Looking at the 3D-Model and The Big Model, I've come to the conclusion that I'm not sure what, definitionally, constitutes GNS Sim. Several things have been postulated but I'm not sure where people now stand.

A source of concern comes from what I'm going to call Story Play. I would call it Dramatic play--but that has problems (GDS Dramatism). This is play that is designed to be Dramatic and always interesting or exciting. If the PC's pursue an avenue of investiation the GM will work things out so that somehow it bears fruit.

If the players pick a random spot on the map to go to (in the most extreme case) and head there with high expectations, something cool will be there.

Now: this play might analyze to be either Nar or Gamist ... or maybe even Sim--but for the last (Sim) to happen then Sim cannot be "What-if" or Virtualist play since that's the one thing Story play ain't.

Story-Play is directly opposed to Virtualist Play.

This realization would seem to make most-plausible-play a technique since Story-Play could be Gamist or Narrativist (and therefore, reasonably "Sim," whatever Sim is)--but only if Sim isn't defined by being play that is an attempt to find out "what it's like to be there."

Some people don't see a whole lot of difference between what I'm calling Story-Play and what has been called Virtuality play.

But I think it's pretty clear there is a difference (the suggestion that Story-Games could be just as leigitimately lumped under Narrativist play led to discussions about gradients of Narrativism).

When John laid out a grid of the various 3D forms that corresponded to GNS modes, the upper-middle box was labeled "Mixed" meaning that play that was Immersionist/Distributed was usually, when categorized at all, categorized as mixed Sim-Nar or some such.

[code]
----Theme-----Immersion---Challenge--
_____________________________________
| | | |
Decentralized | GNS Nar | Mixed | GNS Gam |
|___________|___________|___________|
| | | |
Centralized | GNS Sim | GNS Sim | GNS Gam |
|___________|___________|___________|
[/code]


It's in this Mixed Zone that I think most of the contention occurs: Recently threads on Sim have suggested (these are my paraphrases):

1. That Sim is simply what has been called Virtuality play--"what if?" based play.

2. That Sim is detected by the presence of intellectual engagement only (as opposed to deep empatic emotions) by the players.

3. That Sim games are denoted by some sort of meta-game "point" which acts as a filter for player-input.

4. That Sim is an attempt on the part of the players to "learn something" they couldn't otherwise learn in real life.

Recognizing that all CA's can have a pretty high emphasis (although perhaps not priority) on exploration and plausibility then we have the following.

1. If Sim is a priority on plausibility (i.e. Virtuality: most-probable) then there is no slot in GNS-standard for Story-Games (as I've denoted them here) that aren't Gamist and have pre-created theme.

2. If the difference between Sim and Nar is the lack of emphatic or deep emotion with regards to human-condition stuff then that might be a determining factor--but what about the case of a book or movie that sitrrs deep emotions over which the reader or viewer has no control? That means adjusting Narrativist defintions.

3. A gating factor to player input would be fairly easily determined--but is this a technique or an agenda (I'm honestly not sure). Do gating factors, for example, preculde Gamist or Narrativist play too? I wouldn't necessiarily think so.

4. I'm not sure that play "to learn something" is necessiarily preclusive of Gamism or Nar play. If "learn-something" Sim is what might be called "Scientist play" where the player is focused on running experiments in the game world then I think a focus might more profitably be brought back to emotional investment on the part of the player (number 2) as a definition of player agenda.

I'm very interested in Number 3: Sim as a game with a "point"--I don't fully understand everything Ron meant by that--but I think that it might be valuable to look at.

I also think that Ralph's suggestion (as I understand it, #1) is viable and defensible--it does mean looking at how Story-Play gets categorized.

Finally: I think that the "Mixed" category in the 3D model is something of a weakness--how *I've* been addressing it is in terms of priorities: I have a secondary appreciation of Theme but a primary appreciation of "Immersion."

In my example I have been attributing one mode to the GM and another mode to my own play and expectations.

I'm not sure this is legitimate under the 3D Model and examining it might illuminate that Mixed Square.

-Marco

I see your problem, and raise you two additional problems.

