of CA. Color is not. Setting is not. Character stance is not. Whether you get into Character or not is not indicative of CA. There is nothing left but conflict/situation. The only thing that can definitively distinguish between CA's in operation is how conflict is employed.

If conflict is employed just to employ mechanics or not employed at all, then that is Zilchplay. If conflict is employed towards a goal then that is a Creative Agenda in operation. The question I have posed is what is that conflict employment that is uniquely Sim. How do Simulationists constructively employ the use of conflict to further their CA goals? Discover this and you will have successfully defined Sim.

Hey Alan,

I say that conflict is a tool that drives Exploration in Sim, its just that unlike G/N, conflict creation is typically not in the control of the players. Also I would say that while conflict is a direct tool employed by Gamists and Narrativists, conflict is used in conjunction with Character to create/Explore Events as an end unto themselves more than G/N which use Events to address Challenge or Premise.

Aure Entaluva,

Silmenume

Silmenume wrote: Gamism and Narrativism are basically defined by how they address conflict - Gamism is addressing Challenge and Narrativism is addressing Premise. Both Challenge and Premise are conflict driven, and in both cases define which conflicts are of interest to the play to the players and thus guides play as which conflicts to create.

M. J. Young wrote:

In gamist play, players respond to conflict by demonstrating their skills at the game, proving their abilities as players. In narrativist play, players respond to conflict by making moral, ethical, or personal decisions and expressing them as answers to the questions raised by play. In simulationist play, players respond to conflict by using the tools available to them to uncover new areas of information or experience within the game world.
--M. J. Young

Alan wrote: The relationship of conflict to simulationism is a different kind of relationship from the one it has to the other agendas.

In simulationist play, conflict exists, not as a tool to drive exploration or agenda, but as part of The Dream itself, required for the consistent imaginary experience because conflict is part of our very expectations of reality. Without it, The Dream loses verisimilitude.

Hello,

Max (Balbinus) and Caldis, I'm pretty sure that M.J. isn't saying anything too different from what you're saying. M.J., can you give a yea or nay? That "discovery" is by and large an experiential thing? Not controversial, I don't think.

Max, thanks for the kind words about the essay (did you just read it for the first time recently?) and also, have you seen the first draft of the Glossary?

Best,
Ron

Ron Edwards wrote: Hello,

Max (Balbinus) and Caldis, I'm pretty sure that M.J. isn't saying anything too different from what you're saying. M.J., can you give a yea or nay? That "discovery" is by and large an experiential thing? Not controversial, I don't think.

Max, thanks for the kind words about the essay (did you just read it for the first time recently?) and also, have you seen the first draft of the Glossary?

Best,
Ron

Caldis wrote: I dont think that is at all what most simulationist players are attempting to do when they respond to conflict. They are not seeking to gain new information about the conflict or to get past it so they can get on to the next experience, they are attempting to resolve the conflict based on the parameters of the situation in a realistic fashion. They want the experience to feel real so it doesn't break their suspension of disbelief, so that they can experience something they themselves never would.

Max wrote: Conflict is part of the dream, conflict is part of reality or the underlying genre being emulated and as such must be present if verisimilitude is to be maintained. It is not necessarily a tool for further exploration, it is a necessary element of the dream itself.

Ron wrote: I'm pretty sure that M.J. isn't saying anything too different from what you're saying. M.J., can you give a yea or nay? That "discovery" is by and large an experiential thing?

Hey M. J.,

M. J. Young wrote:

Silmenume wrote: Gamism and Narrativism are basically defined by how they address conflict - Gamism is addressing Challenge and Narrativism is addressing Premise. Both Challenge and Premise are conflict driven, and in both cases define which conflicts are of interest to the play to the players and thus guides play as which conflicts to create.

This sounds to me like saying that gasoline engines and stir fry both rely on oil to make them work, and then pretending that it's the same kind of oil in both cases. I assure you that if I used the same oil I put in my crankcase to make my stir fry, you would not like it, and it would not like you.

M. J. Young wrote: That which we call "conflict" in narrativist play and that which we call "conflict" in gamist play are completely different things, and they are approached in completely different ways.

