Ok. This is a very Sorcerer specific message and so in that sense might more appropriately belong on the Sorcerer forum. But my intent here is not so much to disect Sorcerer but illustrate one of the key problems I'm having with the definition of Simulationist. Namely the very subjective way games do or don't get cast as being simulationist.

I'm using Sorcerer here for 2 reasons. One it obviously should be a game most of us are familiar with, and two I used it as an example elsewhere and got a lot of negativity for the attempt. This negativity actually feeds into a second problem I'm having and thats the apparent elitism of the model. Again this elitism is probably unintentional, but it is so palpable it is no wonder to me why GNS has gotten such a bad rap in certain circles. When I suggested that Sorcerer by the definitions of GNS is actually more of a Simulation than a Narrativist, game the reaction was just short of abject horror that I could think such a thing. As if somehow Sorcerer would be tainted by the association. That sort of reaction makes me very uncomfortable.

But I'm not really here to discuss that. Nor am I really here to claim that Sorcerer SHOULD be categorized aa simulation. What I am here to do is illustrate (using the very definitions of what Simulation is under GNS) that Sorcerer clearly meets that definition and yet somehow an exeption gets made and the game gets categorized as being Narrativist. I offer this in no way as a value judgement on Sorcerer but soley (and I hope we can keep the discussion to this) on the subjective nature of the Simulationist category which to me is one of the greatest faults of this model.

Ok. In the interest of keeping individual messages brief, I shall conclude my introduction here and begin my first arguement in a new post

[ This Message was edited by: Valamir on 2001-05-26 13:46 ]

Ok,I'm going to begin this analysis using Ron's defintion of Simulation from Alternate Phylogeny. My goal is to build a case showing how Sorcerer meets the criteria that Ron has established for what a Simulation is. NOT, repeat NOT as a crusade to get Sorceror reclassified. Rather, my goal is to ask the big question at the end..."It meets these criteria, so why isn't it a Simulation" the point being to illustrate the subjective nature of the category.

***Behavior: the purpose of play is to see "how events play out," specifically without VICTORY or THEME as the indicator of success. (One very knowledgeable poster on the Forge does not think any player REALLY conforms to this, but opinions differ.)***

Ok. Now I would argue that the experience of playing a Sorcerer is the primary purpose of the game. The game is about getting into the mind set of a Sorcerer who has to struggle daily with his own humanity vs. his own drives and ambitions. How he juggles these and the needs and desires of the demons he has summoned is, in the main, the whole point to a Sorcerer session.

Several items from the Sorcerer rules themselves support this. Just a few examples include:

From the Heart of Sorcery on page 6, the introduction explaining what this game is all about
"Whatever else they accomplish or believe, they are outlaws: the ulitmate in arrogance. By any moral system, karma, or means of adjudging right and wrong, a sorcerer is taking a grave risk by using his or her knowledge".
"Sorcerous deeds mix the heady possibility of awesome power and the certainty of blood-freezing danger. If you risk all on a crucial bargain with a demon, get nervous when it readily agrees...what have you missed?"

On Page 7 & 8, The Heart of the Game offers the following advice to Players:

"...what do you want? How far would you go? How far have you gone already?"
"What price have you already paid? Faced with madess, armed with madness, how do you hold on to your humanity?"
"What kind of crisis has driven you to immediate action, Are you out for worldly gain, using sorcery merely as a tool? Or are you an esoteric seeker probing at the fringes of human understanding? Or are you desperate and driven, perhaps for vengeance or battling against something intolerably unjust?"

ALL of the above is focused NOT on story but on experienceing what it is to be a sorcerer.

Heres a particularly compelling line from the same section:
"Nothing--literally nothing--is more important than what you want out of a situation..."

In other words, the entire set up for the game, from introduction to instructions to players is to create a compelling character in an effort to experience what it is like to be that character.

Granted, compelling characters are important to Narrativist games too, but Simulation of Character seems much more the goal of these sections. The fact that one can argue this one way or the other is precisely my point. The definiton is very very subjective.

Interestingly, the issue of telling a good story (the hallmark of a narrative game) is not even mentioned until the bottom of page 8. More interestingly the concept of story is found in the section titled "The Game Master".

"...playing Sorcerer should generate a good story, specifically one that YOU [referung to the GM, emphasis mine] believe in personally"
"If you, The GM, don't have a dramatic narrative goal..."
"What conflicts would make a sorcerer sit up and take notice?"

These items are clearly labeled in the game as being part of the GM's purvue. There is NO mention made of a shared story telling experience. The story belongs to the GM, the narrative belongs to the GM.

Mere mention of the desire to create a good story does not a Narrative game make. Even gamists and "simulationists" value a good story. Isn't the uniqueness of a Narrativist game that the story is created jointly. Its a shared experience among the play group. Sorcerer AS WRITTEN clearly leaves the story in the hands of the GM...which to me seems a VERY VERY simulationist trait.


Ok, next I'll address Author stance as it exists or does not exist in Sorcerer.





[ This Message was edited by: Valamir on 2001-05-26 13:50 ]

Part two of my analysis of Sorcerer as a Simulation will focus on the idea of Author stance.