No, seriously, simulationism is proving to be very difficult. If you'll forgive this approach, I'm going to attempt to work not so much from your questions but from my understanding of the agendum.

Ron says that simulationism is about The Dream; it therefore involves the integrity of the game world. Ralph says that it's about What If, and therefore depends on all other variables being held constant. I say it's about discovery, and therefore there must be consistency in that which is explored to support discovery.

We aren't really that far apart, from what I can tell. Each of us sees flaws in the other positions. I think that The Dream tends to reflect subjective approaches but not objective approaches to the concept, and that What If as currently expressed puts too much emphasis on conflict. I think that Ron views my emphasis on discovery as being a confusing way of restating what he's already said. However, we all agree that this agendum is somehow related to examining the shared imagined space for its own sake, as contrasted with trying to manipulate it to some less related end.

You've put forward a method of play in which the referee creates interesting things wherever the players decide to have their characters go. This would seem, in your mind, not to be simulationist by any of these definitions, all of which seem to require that there be a fixed and stable world to explore--that were we to steal the referee's notes, we would find out what was happening everywhere, because in some sense it all exists.

Certainly a lot of simulationist play is like that; but I think that's confusing technique with agendum again.

No one creates the entire world in every detail before play begins; it's just not possible to know the contents of every shop, the personalities of every bum on the streets, the location of every building in a major city (I tried that one once). Part of the function of the referee is to fill in the gaps. That is nearly always so.

The questions then are, how big are the gaps allowed to be, and on what basis does the referee decide what should fill them?

The obvious simple answers reflect creative agenda very directly:

• The referee creates challenges for the players so that they can show their skills, indicating that the referee is playing (supportive/passive) gamist play.• The referee introduces issues related to premises recognized as important to the players so that they can respond creating theme, showing that he's playing (supportive/passive) narrativist play.• The referee decides what is most likely to be there, which is simulationist play.

You propose one that doesn't seem to fit:

• The referee creates something interesting for the players to explore.

The problem arises from the "interesting for the players to explore" phrase. Why is it interesting? We can usually spot things that are interesting because they offer challenge, and with a bit more difficulty perhaps we can spot things that are interesting because they raise premise questions. Yet I would say that if they are interesting solely because players are intrigued by the things themselves, that's simulationist play.

The question, then, is whether this goes against any of the current definitions of simulationism.

It's easy for me to say that it doesn't go against my definition. As far as I can see, the referee creates and reveals the world and the players explore and discover it. It doesn't much matter whether the referee has known for six years what's behind that door or invents it on the spot because you opened it--as long as you don't know whether it was there a moment before, you can't tell the difference during play. Thus discovery does not require absolutely that these things not have been invented on the spot; it only requires that to the players it appears as if it has always been there.

As to The Dream as a definition, I again don't see why instant creation of the world is necessarily inconsistent. What matters to the players is that the entirety seem consistent and complete, and not that there actually be a written record of it somewhere before they find it. In the main, most would rather believe that this existed before they found it, but in play they can't tell, and as long as they still feel as if the world is "there", there's been no breach of their agendum.

What If play requires one other factor, and that is that whatever is invented not only feels like it has always been there, but that it is thoroughly consistent with everything else known about the world. That's hardly an additional requirement, though. Nothing would seem consistent that was blatantly inconsistent. Even if this new piece is in some way anomalous, that's not necessarily going to break What If play if there's a reason for it being anomalous.

So I would say that you're describing simulationism, combined with a bit of no-myth technique. I don't see no myth as incompatible with simulationism; the referee merely creates consistently with that which is known.

--M. J. Young

M. J. Young wrote:
You've put forward a method of play in which the referee creates interesting things wherever the players decide to have their characters go. This would seem, in your mind, not to be simulationist by any of these definitions, all of which seem to require that there be a fixed and stable world to explore--that were we to steal the referee's notes, we would find out what was happening everywhere, because in some sense it all exists.

This is just where I pop in and talk about the term that I coined and then ran away from me.

Virtuality, as a term, was never intended to be the whole of GNS sim, just a subset of it. I offer a collection of such subsets here What connects these? No idea. Sim is a bit of a "black box" to me even still.

yrs--
--Ben

edited once: Ah, HTML tags... my old nemesis...

