Hey Everyone,

Since everything is all gummed up right now on in the other thread, I thought I would pose this question from over here. There are several underlying assumptions in your posts that interest me that I would like, with your help, to work out.

Caldis wrote: I personally find that redefinition to be lacking. As initally formulated it was a functional style of play where the gm ran the story and the players were ok with that, likely because it didnt mess with their agenda. The way it stands now it can not be a functional form of play.

Caldis wrote: The players could be playing but not expressing a creative agenda, as Walt called it Zilchplay. They are there just to go with the flow and enjoy the experience.

Good topic Jay, I was hoping to hear more from you or MJ on this because I think this is the heart of where our disagreement and misunderstanding lays. I dont have much to add at this point but I have to ask for clarification on one point you made in the following section.

Silmenume wrote:

Functional roleplay/effective CA expression = effect * affect

Where –

• effect is the effect players have on Situation – CA specific instances of decision making and • affect is what the player is “feeling” or “getting out of playing” – Step on Up, Story Now, or the Dream.

Hmm ... I think the "affect" vs. "effect" thing is actually a very, very good point. This is because I've noted that people's idea of what 'empowerment' as a PC is varies greatly.

Almost everyone agrees that at some point the GM can/should step in to prevent player actions in a traditional game (where the Player in a hard-boiled detective game declares he grows wings)--but where the actual line is drawn and under what circumstances is a very hazy boundary (being shanghaied at the start of a game doesn't, by itself, preclude any CA--but a lot of players might very much object to the GM's heavy-hand in direction of the game).

So what Joe considers X-ism and what Fred considers X-ism might be two very different things.

I didn't find Chris' example in the other thread to be X-ism. It might be something else though (the P-word).

-Marco

Jay, thanks for re-starting this on a new basis. I think it will be clearer that way.

[Edited to add: long post!]

First, for the benefit of future readers or late arrivals, some back-threads to which I think this is relevant:

Participationism with an Agendum
Celebrating Theme is the Equivalent of Gamist Crunch
Self-Deception as a Design Consideration
Pattern Recognition, Metaphor, and Continuity
And we could go backwards into various threads about Simulationism and its definition.

Before I weigh in, I want to get clarification on something. Ideally, I want to check what both Jay and Marco have to say about this:

Silmenume wrote: However just to be clear that we are all on the same page, I will borrow the phrasing employed by Marco -


"a game where the PC's willingly give control over whatever CA-appropriate choices they like [to the GM]"

For the duration of this post I shall call this idea X-ism. From what I understand you this is above formulation to non-functional form of play. Fair enough. My question is why.

Silmenume wrote: Functional roleplay/effective CA expression = effect * affect
Where –

• effect is the effect players have on Situation – CA specific instances of decision making and • affect is what the player is “feeling” or “getting out of playing” – Step on Up, Story Now, or the Dream.

He wrote: Given the above formulation, Zilchplay would be considered non-functional because while affect is high their (they are enjoying themselves - underline) effect (on Situation - italic) is zero leading to zero/null roleplay/CA expression. Which agrees with your formulation.

Hello,

Chris, #3 is what I've been saying all along. Talking about overt recognition, conscious desire, and so on, are red herrings, as far as I'm concerned. This arises from my general viewpoint that what we say we think or want or believe is basically just more behavior, and not to be taken as an automatic indicator of what we actually do. Such self-examination is difficult and requires certain touchpoints among the participants (e.g. the favored mode of presentation and response in the Actual Play forum).

#2 makes no sense because dysfunctional play is defined by dissatisfaction. "Incoherent" play (multiple-CA) may be fun and functional, however.

#1 makes no sense unless you can imagine everyone sitting around engaged in zilchplay and still call it role-playing at all. I cannot. I've seen groups hang out for many hours and mainly reminisce about old games or have long debates about whether Deckard is really a replicant, desultorily playing out their characters inspecting an alcove, but I don't consider them to have been role-playing.

Best,
Ron

For emphasis, please, everyone, read Ron's reply carefully.

