I've been reading Ron's Simulationism: The Right to Dream. It's a lot of dense text to absorb, especially when I'm not a regular visitor to these shores. Anyway.

I understand the following piece, about how GURPS seems to suggest rules within which conduct will take place, whereas Sorcerer sets up boundaries expressly so that they are crossed at some point. Have a read:

The simple one: Consider the behavioral parameters of a samurai player-character in Sorcerer and in GURPS. On paper the sheets look pretty similar: bushido all over the place, honorable, blah blah. But what does this mean in terms of player decisions and events during play? I suggest that in Sorcerer (Narrativist), the expectation is that the character will encounter functional limits of his or her behavioral profile, and eventually, will necessarily break one or more of the formal tenets as an expression of who he or she "is," or suffer for failing to do so. No one knows how, or which one, or in relation to which other characters; that's what play is for. I suggest that in GURPS (Simulationist), the expectation is that the behavioral profile sets the parameters within which the character reliably acts, especially in the crunch - in other words, it formalizes the role the character will play in the upcoming events. Breaking that role in a Sorcerer-esque fashion would, in this case, constitute something very like a breach of contract.

The question is not, I think, so much whether the character can break their code of conduct, but what the player attitude is toward doing so. For GURPS, breaking one of the axioms of the character is (at best) a necessary evil. For Sorceror, the opportunity to break the axioms of the character is the point of playing. Unthinkingly obeying the code is a necessary evil to get you to the point in the story where you can start to really examine the characters morality.

Hiya,

Of course it's the same as Sorcerer. But "it," in this case, is actual play. Whereas my essay (at that point) isn't talking about the differences or similarities in the way you and I play, it's talking about the differences in what the game texts overtly make available.

For example, according to my copy of GURPS (editions may differ, I'm not sure), the player would be penalized by the loss of some or all of the XPs gained in the session, by using the psychic power. I don't know whether you guys apply this or not. However, while I would be interested to know that, it's not the key issue - the key is a certain sort of play which GURPS often facilitates.

The essay, at that point, is not discussing any and all play of GURPS (e.g. yours), but rather play of GURPS which most clearly matches all of the textual rules in action. I'm fully aware of the differences between the two and so should anyone who reads the essay.

Whenever I make that distinction, I'm always careful to base my comments not just on reading the book, but on my own and others' actual play-experiences as well. Therefore, although I do not claim that any and all play of GURPS looks like what I'm describing, I do claim that quite a bit of it does.

Therefore it is not possible to take your own experience of play, of a particular game, and use it as a falsifier of one of my claims. You'd have to do the groundwork that I've done:

a) examine the textual rules' interactions with one another and recognize when you've deviated from them - either explicitly or perhaps simply by going a route that is open but contradictory to every single example or discussion of play in the text

b) play the game with people who interpret it differently from you; e.g., I have played GURPS with people who would say you and your group are playing it wrong by setting up conflicts with your Limitations, and although such a judgment carries no weight, it is interesting to think about why they would feel so strongly about it

c) talk with literally hundreds of people who play the game regularly, or have done so, and ask them questions that go beyond "balance" or realism" or anything similar

Your experiences and use of the game are not a single-case falsifier, but they are incredibly important data, and as I see it, perfectly consistent with everything I write about. You correctly start with Social Contract, and state that it focuses via Creative Agenda down into the use of Techniques (in this case, rules concerning character psychology).

Is it really that hard to believe that your group's power to do this overrides and replaces various aspects of the GURPS text?

[Notice that nothing I'm talking about has anything to do with the authors' "intentions," though. Just in case someone is typing about that furiously even as I type.]

[Nor am I saying that you and your group are "not playing GURPS." Let's not raise that red herring either, anyone.]

Your experiences of play are not surprising to me. This use of contradictory Limitations relative to other abilities in GURPS (or their historical parent, Psychological Disadvantages in Champions) is the classic Narrativist technique from the 1980s.

It also historically ran up smack into the assumptions of fellow players - specifically Gamist ones in playing Champions, most of the time, and Simulationist ones in playing GURPS. I'm also interested to know what players were weeded out of your playing group, over the time it's been together, and over what issues in play, if any.

The textual differences between Sorcerer and GURPS are very much like the shift in your group's approach to GURPS. In reading Sorcerer, I think you'll discover many phrases, rules, examples, and expected approaches which - to your group - are largely home-grown and unstated, either in the texts you use or among yourselves.

I think you'll find the Narrativism essay speaking directly to your priorities in play. However, no one resists what I write about more than an entrenched Narrativist who's accustomed to systems which facilitate Simulationist play. You're in that danger-zone audience, I think.

Best,
Ron

P.S. Marco and I have spent literally years disentangling our disagreements (which is not necessarily to say, "agreeing") about these things.