I believe 'Simulationism' is poor terminology, and this poor terminology has produced a lot of confusion, this thread being an example.

Consider: a 'Gamist' cares about an RPG as a game, the same way a chess player cares about the game of chess. A 'Narrativist' cares about the story produced in an RPG, the same way an author cares about a story. 'Simulation' isn't an end in itself but a means to an end. The word 'Sim' in GNS isn't the same type of word as 'Game' and 'Narr'.

Let me step outside of GNS, and consider how 'Game', 'Narrative', and 'Simulation' are used normally. Games are basically ends in themselves. I play a game to play a game. Narratives are not quite ends in themselves, but authors produce a narrative for the enjoyment of that narrative. When people make a simulaiton, it is invariably a means to a completely different end. For instance, in my job I am currently simulating interest rate environments to estimate the profitability of financial instruments. The sim is purely a means of getting to profit.

To sum up: In normal discourse, 'Game' is a goal in itself,'Narration' is basically a goal in itself, 'Simulation' is a means to an end.

In RPGs, what is the end that Sim is a means to? In my experience, it is the experience of playing an RPG and becoming a different critter for a while. In the 3D model, this lines it up with Immersion pretty squarely.

Now, what does this have to do with us? In abstract theory, it helps a lot to have words used as closely as possible to normal usage. I somehow don't think it's going to happen :-), but I'd like to change GNS to GNE for Game, Narrative, Experience. Player experience is the end that Sim is a tool for.

In RPGs, what is the end that Sim is a means to? In my experience, it is the experience of playing an RPG and becoming a different critter for a while. In the 3D model, this lines it up with Immersion pretty squarely.

Marco wrote:
[2.] Sim play is distinguished by a lack of deep emotional resonance on the part of the players towards human-experience stuff going on during play.

[3.] Sim play is defined by having some sort of point that acts as a gating factor to player and GM input.

[4.] Sim play is based on the players "learning something."

However: That technique, the technique of choosing the most-likely choice, can apply just as easily to Narrativist or Gamist play and will be applied successfully with proper front-loading of initial situation and character.

So in short, no--I don't think so: The application of most-likely is a virtualist technique that can produce all three existant expressions of CA during play.

But I think it's pretty clear there is a difference (the suggestion that Story-Games could be just as leigitimately lumped under Narrativist play led to discussions about gradients of Narrativism).

Ben Lehman wrote: This is just where I pop in and talk about the term that I coined and then ran away from me.

Virtuality, as a term, was never intended to be the whole of GNS sim, just a subset of it. I offer a collection of such subsets <a href="http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=11317&highlight=subtyping">here What connects these? No idea. Sim is a bit of a "black box" to me even still.

yrs--
--Ben

edited once: Ah, HTML tags... my old nemesis...

contracycle wrote: Buncha questions snipped

Marco wrote:

contracycle wrote: Buncha questions snipped

If you weren't on the record as thinking I'm only here to play semantic games (or whatever you said exactly, I don't feel like digging up the quote right now) I'd be more inclined to answer these questions.

As it is, I think that:
a) most of this is addressed in my original post.
b) If you reference that post rather than my response to MJ in a PM, maybe we can discuss it there.

Edited to Add: That may be a bit short of me. I'll expand a bit.
1. I've said before in posts you've responsed to that I see gamism "emotional involvement" as distinct from Nar "emotional envolvement." I used the term empathic emotions in the original post.

2. I do see Virtuality as a technique.

3. I did define what I meant by Story-Play and explained that it was definitvely opposed to Virtuality (for purposes of this discussion)

etc.

If I thought this was simple misunderstanding I'd be happy to clear it up and keep clearing it up--but I considered your last few posts to be aggressive even after being asked to tone it down--and I have your PM to me which is, IMO, equally aggressive.

It's not that I want to, or plan to, ignore you. I think you're a bright guy who may have something valuable to add here. It's that when I sit down to try to answer this stuff I don't have a good reply to you given your present stance and the history of correspondence we've had.