Yes, Ron, I do know that this is implicit -- and in some respects explicit -- in the Big Model, right the way back to the origins of GNS. But I also think that this has most certainly not been generally accepted. That is, I think that a great deal of discussion continues to founder on the following statement:

"No, I was there, and what we were doing was...."

Which usually is validated by:

"We felt about it like this."

I've mentioned Dr. Xero's gaming style as one example of such an analytical misrecognition -- if it isn't such, there's something very wrong with the model itself. But the most classic form of this is:

We were doing Sim, but telling stories anyway....

I don't want to think about how many times we've all had this conversation, in which Ron et al. are saying, "No, you're doing Nar, you just don't realize it," and the poster is saying, "No, we don't like all that meta-mechanical cheating stuff, we're doing Sim." Mendel's recent thread has pointed to a less-common but real version of the reverse: "I'm telling stories so I must be doing Nar," when in fact you're not telling stories nor doing Nar and are really quite happy doing Sim.

I hope that this thread can clear some of the air about this, because cracking open that weirdness called Sim is going to require people to bite the bullet and accept that they can be flat-out wrong not only about what they want out of gaming but what in fact they are doing while they game. And I think Jay's analysis gets this going in an interesting and fruitful direction.

I'm uncomfortable with a couple of ideas that are floating around here, but maybe I can focus some things.

First, players ceding control over all CA-relevant input and output is not dysfunctional play, if they choose to do so. It produces enjoyment, and therefore is functional. For what it's worth, Participationism is said to be functional precisely because it's what everyone at the table wants to do. (Illusionism is said to be non-functional because one participant is fooling the others into thinking they're doing something they aren't doing.)

Second, some time back it was recognized that every agendum has active and passive "modes". The easiest to observe is gamism. The referee (passively) creates the challenges, and the players (actively) overcome them. The players could not engage in gamism at all were it not for the referee providing something to which they can step up. Similarly, in gamist play there may be character players who are playing passively: their roles in the games revolve around making it possible for some other character player to step up and face the challenge, as they more passively facilitate this and encourage it through social reinforcement.

Such passive play is integral to all three agenda.

X-ism seems to raise the issue of whether you can have a game without active play occurring. That is, if the referee raises challenges no one faces, is it still role playing? I'm inclined to think that in X-ism, whatever it is, the roles have shifted such that the referee is the active participant and the character players are passive--they are there to support his play. This can in theory happen in any agendum; I object to the notion that we should assume play to be simulationist when it becomes X-ist.

Finally, Chris, your list missed #4: The effect in play does not need to come from the character players for genuine functional role playing to be occurring. It is clear in participationism (whatever else is known about it) that the players are having no impact on anything meaningful in play; yet a functional role playing session is occurring, because the referee has such meaningful impact on the shared imagined space, and the players are content to enjoy that.

--M. J. Young

M. J. Young wrote: X-ism seems to raise the issue of whether you can have a game without active play occurring. That is, if the referee raises challenges no one faces, is it still role playing? I'm inclined to think that in X-ism, whatever it is, the roles have shifted such that the referee is the active participant and the character players are passive--they are there to support his play. This can in theory happen in any agendum; I object to the notion that we should assume play to be simulationist when it becomes X-ist.

Finally, Chris, your list missed #4: The effect in play does not need to come from the character players for genuine functional role playing to be occurring. It is clear in participationism (whatever else is known about it) that the players are having no impact on anything meaningful in play; yet a functional role playing session is occurring, because the referee has such meaningful impact on the shared imagined space, and the players are content to enjoy that.

I'm right with Ron and Chris on the unconcious part of CA expression. The way I view CA is that it is the the manner in which the player is approaching the situation, what they feel is the right way to view the situation. Is it a test of my skills, an opportunity to address premise, or a chance to live the dream? The way these differing approaches may effect the situation can vary wildly or be quite similar so I dont think the effect necessarily tells us much about CA.

Effect can set off tells however. If the effect does not match with the input the player has given he may show signs of discord, the play doesnt match his standards and so something is wrong, we're not playing right. The matching of input to output serves as social reinforcement for the players play style.

