On 2001-05-23 15:06, Blake Hutchins wrote:
Ron's speculations regarding Simulationism is like saying Narrativists are afraid of competing or intimidated by immersive gaming.

Ian,

Nice call. Interestingly enough, I dislike competition in general, except for very formal situations.

The real problem is that I find that the most effective competing involves finding break-points in rules. My favorite example is from a full-contact open-style martial arts competition. You were allowed three fouls before being disqualified on the fourth. A contestant repeatedly clawed or jabbed his opponent in the eye - three times. The opponent, who was fighting fairly, was effectively blinded and obviously discommoded - the first fellow then won on points fairly easily. (To clarify: during this particular portion of the match, the opponent's face was completely off-limits. So the defender was not guarding his face, thinking that it was not "necessary.")

Every person I know who enjoys competing finds very little to complain about in that anecdote. The rules were not broken enough to disqualify the guy, and he won; case closed. If you can't take an elbow in the side during a basketball game, you're a wuss - the consensus is, "Don't play."

And you know what? I agree with them. Who am I to whine about fairness? If for any reason I wanted to do well in that area, I would have to adopt that mind-set or live a dog's life.

My own approach in martial arts is self-defense based, with no sports component at all. I do love sparring, but only as a form of practice. It's rough practice, certainly; I have a bit of a rep for hitting hard and I don't mind occasional bruises. Given agreement between partners, and barring any big discrepancy in the partners' ranks, hard sparring is a fine thing.

I do mind injuring a person during practice, or being injured (both have happened). I do mind the THREAT of such things during practice. I do mind the entire context of "winning" during practice. As a very good kung fu instructor mentioned to me, "Broken students cannot train."

In other words, I am no stranger to pain, suffering, damage, and inflicting these things on others if they try to hurt me, but I am a total wuss when it comes to competing.

As most of you know, I happen to be a biology professor, and my own research is flagrantly eclectic - very hard-core, very frightening evolutionary theory. And you know what? I'm an absolute GHOUL when it comes to scientific debate. My case will be made and compared and dissected, and so will the other guy's, and there ain't nothing that stands in my way to that end. However, it has nothing to do with winning. I never "strategically misunderstand" in order to avoid being refuted. I never use rank or reputation to support a point. I despise such behavior and call attention to its use. I'm not competitive in this arena either - just very, very intense.

Now let's take a look at role-playing. The parallel is exact - I do not ENJOY Gamist activity. It is, in a word, Not Fun. But please note my qualifier regarding competitive fighting, or basketball - I do not think they are BAD. I do not think they are WRONG. They are apparently integral to that very activity, and to rail against it would be ridiculous. I do not OBJECT to them; it just isn't an arena of activity that I have the right mind-set for.

What's interesting is that I understand the Gamist approach, as an outsider. I "get" it, and recently I've been very impressed by structural similarities between Gamist and Narrativist play. Both have a "climax" mode of session design, both employ near-constant Author stance, and both have clear standards for "success" of the role-playing experience.

It's that similarity that led me to squint, puzzledly, at Simulationist play and design - all of a sudden, it looks like the odd man out in the trichotomy.

Best,
Ron

[ This Message was edited by: Ron Edwards on 2001-05-23 18:21 ]

My motives differ with the activity. If I play chess or softball, I play to win -- though I also play to play well, which is a slightly different angle (I can handle losing so long as my opponent had to work for it). With RP, I play for the story. Period. I hate competing in roleplaying, and like Ian, I actively avoid it.

Am I afraid of competition in roleplaying games? I think you could describe it that way. My experience has been that player v. player competition comes at the expense of story quality. I remember a game of Mechwarrior a few years ago. Had a nice, story-intensive character all set up. Unfortunately, this group turned out to be all about the wargaming. My character's mech was taken out early, purely from bad dice, so I had nothing to do for the remainder of the game, which lasted for several hours as the battle continued. No fun. I didn't return to that group.