-Marco

I believe Walt nailed it in the Personal Agenda vs Social Agenda

Walt Freitag wrote: Which brings me to that eternal pit of despair called "what is the Sim Creative Agenda?" Consistency, verisimilitude, causality -- they whiff. I don't need them from you, and you don't need them from me, the best we can hope for is not to screw it up for each other, and what kind of reason is that for me to drag my lazy ass to your place for an evening? Learning, discovery -- they're closer, if I want to learn from you and you from me. But a bit too specific. In the bottom line, what I want from you at my Sim table is for you to bring things into the Dream that I wouldn't have thought of by myself (while still fitting within our mutually expected constraints such as consistency etc.). "The unexpected," as I've put it before. If that's what I want most from you and you from me, then we can call the Creative Agenda Simulationist.

3. I did define what I meant by Story-Play and explained that it was definitvely opposed to Virtuality (for purposes of this discussion)

I like Walt's formulation. I like it a lot. I want to look closely at it.

If we define GNS Sim as "What I want from other people, including the GM, is the unexpected elements they bring to the table" is that:

a) incompatible with a personal goal of, say, Narrativism: if I am grooving on the human-experience stuff implicit in the situation and taking non-forced action to address it, does that work still work and count as GNS Sim if the players aren't giving me social positive reinforcement for such play? Is that a legitimate way to look at it? In this case I want other people to add unexpected stuff to the game--and I don't really care if they're engaged by my answer of the premise question--I'm going to do that anyway.

I'm not sure if that's a proper way to formulate a description of play and preference under the model.

b) Is it possible to want Sim-input from some players and not others (for example: I'm okay with Sim-input from the other players--but I want thematic approval from the GM).

c) Is the division between Sim and Nar (absent railroading or force or whatever) that the "unexpected stuff" I get from other players doesn't engage me emotionally?

If it does--if some player's "unexpected input" just happens to interest me because of it's relation to premise--then have we crossed over into Nar play?

Or does Nar play, in this case, mean the other players must be enjoying my story only. If another player's play provides me with premise and I have an answer to it, and I emotionally respond to that, is it still Sim if/because the other player isn't engaged by the thematic quality of my play?

I think that separating out what I called Personal Agenda from Social Agenda would be very helpful in both my understanding of these things and in explaining/defining them.

-Marco

contracycle wrote:

3. I did define what I meant by Story-Play and explained that it was definitvely opposed to Virtuality (for purposes of this discussion)

No, you didn't. You did not explain what mode of play you meant, you simply asserted a definition by negative reference to another definition.

WHY is story play definitively opposed to virtuality.

A source of concern comes from what I'm going to call Story Play. I would call it Dramatic play--but that has problems (GDS Dramatism). This is play that is designed to be Dramatic and always interesting or exciting. If the PC's pursue an avenue of investiation the GM will work things out so that somehow it bears fruit.

If the players pick a random spot on the map to go to (in the most extreme case) and head there with high expectations, something cool will be there.

Hello,

I'm gonna have trouble with this thread.

The main thing is that I don't know "which Ron" is supposed to be contributing.

The secondary thing is that I do not find Virtuality to be a useful term yet. In fact, most of the terms which seem to be a "Creative Agenda via specific Techniques," which in the past did or did not include Illusionism depending on who was typing, seem to me to be in terrible disarray.

So if you want me to talk about Simulationism, let me know whether we're talking about clarifying the essays or about how I'd say it now. And spot me the complete disinterest in Virtuality, whatever it may or may not be.

This isn't a slam on Lee or John. I am disavowing all responsibility to account for any of the highly-emotionally-charged struggles over terms like Illusionism, Virtuality (I think), and Vanilla Narrativism. All of them confound Techniques with CA, or rather, the people using the terms do so regularly.

In fact, I suggest that all of the perceived problems with any of the Creative Agenda terms originate from mistaking them for terms like these. If CA could be understood as what it is - aesthetics - and Techniques could be presented as what they are - concrete stuff we do - then I think we'd actually get somewhere.