An offshoot of this is the fact that play without CA is impossible. You cant approach situation without an idea of how to do so. You must approach the situation in some manner, that approach is CA.

So the matching of input to output is important. It shows that we are in agreement over what our play is about. What's really important though is the input is what the player is bringing to the game, it's what's driving him on. Anything that prevents him from bringing that input to the game makes his play irrelevant. Predetermined theme prevents the players input from mattering to the narrativist, strategic irrelevance makes the gamists input meaningless, but what causes problems in Sim? I believe it would have to be something that supplies a result that does not match with the players understanding of the ideal.

If something that seems out of place comes up that can cause problems unless the discrepancy can logically be solved. Since the ideal is rarely a fully formed thing problems can usually be worked out by refining the ideal, finding something within it to make sense of the new situation. If that doesnt resolve the incidence than the most typical result is an instance where the character would leave play rather than continue. Face with such an instance one of three things can happen, the gm refines the situation to follow the pc, the player refines their understanding of the ideal to remain with the game, or the pc leaves the game.

I think I agree with you, but we've got this annoying problem with Jay's terms, which is that they are very spelling-inflexible. And lots of people confuse "effect" and "affect" anyway, as verbs and as nouns. Let me just check my understanding -- and I'm going to propose new terms, at least for the duration of this thread.

Caldis wrote: I'm right with Ron and Chris on the unconcious part of CA expression. The way I view CA is that it is the the manner in which the player is approaching the situation, what they feel is the right way to view the situation. Is it a test of my skills, an opportunity to address premise, or a chance to live the dream? The way these differing approaches may effect the situation can vary wildly or be quite similar so I dont think the effect necessarily tells us much about CA.

Effect can set off tells however. If the effect does not match with the input the player has given he may show signs of discord, the play doesnt match his standards and so something is wrong, we're not playing right. The matching of input to output serves as social reinforcement for the players play style.

So the matching of input to output is important. It shows that we are in agreement over what our play is about. What's really important though is the input is what the player is bringing to the game, it's what's driving him on. Anything that prevents him from bringing that input to the game makes his play irrelevant. Predetermined theme prevents the players input from mattering to the narrativist, strategic irrelevance makes the gamists input meaningless, but what causes problems in Sim? I believe it would have to be something that supplies a result that does not match with the players understanding of the ideal.

I'd like to toss one thing out on the difference between reading a book, and "playing" with someone who is telling a story. In the latter case, the "players" could have the ability to aim the camera. Sure, in the end, the villain will be defeated and the world saved, but perhaps we will follow the grocery store clerk's struggle rather than the hero's.

How many times have you read a book or watched a movie, and wish more focus was applied to a particular character?

An analogue is music. Live performances are often way better than a recording even though a recording can have technically better music. The best live performances benefit from a feedback loop between the performers and the audience.

Frank

Good point, Frank. Fair enough. I maintain, though, that aiming the camera isn't roleplaying, nor is generating a good energy for the band at the concert. But you're dead right: they are important.

I think maybe that was what M.J. was referring to with passive play. I guess I just think that purely passive play, in which we only aim the camera and never get to go out and make the film, is zilchplay or something of the kind.

I'm inclined to agree that just aiming the camera is not role-play, though it can influence the actual story (perhaps the story teller changes who the real hero is because of where the camera is aimed).

I'd also propose that good role-play is similar to a good jam session, but I'm not sure that all role-play must reach the level of a jam session.

I'm not sure what it's role-play analogue is, but something interesting happened at one live performance I attended. Mary Jane Lammond had been scheduled to play at Borders but missed the date because their van broke down. They were able to make a later date and a last minute notice went out. A good sized crowd showed up and the performance was awesome and garnered a thunderous standing ovation. They were not at all prepared to do an encore, but we kept applauding. The musicians conferred amongst themselves and finally announced that they could do one more song. They were able to play a childrens song that they felt comfortable doing, and it rocked. They remembered this reaction and on their next tour gave Borders a call and said, "You know what, we weren't scheduled to come through Raleigh on this tour, but we want to do another gig, do you think you could get an audience in two days?"