Best,

Blake

wow, this is really interesting...i also hate competing--i don't like losing & i don't like winning...when i play chess, i don't play to win i play to have fun (besides, i suck at strategy)--or to confound the opponent (which maybe is a form of competition--i'm trying to win, but not in the same way as my opponent)...i used to love playing "clue" & "risk" & "monopoly", but i rarely played to win, but just to have fun (& i'll often cheat--like slipping myself extra money from the bank--just to keep the game going)...

& altho i've never studied martial arts, i completely understand ron's attitude towards it...

but then, i've never had any doubts about my wussiness...

On 2001-05-23 18:15, Ron Edwards wrote:
It's that similarity that led me to squint, puzzledly, at Simulationist play and design - all of a sudden, it looks like the odd man out in the trichotomy.

Interesting. I would say that I tend to enjoy Narrative-style roleplaying (with immersive Simulationism coming in a close second), but I love all kinds of competitive games (wargames, board games, CCGs, etc.) and when I play, I play to win. In an RPG I don't mind if my character dies a tragic hero's death, but when I'm playing Junk, I aim to blow your 'Can away.

Takes all kinds, I guess. :smile:

Mmmm, I see your point, but I think it comes down to how you define a simulationist. I'm not sure simulationism exists (in great numbers) as a pure motive. [ . . . ] I think simulationism is a less pure motive for playing - it's mostly done with something else mixed in (either gamism or narrativism).

[ . . . ]

Do people play to 'just simulate convention/reality' without gamism or narrativism sneaking in? Can't think of any.

I'm kind of a "method" role-player. I need to get inside the head of the character, figure out an animal totem, use different voices, mannerisms...all that stuff.

So I'm 20 and playing Shadowrun (once a week) and not really into it all that much. So I says to Ted the GM, "Hey Ted. You know how we're always doing these missions? Why don't we ever play our characters between the missions?" It never happened but I really like the kind of thing.

Now, this is ALL about exploration of the world and the character (same with a good Vampire game), so you could say it's a Simulationist experience.

However...

What am I really doing when I slip into the skin of this character? Well, I'm not 100% immersed to the extent that I lose sight of what could happen. I'll set the character up for situations that would be fun or exciting or engaging or what-have-you. Bam, Author stance right there. I'd also talk to the GM about inserting new elements in the game. Why? Story. And I'm so concerned with my character because that's the major conduit into the story -- the more comfortable I am with my character, the more I'll be into the story.

So when my Shadowrun character goes to the store to buy groceries, or my Vampire character goes to some trendy nightspot, I'm not doing it because I HOPE something interesting will arise from it...I'm doing it because I'm going to HAVE something arise from it.

And that's my reason for favoring Narrativism...

I, personally, used to be hyper-competitive, and primarily a wargamer. I was also on a rubgy team, and amusingly enough our team used exactly the strategy Edwards mentioned to win: for the first half, we wouldn't even worry about where the ball was, we'd just concentrate on making the opposing team terrified of us. We usually started the second half behind (all the penalties, etc.) but then the other team wouldn't get anywhere near us. In wargames and boardgames as well, I always played heavily to win, and usually did it by finding the place that the rules broke and exploiting that heavily; there were a lot of people who tried to play wargames as simulationist, and that makes you lose, cause the rules are never that well designed.

In my case in particular, this was probably because I had an ego thing in which I had to prove to people that I was smarter than them by never, ever losing at a competitive game. I suspect that what I was actually showing was that I was wound a little tight, but that's a seperate issue. Sometime around my early to mid twenties I realized I had a lot more fun if I just relaxed. I still enjoy boardgames, especially german boardgames that don't take forty hours to play, but more as a catalyst to social interaction than as a primarily competitive enterprise.