P.P.S. Tony, I think you're bringing in ways to play GURPS which, although more typical, are probably not what Steve and his group are doing. He's really talking about actual play, and so we have to work with that, not with "what GURPS-in-text plays like." Let's avoid a whole crisis that way.

Is there anything to be said about what that 5 point disad does if you go against it? If you hit a supposed problematic choice, but the system enforces a large penalty for one choice...it's not so problematic/not nar. It'd be interesting to see if the penalty is being enforced, since that determines whether it's not nar, atleast.

BTW, doesn't having to roll to see if you go against your vow, screw up narrativism? Ie, the dice make the choice (which doesn't really define your PC except in sim terms?). Or is it narrativist enough that your PC tried to break his vows (and thus defined himself by atleast the attempt)

Inform me if I'm off topic. :)

Noon wrote: BTW, doesn't having to roll to see if you go against your vow, screw up narrativism? Ie, the dice make the choice (which doesn't really define your PC except in sim terms?). Or is it narrativist enough that your PC tried to break his vows (and thus defined himself by at least the attempt)

TROS also has character-hijack disads and is widely considered Nar facilitating.

My present view is that GURPS facilitates some certain *techniques*--and it facilitates different ones than Sorceror (for example). The prime one there is versimilitue towards weapons and a certain kind of combat (a pretty gritty, detailed, weapon-centric combat where, for example, different guns react differently).

It also facilitates a certain kind of 'realistic' (as in, regarded by many people across the GNS spectrum as realistic--especially in terms of cause and effect) in relation to character abilities. For example, in GURPS, strong people do not 'see better.'

Now, these technique groups are very much related here with pertaining to Simulationism--and, in fact, IMO, if the GM runs the game so as to remove player decision making power in a way that run directly against the premise-question the player is interested in answering, then, yes, it can shut down Narrativism (on the other hand, if a character is compelled to do things that the player doesn't care about premise wise, I think that's not impacting Nar CA--like a greedy character being forced to begin an adventure when the player is ambivilant about the mission but agrees his character would probably be enticed).

The essays that strongly relate technique to CA have, IMO, yet to be written (I think some people think there's an obvious, clearl, and strong corelation between techniques and agendas--and therefore might not need to be written--but I don't and I think there are clear instances where those corelations are absent or ambiguous). But I think that most disagreement around the essays has to do with the technique->CA relationship (which is the danger-zone that Ron describes) rather than the idea that a given instance of an actual play session of some game might be best enjoyed for being in the Star Trek world vs. engaging Star-Treky issues or whatever.

-Marco

Noon wrote: Is there anything to be said about what that 5 point disad does if you go against it? If you hit a supposed problematic choice, but the system enforces a large penalty for one choice...it's not so problematic/not nar. It'd be interesting to see if the penalty is being enforced, since that determines whether it's not nar, atleast.

BTW, doesn't having to roll to see if you go against your vow, screw up narrativism? Ie, the dice make the choice (which doesn't really define your PC except in sim terms?). Or is it narrativist enough that your PC tried to break his vows (and thus defined himself by at least the attempt)

Inform me if I'm off topic. :)

GB Steve wrote: I'm not convinced by Ron's argument that I haven't done the research so I can't argue the point. I thought the whole idea of a counter example is that one suffices to nullify any general claim. That said, I do understand what Ron is saying, and I agree with the principle, just not its universality.

Well, a claim that "in GURPS (simulationist), the expectation is" foo is a universal claim for GURPS. So the example is not valid, although that doesn't necessarily invalidate the theory.

It might be the supposition that GURPS is simulationist is invalid. Just to talk about those implementations of GURPS that are simulationist would seem to be a tautology, but perhaps not.

As for data, I'm a MiB and I'll get some if that's really the point here but I don't think it is (although I do think that generally RPG theory should be more explicitly supported by data, otherwise it falls more under the category of 'anecdotally supported opinion' or 'nice but untested', but that's a whole different kettle of fish).

I'll go away and think about Ron's point some more.

GB Steve wrote:
As for data, I'm a MiB and I'll get some if that's really the point here but I don't think it is (although I do think that generally RPG theory should be more explicitly supported by data, otherwise it falls more under the category of 'anecdotally supported opinion' or 'nice but untested', but that's a whole different kettle of fish).

Hi Steve,

Rob's "foo" breakdown does a great job of summarizing my position.

You're absolutely right that I'm not calling for data on your part. I'm totally willing to take your word about general impressions and variations of GURPS play, just as I hope you'll do with mine. We can talk as well about when the games were played (generationally speaking), how different people and groups communicated with one another when they played, and so on.

Another interesting idea, if anyone is really into this whole topic, is to look at is the variety of games which have been GURPS-ized, and which rules are consistently altered (as opposed to merely translated) from the originals into GURPS, if any.

Best,
Ron