I think somewhere in there lies the heart of what role-playing is, why it is different that sitting on the floor in the library and listening to a story teller, and why it is different than Monopoly.

Frank

Chris I think we're in 100% agreement.

The only thing I'd add is where you say impact and results can vary wildly depending on approach they can also appear to be eerily similar, doubly so for impact. Judging by impact doesnt tell what approach was taken, different roads lead to the same place kind of thing.

Hey Chris,

Thanks for fleshing out and making my original post more cogent and accessible! At this point I don’t have any overarching comments, changes or additions to make, so I will address piecemeal what has come up.

clehrich wrote:

Silmenume wrote: However just to be clear that we are all on the same page, I will borrow the phrasing employed by Marco -


"a game where the PC's willingly give control over whatever CA-appropriate choices they like [to the GM]"

For the duration of this post I shall call this idea X-ism. From what I understand you [think] this [is] above formulation to [be a] non-functional form of play. Fair enough. My question is why.

To put that more clearly to me at least:

Marco defines X-ism as:

a game where the PC's willingly give control over whatever CA-appropriate choices they like [to the GM]

Jay reads this:

Marco believes this is a necessarily dysfunctional form of play. Jay is not convinced that it is so.

Have I got that right?

I cannot answer for Marco, but in my case you are correct.

clehrich wrote: Next part of the question -- the real question:

a game where the PC's willingly give control over whatever CA-appropriate choices they like [to the GM]

Now this is going to sound like silly semantics, but it's not.

1. It is, presumably, the players giving over control. Yes?
2. By "they like," do you mean "those choices they like to make" or "those choices they willingly give up"?
3. By "whatever CA-appropriate choices" do you mean all such choices, all important such choices (defining "important" by some means we haven't gotten to yet), or all such choices they willingly give up?

My answers to your quest for clarification are the following.

• Yes.• "Those choices they like to make"• By "whatever CA-appropriate choices" I mean all such choices.

By using a definition instead of a label I was trying to avoid all the baggage that has been associated with current labels. Hence my employment of the term X-ism. However, one might look to Zilchplay or the P-play word and see startlingly uncanny similarities. Do so at your own (gumming up) peril!

There is one point I would like to bring up that I think is proving to be something of a stumbling block.

The usage of the words “dysfunction” and “non-function.” I was using them in two separate ways with being fully aware of that until just now. I think there is an important difference between the two and I would like to propose the following.

• Dysfunction – a “failure” of the affect portion of the game.[Non-function] – a failure of the effect portion of the game.

This difference, which appears to be subtle, represents a huge assumed bias in the Model. I do not mean bias in a negative on any level. Dysfunction basically means that players aren’t having fun or some such similar thing roleplaying (Exploring). Non-function basically means that role-playing (Exploring) isn’t happening – AT ALL. What ever is happening is not Exploration. To call such play Exploration/role-play is essentially a category error. Big difference between what the players are feeling and the process itself failing to match the definitional criteria.

This brings me to this part of this thread –

clehrich wrote: Ultimately, I think we're going to have to accept that one of the following is true, like it or not:

• Functional gaming does not require meaningful CA expression• Happy, successful, fun gaming may also be dysfunctional• Player Effect on the game may occur entirely without their recognition or conscious desire

Underlining added.

I would rephrase as such –

• Functional gaming does not require meaningful CA expression• Happy, successful, fun gaming may also be non-functional• Player Effect on the game may occur entirely without their recognition or conscious desire



I think dysfunctional is inappropriately used and that non-functional is the better choice. This is what, I think, led to Ron’s apparent confusion about #2.

Ron Edwards wrote: #2 makes no sense because dysfunctional play is defined by dissatisfaction. "Incoherent" play (multiple-CA) may be fun and functional, however.