There is a lion in the road ahead, and the only way to continue the journey is to defeat the lion or find a way around him. That is conflict in gamist play; it is not conflict in narrativist play--it is merely an event.

M. J. Young wrote: Creative agendum is defined by what it is the player finds enjoyable in play, and thus what it is that the player wants from play, and thus what motivates the player during play. It is recognized by observing conduct (not by asking players what they want), because this is the most accurate means of identifying such.

...

Creative Agendum is defined by what it is the player finds enjoyable in play...

M. J. Young wrote: Discovery is not passive. Ask any research scientist.

M. J. Young wrote: Query is that which identifies what is investigated. So curiosity focuses in a query, and investigation springs from the query driven by curiosity toward discovery.

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?p=120923#120923

Rob Carriere wrote: ...the players ask questions about the SIS and use the answers to create new questions?

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?p=120952#120952

Ron Edwards wrote: Rob, that works pretty well, except that it's more suited to Exploration in general rather than to the Right to Dream specifically.

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?p=120975#120975

Silmenume wrote: A Narrativist puts more stake (prioritizes) in addressing Premise than reacting to Situation in a fashion that highlights Character mediated response. IOW the Narrativist in this case is willing to ignore what is normally an issue for a person, acting in a fashion that appears to be illogical (ignoring a potential threat to one?s life) in order to prioritize addressing premise rather than address the conflict in a manner that a player who is prioritizing exploring Character would be.

...But in Sim limiting our actions and responses to the circumstances of our created characters is a priority. Not so in Gamism where Character is a tool whereby Challenge is addressed and the players are rewarded for successfully addressing the fictional conflict. Not so in Narrativism where character integrity can be sacrificed in order to address Premise. Premise addressing has priority or Character integrity. This is not to imply that character is not important to either agenda, but rather character integrity is not the prioritized element. By prioritized I am speaking of that element of play which is the choke point of player action. A Gamist is bound by player integrity ? no cheating is allowed via breaking or bypassing the agreed upon parameters of the Challenge. A Narrativist is bound by player integrity ? a player must address the agreed upon Premise and do so without impinging upon the protagonism (I think that is right word) of the other players. A Simulationist is bound by Character integrity. If a Simulationist player breaks character integrity then he is sometimes accused of cheating but is actually starting to pursue other Creative Agendas.

Ron has gone on again and again that we cannot accurately determine player motives, so we can only observe player actions and from those data points can we diagnose play and thus infer which Creative Agenda is in operation. Creative Agenda is defined by what the players are doing in play. In terms of the model a Creative Agenda can only be defined based on observable behaviors of the player not their intentions/motives. Thus a player playing to test some ideas regarding tactics is still Gamist because he is still addressing Challenge even if he isn?t motivated by glorious victory. There might be a correlation between player motivation to play and Creative Agenda but that there is a causal relationship has not been established. The model not only does not allow for player motivation to be taken into account when diagnosing play, Ron has vigorously defended that position. The CA?s are defined by and are descriptive of player behaviors with some educated assumptions about what motivates those behaviors thrown in. The only thing that we can positively assert when diagnosing a CA in operation is exactly that, that the players are doing certain things in play ? anything about what is going on with the players internally/motivationally is educated guess work.

M. J. Young wrote: That experience of something vicariously through their characters is the knowledge they seek. It is subjectively attained, but it is still discovery.

I think we're arguing semantics here so I'll keep my comments brief.
I think labelling the exploration that happens in simulationism as discovery is obfuscatory, it's muddying the waters without any real gain.
It's adding jargon to an already jargon rich environment.

M. J. Young wrote: In short, the emphasis on immersive subjective experiential play as characteristic of simulationism is true from a perspective of historical dominance (at least in terms of that which was recognized as such), but it's misrepresentative of simulationism as a creative agendum.

Either that, or the act of role playing to learn objectively about the elements of exploration is an unrecognized independent agendum.

I'll agree with you that role playing to learn is not a seperate creative agenda however I think you've taken the opposite approach and blown it up to be the whole of Simulationism. The majority of simulationists, the subjective side as you've labelled them are not playing to learn. They are not trying to discover something, they dont have that detached "let's see what happens" angle, they are playing out 'the Dream' with no goal other than to live out the experience with all the risks and dangers that make it feel real.

