In An effort to un-gum the Discussion, I put forth some thoughts on Sim that Chris Lehrich said he'd have to read carefully and would comment on later. Well, it's been some time since then, and I really am interested to hear what Chris and others think of the ideas. So, I'm going to restate part of my very long post there in clearer, more succinct terms.

I have seen Simulationism referred to as hard to find, possibly not extant, strange, and as not really role-playing. On the other hand, I have seen many definitions for what Sim could be. I've thought long and hard about this, because I lean towards Sim sometimes and Gamism sometimes -- with a hint of Narrativism when it feels right.

It seems to me that Sim can take a few forms, all of which have two things in common. There's great attention to details (although which details may change from one game to another or one player to another). There's also little to separate player motive from character motive. This really can boil down to attention to detail of the character, and a goal of getting the character's actions correctly simulated.

Like an actor in a play, who isn't role-playing but is playing a role, or like someone in therapeutic or educational role-playing, a Sim player wants the character to be Right. Just as the physics in many Sim-leanign games must be Right. It doesn't matter that the character may not gain amazing amounts of wealth, experience, influence, or power. It doesn't matter that the character doesn't have a huge influence on the story. It also doesn't matter that the player doesn't get more influence on the SIS or more metagame power using the character.

Getting more in-game rewards for the character is Gamist. Working expressly to get more influence on the story is Narrativist. When the goal is simply to play the character as true to the character's motivations, abilities, limitations, and interests as possible without any other motive, that's what I call Sim. It's not that Sim is difficult to find because it's something other than RP. It's because RP is so often equated with playing a game or telling a "better" story that it's hard to find. Gamist and Narrativist motives are extraneous to Sim, and once they are added on or the attention to detail is stripped away in their favor, the Sim is buried or removed.

Everything I've said here about characters can also be said about the so-called "realistic" settings of Sim play. The detailed physics, the heavily detailed settings, the limited scope of PC motives or PC "alignments", and so on are there for telling the story in its truest form. It's not about seeking advantage using the SIS or making a better, more humane SIS. Seeking advantage is Gamist, and shaping the SIS to make a moral or ethical point is Narrativist. Making the characters in the in-game world tell a story for the original story's sake instead of for some other reason is Sim.

Working through real-world issues without an eye for creating a Nar-based moral story of the situation might be considered Sim, too. That's largely what therapeutic role-play is about. You role-play another person, and if they are there, they might role-play you, too. It's a POV exercise and a growth experience. It's not necessarily play, but it can be rewarding at the same time on other levels. Just being placed in another person's shoes for a few minutes can help a person in myriad ways. I see some RPers use RPGs this way at times even though they're just playing at other times.

Sim players may bring the therapeutic reasons for role-playing with them. They may play in Sim style because they are role-playing a specific fictional or historic ideal, like Star Trek or the American Civil War, and want to be true to canon. If being true to a genre, a historical record, or something else specific, the attention to detail and what is "right" and "realistic" within that setting can lead directly to Sim leanings.

So, that's pretty much what I feel Sim is, what it's about, and some of the reasons I think certain people lean towards it.

Hi Chris*,

One of the biggest tripping points that gets a lot of people when they try to pin down what's happening GNS-wise is that there is a lot of focus on the imagined content instead of the actions of the people at the table. GNS is analyzed by looking at the decisions made by the players(GM included) to prioritize one agenda over another.

If we're talking Sim, then its very simple. We're talking about play without a focus of competitiveness or value statements being created and traded within the group. Those elements may appear, but they can never dominate the focus of the imagined content. If those elements threaten to overshadow the focus of imagined content- then the group(either collectively or as the established authority-usually GM) steps in and dampens those elements.

This dampening can range from GM fiat, railroading, rules drifting/house mods, arguing about realism/canon("No way! The Hulk would crush him!"), social disapproval cues("Sigh..."), personal attacks("Okay, munchkin-boy!"), etc.

IF either competition or value statements through play are allowed to take center stage, then boom- you've slid into Gamism or Narrativism accordingly. It seems like it would take a lot of work to stay in Sim, particularly since humans in general are rather familar, experienced with, and well conditioned to work with competition and value statements through games, stories, and even conversations**. And- it does take quite a bit of work to keep Sim above all else.

But this doesn't mean that it is rare. In fact- Sim is supported by most of the larger mainstream games, supported in most of the play advice available in print or on the web, and is advised in most of the games themselves. The two most common giveaways that Sim is so well supported is the arguments against "Power players/Munchkins" and those on how to "create a story" before play, and "control the story" during play. You'll hear about these issues in the books, in advice, and from fellow gamers all the time.

All of this pushes most people towards Sim play. Induction into Sim play means "learning" that play isn't about winning or showing off, isn't about getting to have a say in the story, isn't about doing anything to remind the group that the imagined content is actually imagined and completely the result of the group's own decisions and input. And if that happens to be the only way you know how to play, or that its the only "right" way to play, then you'll be just as hardcore about promoting that same thing as the only right way to play to others.

The amount of effort and induction it takes to promote Sim play indicates to me that it probably is the dominant supported form solely due to its support in the media, and not necessarily the natural "innate" preference of most people. As far as folks who do naturally lean towards it- I do think it is about celebration of its chosen focus, whether we're talking realistic detail or canon of some imagined or fictional reality. It becomes an escape for people to not have to acknowledge their competitiveness or their own real value judgements- but instead subsume all of that in the illusion that they, personally have disappeared and the imagined content is actually real.

Chris

*And, providing Chris L also posts, we will have the Bermuda Triangle of Chrises going on :)
** games are competitive, stories have value judgements, and conversations can be either or both depending on what kind of discussion, argument, or posturing for dominance is going on

groundhog wrote: In An effort to un-gum the Discussion, I put forth some thoughts on Sim that Chris Lehrich said he'd have to read carefully and would comment on later.

Bankuei wrote: *And, providing Chris L also posts, we will have the Bermuda Triangle of Chrises going on :)

Chris Stith--I see you've been here a few months, but haven't posted much, so if no one's said it, welcome. (Welcome even if it's been said, really, but I don't want that overlooked.)

Let me suggest something to you in terms of what Simulationism may be "about".

It's pretty well established that narrativism is about making moral, ethical, or other personally meaningful statements through the medium of story. It's also recognized that gamism is about showing off, proving your ability to play the game well in whatever terms the game supports.

I've suggested elsewhere that simulationism is about learning, about discovering what would happen if certain supposed things were true. The attention to detail is thus important in that context, because the detail is necessary to validate the outcome. We create detailed characters because we want to learn what people like this are like and how they think. We create detailed settings because we want to explore them. We create systems to emulate real-world physics or ballistics or social interactions because we want to run experiments within them and get results that tell us something. Whether we want to see what would "really" happen in Rome or Camelot or New York or Star Trek or Star Wars or Arkham, the objective is to create a reliable return on the input, and so learn something about that world, those people, these possibilities.

Does that fit with your experience?

--M. J. Young