#2 as previously stated says or implies something like – “Happy, successful, fun gaming may also be dissatisfying (i.e. dysfunctional).” However there is still a disjunction going on. Both Ron and you see something that isn’t quite right. I think it is because if we use the word “non-functional” instead of “dysfunctional” at least we self-contradictory nature of the statement goes away. That does leave with a new problem. By my formulation, using non-functional instead of dysfunctional, #2 takes on a whole new meaning.

Happy, successful, fun gaming may also be non-functional (i.e. zero effect play). So we end up with a contradiction again, but of a different sort – and one that demonstrates the bias of the Model. Both you and Ron implicitly or explicitly reject zero effect play as non-functional and thus not roleplay at all.

That’s fine. I know that M. J. Young has a different opinion. My question is can either Ron or you (Chris) argue why effect must be present for the activity to qualify as roleplay? Can we are argue that one must be effecting Situation in order for that activity to qualify as Exploration/roleplay are do we simply consign that position to “First Principle” or axiom?

I have to hop – Caldis and Chris I do wish to comment on both the ideas of “approach to play” and Chris’ alternatives to “effect and affect.”

Chris Lehrich wrote: I cannot believe that functional roleplay includes not roleplaying but rather sitting back and listening to someone else roleplay. I think that in your #4 situation, what is happening is that the players are having a meaningful impact, but would prefer not to think so, for any number of reasons.

Later Chris wrote: I think that the crux here is that an approach implies that one intends to do something, and that means one has to have some sort of impact.

OK – here’s part two of my response.

Caldis wrote: An offshoot of this is the fact that play without CA is impossible. You cant approach situation without an idea of how to do so. You must approach the situation in some manner, that approach is CA.

clehrich wrote: Okay, here's how I read this. There are three elements to CA-meaningful play:

How I approach play
What impact I have on play
What result I get from play

CA expression -> effect -> affect = Functional roleplay

M. J. Young wrote:
How is this different from storytelling? I don't know. Does it have to be? Obviously, listening to books on tape is an extreme--the storyteller gets no feedback from the audience. The teacher reading to the class gets some feedback, but does not alter any of the content of the story, nor even the phrasing, but only possibly the delivery. A scoutmaster telling a story by a campfire is probably somewhat more responsive to his audience, phrasing his story to enhance their response. A referee creating a story around the imagined personae of his players' characters is as much telling a story as Charleton Heston is when he records a novel, but he's interacting with his audience a great deal more, because they are encouraging him. I don't think it has to be more different than that. I don't think you always have to be able to say, "this is storytelling" versus "this is roleplaying" in any particular instance. It's role playing if the players feel like they're part of it, and storytelling if they feel like they're listening. It's at that point entirely subjective: what do the participants believe they are doing? That's what they are doing.

--M. J. Young

M. J. Young wrote: When we speak of the creative agendum of a game, we are speaking of the unified creative agendum of a gaming group. If we don't have a unified agendum, we have dysfunction.

Hey Caldis,

Caldis wrote: I think where we disagree is in the ability to observe effect or impact. You seem to think it's clear and present when it shows up, I think it's a little murkier than that.

Caldis wrote: A player was building powerhouse characters and whenever combat came up would quickly decimate the opposition. When the game ended and the group talked about their next game the player voiced the opinion that she would prefer less combat. Everyone was stunned, they felt that the way she acted showed her preference for combat. She replied that she made powerhouse characters so she wouldnt have to deal with combat for long. Get it done and over with so she could get back to what she really enjoyed. Now she could have been deceiving herself and really getting a thrill out of combat however I believe their likely were signs of her disaffection in play. Those signs or tells are what we use to diagnose CA.

A clarification for you Jay, I wasnt present at the play example I listed it was discussed on rpg.net recently. That's why I didnt make a CA diagnosis I couldnt be sure what it was, the important point is that it is clear her decisions and actions in play didnt not match up with her preference. As social animals we tend to reach a group understanding of what we're doing and individually do what it takes to make that possible. For the group activity to be appealing in the long term we have to be engaged by the activity not just following along for the sake of the group.