Caldis wrote: I'll agree with you that role playing to learn is not a seperate creative agenda however I think you've taken the opposite approach and blown it up to be the whole of Simulationism. The majority of simulationists, the subjective side as you've labelled them are not playing to learn. They are not trying to discover something, they dont have that detached "let's see what happens" angle, they are playing out 'the Dream' with no goal other than to live out the experience with all the risks and dangers that make it feel real.

Balbinus wrote: Is this more than a semantic distinction though? Not wholly sure it is.

Thanks everyone!

So to get back onto topic about defining a Creative Agenda I have a few ideas that came to me that I would like to open up for discussion.

In regards to conflict and using it as a diagnostic to determine player CA in operation –

The Narrativist CA gives the player the most control over conflict. Players are empowered to directly create, govern and alter the outcome of conflicts. No other CA allows the players such power. The rewards for doing so effectively are typically more power to continue doing the same, but much of the player reward is in the addressing of conflict directly. This level of authorship is indicative of Story Now! Narrativist don’t need that many in game rewards to engage conflict, it’s what it is all about. They just want to make sure it the right conflicts. This is why a Narrativist would think a Gamist is annoy because the Gamist is all over the map hunting for that Easter egg reward without regard to the Premise (story).

The Gamist CA does not really give the players any control over conflict, that role is typically left in the hands of a DM. The players are willing to engage in conflict only if there are rewards to be had. The rewards allow the Gamist to address Challenge more effectively as well as push him on towards victory. If there were no rewards to be earned then I would venture that the Gamist would not engage – IOW what’s the point? This is why a Gamist would look at a Narrativist and wonder what the hell they are doing with all that wonderful conflict but wasting all those opportunities to dish out or earn rewards! To a Gamist conflict is a means by which rewards are earned that push that tote board ever closer towards victory.

The Simulationist CA does not give the players any control over conflict creation/management either. The DM must provide it as well. Here’s the deal though, the player enjoys the conflict for its own sake as well – its just plain exciting or invigorating, etc. The difference between Narrativism enjoyment of conflict and Sim enjoyment of conflict is how conflict is defined. For the Narrativist its defined by Premise, for the Simulationist its defined by the Character. Typically though most Sim designed games offer character rewards for successful interaction with conflict. This is why most Sim games can be easily hijacked by Gamists. To a Narrativist this passivity towards conflict drives them crazy and they start bumping heads with the DM over conflict management.

In all three CA’s the players all give social rewards for how well the other players managed conflict. Did the Narrativist create a great Premise (conflict) or did he address the Premise question (conflict) in a way that was exciting to the other players? Did the Gamist win a great victory (conflict defeat) and reap much in game reward or did he come up with a great and masterful strategy (mastery over conflict) that the players recognized as superlative? In Simulationism the rewards for dealing with conflict are handed out for how the player dealt with the conflict within the confines of the Character. The object is not to “break” the character, but rather to see if/how the player can create a response given the local parameters. Thus to a Simulationist conflict is a test that builds the story of the character while demonstrating the creativity and problem solving and stress handling skills of the player. The key is how well the player does it from “within” the character. The big difference between Sim and G/N is that conflict is not supposed to be an overt part of the player’s actions; it’s the experience of working through the conflict as if it is ours that counts.

The Narrativist employs, creates, manipulates conflict to meld it to their interests and needs. The Gamist rushes towards conflict in that quest for in game rewards that push that tote board up higher and higher. The Simulationist needs the DM to create relevant circumstances so that the player could justify their character addressing the conflict. The big mistake that Simulationist theory, design and history has made is that because the player must wait on the DM that conflict isn’t important. Bah! You can’t explore character or press the players without it!

Let’s face it, conflict is exciting and revealing. The difference between the CA’s is who’s in control of it, what kinds are interesting, and what are the rewards.

