This is split from this thread in which Ron and Eric (Technocrat13) discuss "the thing Simulationism needs," the way Gamist needs Challenge and Narrativism needs Story Now.

Where Eric chose "model" I was going to go, for various reasons, with "ideal."

The model/ideal is the test, the filter medium as it were, for players' validation (or lack thereof) of one another's input.

But now as I write this I wonder if it's exactly the same concept I had in mind after all. Because in my mind the "ideal" has a few other characteristics beyond what you and Ron have described.

1. The ideal can develop, change, and be added to in play. This can be a large part of some (but certainly not all) Sim play. [Whereas if the model is the source material, it usually exists independently and playing doesn't change it.]

2. In addition to examples, the ideal can consist of or incorporate rule-like tests or principles. That is, test conditions for input that do not necessarily refer to the real world or to a specific example, even if derived from them originally. "Every monster is unique" "The good guys always win in the end." "If you knew the truth about this world, your only option would be to go insane." Such principles can be derived from real-world or fictional sources, but once enumerated can in play be applied without reference to the sources (e.g. by someone who had never read the relevant source material).

3. Rules for in-game-world causality in the system can be themselves part of the ideal, as (usually very specific) instances of #2-type tests or principles. This characterizes purist-for-system play.

It's certainly possible to have different ideals derived from the exact same source material. Although there's a lot more to it than this, we can imagine a dial ranging from "example-centric" to "principle-centric." I've often used the example of two different Star Wars Sim designs both trying to be "true" to the films. One uses only monsters that appear in the films; the other allows only never-before-seen monsters each of which can be encountered only once, because that's how monsters work in the films. That's a twist of the examples-principles dial.

The ideal is what's uniquely necessary for Sim play. When accordance with the ideal is prioritized, play is Simulationist. When it's not, it's not.

Narrativist or Gamist play, even if "pure" or "focused" in their CAs, might have a model in the sense of source material. But pure/focused Nar play and pure/focused Gam play lack shared attention to an ideal, as completely as pure/focused Sim play lacks shared attention to Step On Up and Narrativist Premise.

To recap...

Model: the source material, as per Ron's list

Ideal: the specific qualities of the source material that are used to validate player input

Is that distinction necessary or useful?

Since I personally (going outside what the Big Model strictly says) equate Creative Agenda with the topic (subject matter) of player self-expression through play, I could further hypothesize that the Ideal is the subject matter of player self-expression through Simulationist play. (I've previously suggested that the subject matter of player self-expression through Sim play is "the SIS itself." But that never fit quite right.)

And the one-phrase Sim equivalent to (Narrativism:) "Story Now" and (Gamism) "Step On Up" is (Simulationism:) "Realizing the Ideal."

[stops, catches breath, looks around]: Um, this make any sense to anyone else?

- Walt

Poo. I was slow. Should I re-post what I put on the other thread here?

-Eric

No need. The mods can patch it up if they want to, so no use complicating it any further.

Readers, Eric's response is on the original thread (use link at the start of the initial post above). Sorry about the confusion.

For now at least, I'll call this thread closed to avoid ending up with parallel threads.

- Walt