I'm a little confused on the rest of your post though Jay. I may just be misunderstanding you affect/effect split yet or I may be just looking at this from the opposite end. But if the affect shows the players reaction to the effect then dont we need both to make a diagnosis? We cant just say this person was affected by the situation so lets see what effect they had on it, we need to know how they were affected to see if their effect was a positive or negative experience. I dont know if that makes sense, came out like a tongue twister to me. If it sounds better to anyone replace effect with impact and result for affect.

Caldis wrote: I'm a little confused on the rest of your post though Jay. I may just be misunderstanding you affect/effect split yet or I may be just looking at this from the opposite end. But if the affect shows the players reaction to the effect then dont we need both to make a diagnosis? We cant just say this person was affected by the situation so lets see what effect they had on it, we need to know how they were affected to see if their effect was a positive or negative experience. I dont know if that makes sense, came out like a tongue twister to me. If it sounds better to anyone replace effect with impact and result for affect.

Sorry to come along late to this particular discussion, but I have some input which I cannot stand to keep from the thread.

I think that the term "Simulationism" actually already describes well how someone's character can have little impact on the setting and yet the play could be fullfilling. I lurk here quite a bit without posting, so I think I have an idea about the CAs, but someone please point out where I'm breaking from accepted usage.

A Gamist is interested in the advantages, the tests of skill, and the best end result. So if there's a chance given an extreme ultimatum such as the hostage test such that both sides can end positively, that becomes the goal. That seems easily agreeable.

A Narrativist is interested in the story, in the morals and ethics of the character, and sometimes even desires to roleplay toward the experience of an interactive fable. If there's a point to be made or a better story to be told by what choice is taken, then the choice with the better point or the better story will be chosen. This seems agreeable, too.

I see (at least) two types of Sim play being tossed around, so I'm going to address those two types below.

Let me say first, though, that my idea of Sim as I understand it doesn't limit PC impact. I've always just thought of Sim as play without Gam or Nar leanings. The player isn't trying to make a better story, and isn't trying to make use of advantages for the PC like a Gamist would. The player still makes choices, and the system determines whether or not the tasks resolve successfully just like in Gam. The player just isn't tweaking, taking extra joy in outdoing the other players, trying to take extra time to come up with a best solution to a problem, or any of that. It consists of a story of intertwined fate, chance, and free will if you like. As tasks come up, the Sim player takes them on at face value using the skills, equipment, and methods that are obvious. As the Beatles might say, the Sim player is happy to "Let it be". If the decisions are amazingly brilliant, good. If they are disasterous and another option would have saved the day, so what? Real people don't get extra time between clock ticks, and they don't always think things through to the right conclusion before acting. I think a Sim player does just that -- acts without OOC regard to reward, because that's what the character would do. The player thinks IC of how to do things, about motivations, and about results. The character's decision is what is presented because that's what some people feel the hobby of role-playing is about. The decisions could still have great impact if the player understands his or her character differently than the GM does. However, if the GM is good enough at predicting people's actions, you get what I call Sim type 1 below, where the PC's actions are already calculated into the GM's storytelling desires.

Now, the Sim types I keep hearing about as I am reading them are the player being free to make choices, but always choosing what they think the character would be predisposed to do. That's pointed to as limiting impact because the scenario is written to deal with those actions. I'll call that Sim type 1 here, but I don't think the GM always knows what a character will do, even if a player shows trends in how the character is played. The other is the character being played as the player sees fit, but the outcome of the scenario being preordained by the GM and no choices the player/PC makes will change the end result. I'll call that Sim type 2.