Anyway, I never much liked role-playing games as a competitive endeavor, because they're a -LOUSY- competitive endeavor. There's not much in the way of objective standards of who wins, unless you explicitly whack all of the other characters, which is generally not done. Even the most gamist of games is lousy at "who wins" in comparison to boardgames. That having been said, in games that allowed it I could never prevent myself from min-maxing like crazy (Shadowrun and Champions are particular culprits in this regard; the former in particular is easily broken.) Nowadays, I have a tendency to make characters with essentially no useful skills at all.

My point here I guess is that as I have, personally, become less competitive (although in my opinion more effective at getting things done)I have become less interested in gamism as a mode of role-playing. So I think it could well be true that gamists are more competitive than N or S.

Muy interesante. I have a competitive side, I won't deny it. But it only occasionally rears it's head in games of any sort. Like Ron said, it tends to come out more in debate. But this is an attribute of the Simulationist for sure. To the extent that a person is in character and that character has a will to win, that simulationist player will play to win (or, more appropriately, have the character do what the character would to win). But Simulation is not about competition essentially.

This attitude of mine extends, as I said, to games outside RPGs. The following might help illustrate. I usually play games more or less to win, but mostly because that is expected in a game. What separates me from those who really play to win is that if I come across a strategy that looks even a little viable, but is different from one that I know is a winning strategy, I'll take the untried strategy every time. Why? Because I'm more interested in seeing what will happen than in winning the game. Losing doesn't bother me half as much as being bored in a game.

In an RPG, if my I feel that my character would do something that is less than rational or tactically sound or whatever, I have the character do it. Not because that makes for good story; sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. I do it because I am simulating the character, and that is what is fun for me. And to the extent that the characters interact, I think it is fun for all present (assuming that I'm simulating well).

I think that there is a dangerous side to competition. And I don't like that dark side, personally. Exploration, OTOH, is a wonderful thing that I embrace wholehartedly. Surely as a scientist, Ron, you can understand that. Much of what I do in RPGs is plain old experimentation to see what will happen. Comes from my childhood sense of wonder, I think.

Mike Holmes

Okay, um, I think, given conventions of GNS, I am narrativist/simulationist... actually, the other way around. Anyway, I see S and N as very related. I understand Ron's POV in terms of G and N being close in some respects, but I see the same thing with regard to S and N. They have similar goals (S and N), but point at different aspects, (gaming world and story vs. character and story). All-in-all, I think that many people dip into the S paradigm, and never really think about it. In most cases, S is more the province of the GM, who is responsible for setting forth the world, the setting, the mosaic and backdrop to the characters (to get poetic for a moment). As a GM, I tend to run a strong S slant, and let the characters run amok with the N (and a bit of G if I'm doing it right... 'cuz they hate my "bad-guy" NPC and want to beat him).

By the ay, I'm pretty competitive. I want to win, but only if there is something to win. I don't care about the sense of victory, I want the prize. Selective competition maybe...

Dav

Actually, Ron has in the past pointed out himself that the priority of portraying a character well is important to both Simulationism and Narrativism, albeit for different reasons. For a Simulationist, a good portrayal is the best Simulation of the character you can have. For a Narrativist, a good portrayal can often lead to a better, more compelling story. Same technique, different goal.

Many techniqes cross over from one style to another. The reasons for using them are what make each style different.

Mike Holmes

Dav (and everyone),

Having a strong setting-emphasis is not in and of itself Simulationist. I suggest that you as a GM are very Narrativist; you simply like to let the setting present a great deal of meat for everyone to work with.

The E-thing = strong character-depiction emphasis, low to middling setting emphasis, no story goal (by which I mean no VERY strong, focused, shared goal)

Classic simulationism (Call of Cthulhu) = low to middling character-depiction emphasis, strong setting emphasis, and strong events-structure emphasis (thus "story" is imposed)

Narrativist (PC-based premise) = high character-depth emphasis to start, low to middling setting emphasis, typical Narrativist priority on story-making

Narrativist (setting-based premise) = low/sketchy character emphasis to start, high setting emphasis, same priority on story-making

Best,
Ron

I'm with you Seth. I'm very competitive. I play games for the stimulation, mental exercise, and social interaction, but you better believe I'm there to with.