Marco, I might be going off the rails here in terms of thread topic, but I think my age-old claim that CA (although I didn't use this term back then) is explicable in concrete observations is what's been tripping all this up for ages. That claim is valid, but it does not mean, and never did, that a given Technique or set of Techniques were a CA. It seems to me that ever since I said that, you and several others have been driving like gangbusters to find out what Techniques I must be talking about, searching through mountains of posts to suss it out, and we always hit the same brick wall because I'm just not talking about Techniques per se - I'm talking about the CA arrow as observable through all the levels of the Big Model, with Social Contract being the big kahuna.

I really don't think that the easy and straightforward explanation of Simulationist play, which I would like to review right here, is going to be possible unless I get some confirmation about what I'm asking for in this post.

Best,
Ron

I lied. I couldn't stand it. I posted the Sim thing in What do we mean by Creative Agenda?

Best,
Ron

Hi Ron,

I'm not particularly heavily invested in Virtuality--the reason it keeps cropping up is that whether or not it's a technique seems to be in some dispute and it's a handy way of distinguishing "what it would be like to be there" vs. "what will keep the game most interesting."

I did follow your post about the "point" of Sim with a great deal of interest when it was first posted. The Ron I'm interested in talking to is the "how you'd say it now."

I'd like to ask you some further questions about it since some things about how the "point" is used are not clear to me.

Would that be okay?

-Marco

Yes, excellent. I'm oriented now.

Um, everyone's good with the idea that an aesthetic (as an agenda or prioritized principle) is a very broad thing, right?

And that if it's used as a connector of Social Contract right on down to Ephemera, among the group, that it will look different in every different group, or across one group's game, right?

And finally, that although Techniques in isolation cannot be called Creative Agendas, it won't be shocking or surprising that some distinctive combinations of Techniques will do very nicely for particular Creative Agendas, right?

This is a big deal because internal cause is still going to be a serious and important topic in discussing Simulationist play. But I'll betcha there's going to be a quagmire to flail around in when we get there.

Best,
Ron

Okay--I have some questions and scenarios that I'd like you to comment on/answer. This is all as honest as I can possibly be. I'm sure I am confusing intent and internal cause and all that. That's why I'm asking.

1. Remember my not-Nar Nazi game? The GM is Narrativist (meaning that is style of play would produce functional Narrativism with the players) he and sends the Super Hero PC's to go rescue a turn-coat Nazi doctor and get his research notes. Along the way they find evidence he is a monster who will escape justice if they take him (and his files) back to the allies--but he'll help their cause in the war. This sets up a premise question of what's more important (Justice, Fidelity, etc.) that will be answered one way or another by the protagonists (the PC's) during play.

The PC's, in my hypothetical, go on the mission--get the files, resuce the doctor--but do not emotionally engage with the moral question of should we/shouldn't we.

Play is functional (everyone has fun, even the GM).

Question: is this Sim because, while the GM didn't inhibit any input, the players are intuited to have had a "point" of "We're Allied Super Heroes" which precludes questioning the mission? This seems to me it may be the case, but how do you know it was the case if no input is ever excluded from play. Nothing is bounced back.

Is the play simply indeterminate--no matter how long it lasted?

The general case of this is the game where no input is rejected in a game but no one emotionally engages. It can't be Nar. It doesn't seem challenge focused--but it's hard to say what the "point" was.

Can Sim be Sim without one being able to articulte the point?

2. Why can't Gamist play coexist with a "point" that dictates "what goes in"? It seems to me that a Knights of the Round Table could both limit input and still be Gamist. I may be forced to play my knight's, oh, say, code of honor--but I still have to win all my fights to get the rep-from my friends.

In this case it seems that a single agent (the GM) could impose the limiting factor and the rest of the group could provide the cheering-section.

In fact, that seems pretty standard to me.

Thanks,
-Marco

Hello,

We gotta talk about this right now, before it becomes a big hassle. You seem really focused on "rejecting or limiting input" as an issue, and as I tried to reply, I could not understand what the hell you were talking about.

So I just reviewed my discussion of Sim. Now I get it. You are seeing that my phrase confirmation of input is my stated key to Sim, thus concluding that rejection of input must be not-Sim. Marco - let's nail this now - this conclusion is mistaken. Please don't latch onto it; let it go. Let's start over. All role-playing requires input, and ...