Sim type 1:
A Simulationist is interested in determining how things work, including the character he or she is playing, and playing within those set parameters. The fact that there's no real choice to be made, and that the player will have the character choose as he or she expects the character would choose may diminish the impact of the player on the setting. It does not, though, diminish the impact the player has on the player's own PC. Making decisions in the role of the character that the character would make, but expressing the character's thoughts and feelings, their mannerisms, and the angst or joy with which those actions are taken may very well be the end goal of the Simulationist player. Some may not call it "role-playing", but in the classic sense it is definitely "playing a role". The "game" part is often called a misnomer on the Forge. Perhaps for this type of situation it is completely non game-like. The point isn't to win, nor to tell the best overall story. It's to get into the setting, into the character, and do things as realistically as possible, down to the level the character. Making a believable character, complete with attitudes, character flaws, judgment flaws, overriding passions, and dedication to ideals all the character's own is not a simple feat, especially if one feels Gamist or Narrative pulls towards coming out on top or making the good guys win. Sometimes, in real life, the good guys lose -- sometimes even if they did everything well. Maybe being an integral part of a good story with an ending either happy or sad is enough.

In the movies, the writers, directors, editors, producers, costumers, cinamatographers, and even the studio execs often make more decisions than the actors. It's the actors, though, who make the story pop. Maybe the ultimate Sim goal is to make the character the best version of himself or herself, without changing who that is. It'd be real "simulation" -- recreating what it would actually be like if the characters were playing themselves instead of being puppets for the human players. Pride in playing a predestined part well is a rewardign experience in its own right.

Think of where RPGs came from -- from wargames. Some wargamers are also reenactors. Now, if you're playing a game, changing the outcome is fine, but that's Gamist. If you're reenacting, you win if you're on the side that historically won and lose if you're on the side that historically lost. However, many reenactors bring color to their characters that aren't recorded in the history books. Sure, their army lost such and such a battle, and some characters in the reenactment are named for the actual historical figures. But reenactors -- especially US Civil War reenactors, will take on a name, a hometown, a family story, and a personal history of previous battles in which the character fought which are indicative of how things were around the time of a battle, but represent no actual individual who was known to be involved. Their contributions are predestined to lead to a particular outcome, because the real battle was already fought. They can make the soldiers realistic, valiant men no matter which color they wear.


Sim type 2:
Sometimes the goal isn't in being true to the character. Sometimes maybe the goal is being true to the setting itself and making no changes to it. Maybe letting the character sway to the irregular beat of the player's whims is okay, so long as it doesn't impact the game world. It's not railroading, because the choice can be made freely. It just doesn't make any difference. So, your character is supposed to lose. So what? We all die sometime. Make it a good death, one to be proud of. So what if the character makes no impact? The character can do what needs to be done on an ethical, moral, spiritual, and/or karmic level, even if it will accomplish nothing. Some people believe you must do what is absolutely right, even if it costs you everything and does noone else any good in the realm of mortals. It could be viewed as nihilism. It could be viewed as religion. It could be that the PC wins everything no matter what, too, and that's okay as well. The point is, in Nar, the better act gets rewarded or the story goes on because the tension was built and released. In Sim, the story either goes on because it is supposed to go on, or it stops because it's at the end. The story doesn't change because of the PC's actions, but the PC does. I would consider that Sim. Some might kick me and shout, "No, that's Nar! There are five lights!" To them, I would say, "No, it's Sim, because the character developing over time and telling a better one-person story doesn't make for a different overall story. It may become a more interesting story, but the outcome is the same. There are four lights."

The whole battle reenacting thing applies some here, too. Just because we don't know the name and personal story of everyone who lived, died, was wounded, retreated, advanced, or missed a battle due to illness, we know the outcome. Putting a personalized story to it surrounding the battle just makes it more human. We know certain units flanked, some were outflanked, some advanced up the middle, some temporarily retreated, and certain ones pulled all the way away. The reenactors show us individuals, not battle maps. They take a part, and some are valiant while others flee in terror. Which ones do which makes little difference, as long as the proportions are correct. They aren't trying to tell a better story. They're trying to tell the story. Maybe Sim is about that -- even though there's not necessarily an exact event in real life to amtch, perhaps the important thing is that the right story, as conceived, is told correctly. The PCs are part of somethign bigger than themselves, and they are there to add color. The PCs are played by people other than the main creator of the story so that there's additional variations of that color and so that the players are immersed in the story.