As Ron keeps asking for real play examples I offer up example for rewards offered in the Sim game I play in. Players are rewarded with “experience checks” for good character roleplay. This could be anything from good performance, color, brilliant defusing of conflict, excellent acting, good use of character limitation or gift, etc. How important are these “checks”? A player needs 10x the level he is going to in checks as well as straight EP’s to gain a level. A Gamist who kills much will not go up levels if he doesn’t play his character. At the end of the night players are given player ratings for their overall performance that night. Also at the end of the night a “star” is given for the best roleplayer that night – again based upon character-delimited actions, not how much stuff was killed.

The other night a I was playing a Ranger of Ithilian. Rangers in the game have tremendous powers of law, they can act in the name of the Steward of Gondor, and as warriors they are the best humans can be. Rare character’s very hard to come by. So here I am in a situation where I was assisting another Ranger bring a man by the name of Pebble. Pebble was a Banderon Scout who went bad. Due to a story 10 real years in the making, they were accused of false crimes and were being hunted while they were trying to continue to do the right thing, the Scouts finally folded. Some of them turned to banditry, though Pebble and his uncle, Stone, turned to drinking. Well things went bad and they started rolling drunks and not too long later Stone was killed by a bounty hunter and Pebble was on the gallows set to be hanged. Only by the player’s roleplay was he able to convince the Ranger to arrest him when Pebble indicated he was from Banderon and that he had fought side by side with another Ranger by the name of Cobb. Remember the Banderon Scouts were good guys who swore oaths to protect and to serve, so this character, Pebble, has fallen a long way. The Ranger had to throw his weight around and threaten the local magistrate to take custody of Pebble. Apparently the Ranger knew of the Scouts and had a soft spot for them, though the Ranger made if very clear if that Pebble was lying or tried anything to escape he would kill Pebble on the Spot.

This is where I came in. I was on patrol. By the way the philosophy of the Rangers is one riot one Ranger, so we are always facing impossible situations. I came across Pebble and the Ranger so I go with them for a few days as they were in my area of patrol. I recognized Pebble from long ago but I didn’t say anything biding my time to see what was up. We were accosted about 2 days later by about 30 bandits on horseback led by one of the captains of the now defunct Banderon Scouts. Wade, the captain, calls Pebble back to his gang who eventually goes and now it is just 2 Rangers vs 30 men horseback.

The other Ranger is incensed by this betrayal by Pebble but suggests we try and flee in two different directions as we are near some woods. I agree, but we are both ridden down and the Ranger managed to kill about 2 bandits before going down earning him no love from them. We are captured, but he Captain being no fool is no hurry to kill Rangers because the Rangers would sooner forgive the killer of a lord than the killer of Ranger. They would hunt this man down for the rest of his life and he knows it. They know if we return we will call for more men and we will hunt them down. Wade’s men however will mutiny if he doesn’t do something with us 2 Rangers. He’s got agitators and the Ranger on my side has got a real hard on for Pebble.

So I think how can I get out of this alive. What does Wade want? I know I can’t fight my way out and I know that he is reluctant to kill Rangers, but that doesn’t mean he won’t. I figure out that I will offer him a letter of Marque as an irregular mercenary company to operation in the disputed lands south of Gondor. He gets to continue raiding to his hearts content, he doesn’t have to fear the Rangers hunting him forever, I get the problem taken care of by removing the bandits as opposed to having to die trying to “arrest” them out numbered as I am. They no longer can be threatened by us as they now how a legitimate Marque with amnesty and safe passage through Gondor. Plus they may do the country some good by sewing seeds of confusing down south. Great plan except an agitator in the bandits says I don’t want to leave here, another says let’s get the letter and then kill the Rangers, the Ranger I am with is hardnosed and says he refuses to treat with bandits. I expend much effort trying to convince the Ranger the usefulness of the plan, as death is the only other possibility. Eventually it goes to shit, there is infighting with the bandits, the other Ranger got himself killed because he tried to arrest all the bandits to which they responded by killing him instantly (we had no weapons as they had been taken from us).