- Gamist play uses that input to construct Challenge, and then to construct the output about "who wins."

- Narrativist play uses that input to construct Premise, and then to construct the output about Theme.

- Simulationist play uses that input to construct the Dream, and then to construct the output, which might be described as "our confirmed, spruced-up, strengthened Dream."

Don't focus on the input as a defining factor for Sim; that makes no sense. Focus on the Confirmation as the point.

Perhaps a good way to look at it is that if we all play a Star Trek derived Sim game together, we will all end up being better Star Trek fans. Much in the same way that one becomes a "better fan" by writing fanfic that other fans really like. We have confirmed and developed our original enjoyment of X into a particularly skillful and enjoyable social enjoyment of X.

But it has to be X; it can't be my co-opted or "stolen" version of X. It has to respect X as it came to us. What aspect of X gets respected (or protected!) varies a great deal.

One by one, I guess ...

1. Remember my not-Nar Nazi game? [details snipped] This sets up a premise question of what's more important (Justice, Fidelity, etc.) that will be answered one way or another by the protagonists (the PC's) during play.

The PC's, in my hypothetical, go on the mission--get the files, resuce the doctor--but do not emotionally engage with the moral question of should we/shouldn't we.

Play is functional (everyone has fun, even the GM).

Question: is this Sim because, while the GM didn't inhibit any input, the players are intuited to have had a "point" of "We're Allied Super Heroes" which precludes questioning the mission? This seems to me it may be the case, but how do you know it was the case if no input is ever excluded from play. Nothing is bounced back.

Is the play simply indeterminate--no matter how long it lasted?

Can Sim be Sim without one being able to articulte the point?

2. Why can't Gamist play coexist with a "point" that dictates "what goes in"? It seems to me that a Knights of the Round Table could both limit input and still be Gamist. I may be forced to play my knight's, oh, say, code of honor--but I still have to win all my fights to get the rep-from my friends.

In this case it seems that a single agent (the GM) could impose the limiting factor and the rest of the group could provide the cheering-section.

Ron Edwards wrote: Hello,

We gotta talk about this right now, before it becomes a big hassle. You seem really focused on "rejecting or limiting input" as an issue, and as I tried to reply, I could not understand what the hell you were talking about.

So I just reviewed my discussion of Sim. Now I get it. You are seeing that my phrase confirmation of input is my stated key to Sim, thus concluding that rejection of input must be not-Sim. Marco - let's nail this now - this conclusion is mistaken. Please don't latch onto it; let it go. Let's start over. All role-playing requires input, and ...

- Gamist play uses that input to construct Challenge, and then to construct the output about "who wins."

- Narrativist play uses that input to construct Premise, and then to construct the output about Theme.

- Simulationist play uses that input to construct the Dream, and then to construct the output, which might be described as "our confirmed, spruced-up, strengthened Dream."

Edit: Marco, it seems I'm kind of breaking into this important dialog you're having with Ron here, in order to respond to your comments and questions earlier in the thread. I'll leave it to your judgment whether this remains relevant right here or should be taken to a new thread.

Marco wrote: I like Walt's formulation. I like it a lot. I want to look closely at it.

If we define GNS Sim as "What I want from other people, including the GM, is the unexpected elements they bring to the table" is that:

a) incompatible with a personal goal of, say, Narrativism: if I am grooving on the human-experience stuff implicit in the situation and taking non-forced action to address it, does that work still work and count as GNS Sim if the players aren't giving me social positive reinforcement for such play? Is that a legitimate way to look at it? In this case I want other people to add unexpected stuff to the game--and I don't really care if they're engaged by my answer of the premise question--I'm going to do that anyway.

b) Is it possible to want Sim-input from some players and not others (for example: I'm okay with Sim-input from the other players--but I want thematic approval from the GM).

c) Is the division between Sim and Nar (absent railroading or force or whatever) that the "unexpected stuff" I get from other players doesn't engage me emotionally?

If it does--if some player's "unexpected input" just happens to interest me because of it's relation to premise--then have we crossed over into Nar play?

I think that separating out what I called Personal Agenda from Social Agenda would be very helpful in both my understanding of these things and in explaining/defining them.