Think of where besides recreation role-play is used. Therapy, conflict resolution, marriage counseling (part therapy and part conflict resolution, to be sure), education, crime reporting, children's group pretending (which on some level amount to freeform RP) and ...um... let's just say intimate fantasy role-playing. The idea in most of these examples is to let everyone see everything from different points of view. From these different points of view, with people taking on roles other than themselves, they are meant to have emotional and/or intellectual breakthroughs by picking up on how it feels to be in someone else's shoes or to see how someone else pictures them. In one example, it's pure escapism. If we forget about the odd possibility that someone is doing recreational roleplay with their character based on another real person in the group, then we still have POV change and escapism in play. It's not the same to listen to a story as to be the character in an interactive story, even if your interactions make no difference. There's still an emotional tie on some level to your character. There are motivation other than yours. There are goals other than yours. There are feelings other than yours. Realizing that not everyone thinks, feels, and reacts like you in the very same situation is powerful stuff. It's part of growing up to be a good adult member of society, and it's something many people sadly never fully grasp.

So for Sim, maybe it's a growth experience. It's definitely not a "game" per se. Its existence is debated because unlike Nar and Gam, it's not to see who can make the best of a task, or the best of the story, or even cooperatively to make the best story. Maybe the conflict in the SIS isn't resolved so much as the issues the participants bring with them to the session. It's each person involved putting himself or herself into the place of the character and just seeing what that is like. It's a group escape or a group POV therapy. Maybe it's both. Maybe it's one for some in the group and the other for the rest. Maybe it's neither, and something we're all still missing. Maybe I've really gone off the deep end and offended a bunch of you with my insane ramblings... If you think about it as personal growth, what's been called dysfunctional play may not be play, and probably isn't dysfunctional either.

Conclusion:
So, that gives me 3 -- count them, 3 -- types of Sim. The focus is on getting the details right. Which details may change. I think the important thing to remember here is that the name "Simulationism" almost begs to tell us that the reward is in the attention to detail (character, setting, or both) in the imagined world. Let me state that again. The attention to detail is itself the reward. Other rewards, like self growth, enjoying the story as it flows (without thought to making it a better story), enjoying controlling the character (without thought as to making the character be the best character), are similar and grow out of the attention to detail. Model builders often build exact replicas of planes, boats, trains, and cars, then only sometimes customize them at all. Sim players just do the very same thing, only with smaller copies of people instead of smaller copies of vehicles. You don't have to change things to enjoy them. Sometimes being part of what they are is enough, especially when you've chosen what it is with which you're going to commune.

I could handle Gamist or Narrativist play with a character that's a serial killer. I may even enjoy it, because I'd just be playing a game or telling a story. I could have a detachment from the character as a means to a Gamist end or as just a character in a Narrative story who needs an actor. I don't think I'd ever want to play such a villain in Sim, because in what I consider Sim, one can start to build an empathy with the imagined character. I'll leave that to criminal profilers and not do it for fun. There's less detachment when you try to think just like the character instead of with ulterior motives.

Now that I've said that, I think it's easier for me to give an in-the-short idea of what I think makes Sim: it's playing a character (in the theatrical sense of "play", not necessarily a gaming sense) with no ulterior motives. Thought of winning or losing and thought of telling a better story are ulterior motives for roleplaying. That's where Gam and Nar come from.

It's not that Sim is hard to find because it's not roleplaying. It's hard to find because once you use the word "game", you introduce a motive for character actions. Once you mention "authoring" a story, you introduce the motive of "Authoring" with a big "A" -- writing it, revising it, making it a better story. Once these motives are present, just playing a character ad-lib because it's fun to pretend is gone.

Sure, Sim tends to have tight systems to explain things about the world. Is that the rule, though, or just a tendency? If you're doing Sim the most "realistically" in every way possible, yeah, it's probably important. Sim with exploration of character rather than setting, though, could just as easily be freeform, with no other thing making it Sim than being true to the character rather than looking for outside influences. That's "simulating" a character to me.

Personally, I need to read all that very carefully. Ron, can we split this? I think it's moving toward a new debate.

My actual comments will come tomorrow....