Wade keeps me from being killed. At knife point he commands me to write the letter. I hope that he is just playing the role of brutal man to the hilt and doesn’t really want to kill a “cop” as he used to be one to though of a different ilk. Sure enough later that night he comes to me and says best not to be too quick writing that letter. He asks he quietly what would happen if I would “happen to escape”. I told him that I would keep my word, that letter of Marque would be left behind and that I would not trouble him despite what I felt as the other Ranger suiciding himself. I told him that it would be easier for me if I had a body to take back to explain the death of the other Ranger. Later Wade had a card game set where one of the gamblers was someone he didn’t like. When Wade finally joined he started playing for real money and losing bad. When the man he didn’t like finally won a hand Wade accused him of cheating and in a few moments there was my dead man that I needed for my cover story. Come 2 or 3 in the morning one of Wade’s men, a former Scout as well came by with a knife, gave it to me, I cut my bonds and I was let go. I kept my word and did not bother them. I waited for a day, went back, got the body of the killed bandit, buried the dead Ranger and set out for a Ranger window.

For the plan and the roleplay of the parlay and the interaction with the Ranger I received much reward at the end of the night. I played my character in a really dangerous and shitty position, as I was the “law” but felt that dying uselessly was not a good use of “government property”. I can’t hunt orc and things that roam in the night near the borders of Mordor when I am dead, especially if it would have been a death that would not have bought anything for Gondor. By the way death is real and permanent, so once a character is gone, that is it. My whole night was spent juggling responsibility to letter of the lay with staying alive to trying to find a workable solution.

My goals were to stay alive and do so in a fashion that would be representative of Ranger of Ithilian. My character’s story grew, some heretofore unknown things about his character were revealed, I received accolades for fast thinking. I experienced the simulation of what it was like to be a Ranger in a situation they can encounter. It was stressful and in the end extremely cool! During this whole time I was trying to defuse conflict so that I attain my character and ultimately my goals.

Aure Entuluva,

Silmenume

Not buying it. In Sorcerer the player doesn't have any more control over what the conflict is, or what the outcome is than when playing D&D. Oh, he can indicate to the GM what's interesting to him, but that's no different than a player who likes gamism telling the GM what challenges he likes to overcome.

The differences in conflics presented for each of these is in terms of what the player chooses to address. Does he look at a problem and see a premise to answer? Does he see a situation to create through? Or does he see a challenge to overcome personally? I think "control" is a non-issue.

Mike

Good stuff - I apologize that I will probably not be able to respond until the 9th as I am going out of town to roleplay for a week.

Have a great 4th everyone!

Aure Entuluva,

Silmenume

Hey Mike,

I think you are right. Control might be more frequently seen in Narrativism, but it certainly is not definitional, and therefore is a non-issue.

I'm not sure if this is good netiquette to post twice in a row no a thread, but here goes.

Conflict has a two fold role that I can see so far in Exploring.

• Conflict provides the motor for addressing.
• Conflict provides risk which enhances the intensity/vividness of the Exploration process.

In Gamism and Narrativism role 1 is the most important and role 2 can vary in importance from low to high.

In Simulationism the order of importance is reversed and this is why Sim tends to feel and play so differently than Gam/Nar. Thus role 2 of conflict becomes of primary importance in Sim which is to provide risk so as to enhance the intensity/vividness of the Exploration process. What was listed as 1 now takes on a secondary role and can vary in importance from low to high.

The problem here in Sim, that isn't really as much an issues in G/N is that historically the first role was never understood and the second role was not really understood to be under the tight control of Internal Causality. I am not speaking of resolution mechanics, but rather conflict/Situation creation, Character revealing play via conflict work. So what happened? It was thought the conflict was either not important or well integrated into play so as to consistently foster the Dream. The more conflict, the greater the likelihood of Dream support. But the problem of subjecting conflict creation to the strictures of Internal Causality was never supported either. So conflict was never really used or it was never understood that it moved "story" forward and in a certain direction. Thus if you are looking for a hardcore Sim game philosophy you needs lots of high risk conflict and it must all be generated according to internal causality norms especially those related to social structures.

That is what conflict's relationship to Simulationism is.

Think not so much in terms of the beeg horseshoe but rather a 2 pronged pitchfork with G/N on the forks and S being the handle with conflict avoidant (yet to be named) play sitting at the base of the U where all three CAs meet.