I honestly can't stand to play games with people who aren't playing to win. If they're just there to have fun and aren't really trying very hard it ruins the game for those who are enjoying the challenge. Don't get me wrong, as long as you're playing hard and trying to kick my butt, I don't really care what your personal motivations are, but I've played with people who just don't try.

When "not interested in winning", becomes "not trying to win" the whole game gets screwed up. There are few things that set me off more than investing hours in a game, only to have someone do something stupid because they don't really care if they win, and they've just gotten bored with playing. It completely changes the outcome of the game.

I enjoy competition. I enjoy winning. I also enjoy being beaten by someone who just out played me. I will admitt to getting kind of torqued when get beated by someone I outplayed because they got luckier rolls...which is why I'd rather play Diplomacy than Risk.

Yes, in most games in which there is a winner, I feel that there is an ethical requirement that you play to win. Which is why no matter how much I don't care about winning I always make a strong attempt to do so in order to make the game work as intended. I think that quitters are reprehensible, not because they don't want to win, but because they often ruin a game for the others by doing so. I've known players who, realizing this, would quit whenever behind, just to sabotage the game. But this drive comes from competitiveness, ironically. Just as bad are those who quit because they are bored. These people should not have joined the game in the first place and, again, are ignoring their ethical duty to finish so that other people's time is not wasted. I find this as bad as cheating, which, given that I see games as experiments, invalidates the game being played.

Rant over,

Mike Holmes

[ This Message was edited by: Mike Holmes on 2001-05-24 13:58 ]

Ron:

Point conceded.

But I still think I have a point. For me, GNS is not as much in the mechanics, but more in the manner in which the players and GM utilize those mechanics to create the game.

Dav

I have to agree with you Mike. I like to try untried strategies because they are more interesting than the tried and true. I often will take an underdog position just to see how well I can do with it. Why ? Because it is more interesting than playing from a position in which everything is already stacked you way.
I enjoy competitive games, but only when the darker side of winning at all costs does not rear its ugly head.
It is this explorative goal which defines what I look for in a game – whether its an RPG or a board game; whether it’s the setting, the character, or the story. Competition in an RPG rarely works to make the game better – it under the right setting, but that usually requires buy in from everyone involved up front.

On 2001-05-24 13:58, Dav wrote:
Ron:

Point conceded.

But I still think I have a point. For me, GNS is not as much in the mechanics, but more in the manner in which the players and GM utilize those mechanics to create the game.

Disagree. Audience tests for movies may be irrelevant because theaudience does not interact with the movie. Unlike RPGs, where they will interact with the game. It is ultimately important to peoples enjoyment whether or not they will like or dislike the style that a particular game is played in. And to the extent that a system promotes a certain style it will therefore be more likely to be satisfactory to the players. You can force them to play a particular style, but that may alienate them and potentially makes for an awful game.

IMHO,
Mike Holmes

I do not compete in RPG's because most RPG's have a system by which XP's are earned. The award is pretty arbitrary. D&D has always rewarded you for killing in mass quantities or selling the crap you find.

Most modern games have award systems based on roleplay so why compete.

There is no fun in killing in mass quantities UNLESS the story is so good that it must be done.

I will compete in any other activity (athletic) I take part in.

I like method *N* because I do want some return for my investment. If I spend 3 hours of my life in character creation, I will get the most out of it.

Are there ways of competeing that I'm missing here?

Enlighten a brotha please.

"Yo yo yo...wassup wassup, gimme the rock..."

Check out Pantheon & Other Games. You win by having the most points. You get points by being the last to die...or sometimes the first to do. Or sometimes by doing or saying a specific thing during the game...

It's a lot of fun. In the "Destroy All Buildings" game, I lost...big-time. -54 points. Yowch.