***Another aspect of Simulationist behavior is that the player is "inside" the character and has complete and utter authority over "my guy" and what he does. The GM, by contrast, has complete and utter authority over anything external to the PCs. Author stance is frowned upon; Director stance is unheard of. Railroading is an ongoing, constant issue in these circumstances. ***

Now, it is clear that Ron intends Sorcerer to be played with heavy emphasis on Author stance. I'm certain he plays it that way, and I'm certain many who've relied upon him for guidance on playing Sorcerer have come to play it that way. However, as I've said in a prior thread, Intent is not the deciding factor...Execution must be the deciding factor. As an example of this I point to Vampire: The INTENT of the game is to get into the mindset of a vampires struggle with his power and his humanity (a premise not entirely unlike that of Sorcerer). The actual EXECUTION of Vampire (do to its poor currency mechanic appealing more to power gamers than story tellers) derailed this.

Recently on the Sorcerer forum on GO, Ron offered the following advice to someone struggling with how to play Sorcerer for the first time with a very gamist group:

***What I'm getting at is that Sorcerer, like Over the Edge, like Prince Valiant, Zero, Hero Wars, and several others, enlists the player as SERIOUS co-author. You get to say things that NPCs do. You get to describe and invent many aspects of the causal events leading up to a resolution.

In terms of resolution, this means that (a) announce the action, (b) roll to resolve, and (c) see what ensues is NOT the model being used. Instead, it's (a) announce overall intent, (b) see what the dice say, and (c) retroactively figure out what ensued. Modifiers can go in before or after the dice roll - in Sorcerer, they go before. When they go in, that's when the Author (and even Director) power of the player is wielded.

Say you have "undercover cop" for your Cover score. Do you announce that you're looking around the bars and seedy dives, then roll, and if successful, wait for the GM to tell you what happens? No! You announce a desired OUTCOME of your investigation, including perhaps even the specific information you want, perhaps even inventing an NPC or two, complete with their specialties of knowledge. Making your roll creates them into the game.***

Clearly, Ron's intent is for Author stance to be prevelent in the game. However, NOWHERE...repeat NOWHERE...at least in the current edition of the rules is the above even hinted at. This is clearly Ron's intent, but a new player who has not availed themselves of the Sorcerer Forum will NOT learn this from the rules. The actual execution of Sorcerer offers NO mechanics specifically designed to promote Authoral stance, and in the absence of such mechanics one cannot point to the ability for Authoral stance to be used as evidence. Players CAN use Author stance in ANY game that does not specifically have mechanics preventing. That's a game play issue. When categorizing a game design it becomes necessary to evaluate not whether the design ALLOWS it (any game that encourages players to alter the rules allows anything) but whether the design actively encourages it.

Examining the Sorcerer rules:

Page 6 "Each player is responsible for the actions of a character..."
"The Game Master plays the demons as characters"

While certainly not explicit, this definitely sounds very much like the instructions found at the beginning of most "simulationist" games regarding playing in character while the GM runs the NPCs.

On page 8 "...enormous amount of freedom in terms of game actions." "if you're moping around saying, 'There's nothing we can do',you're almost certainly missing something".

This would be the perfect spot to mention the ability of players to get involved in the story using Author stance (granted Ron has explained that he hadn't discovered/developed those terms at the time Sorcerer was written, but there isn't even a hint of that thought process here). Instead the section about freedom of actions concentrates on the free form nature of sorcerous magic and the ability to summon demons to deal with problems. In other words it is nothing but a reminder that when confronted with an obstacle, characters have a wider range of responses through Sorcery than found in most games with limited spell lists. No mention at all of influencing the direction of the story directly.

The rest of the section deals with Fortune based game mechanics, no plot points or drama dice or any tell tales of that nature.

What about Kickers? Again, Ron has gone to great lengths to elaborate on the idea of Kickers, and hopefully some of those wonderful ideas will be incorporated into the new edition. But as written, they are no more involved that standard "backgrounds" that can be purchased in Gurps or 7th Sea. In three pages of Organizing a Game 40-44 which offer instructions on how GMs should set up a story (again no mention of player participation) Kickers are mentioned in only 2 sentences.

Mention was made of the ability of a player to select the nature of his demon as being an Author stance power. I have addressed that in another thread.

Ok, so enought about Author stance. In first edition Sorcerer as written it doesn't exist. Obviously Ron has greatly developed this portion of Sorcerer since...but until the rules are published they remain in the same status as house rules. In other words I could write house rules that incorporate Author stance into Rolemaster. That doesn't make the game suddenly become narrativist. At any rate the point here is not to pigeon hole Sorcerer but to illustrate how the existing definition of Simulation doesn't work very well.

Next we'll address the chronological cause and effect of Simulations.


[ This Message was edited by: Valamir on 2001-05-26 13:55 ]

This is part three of my analysis of Sorcerer as a simulation vs narrative game. Again my point here is not about categorizing Sorcerer and totally about pointing out weaknesses in the definition of Simulation.

***Design: (1) system mechanics that act as final resolvers to a stated/established set of conditions. This concept is found in games as diverse as The Window and RoleMaster, and it is a direct contrast to "in the middle" mechanics like those in Hero Wars and Story Engine.

What I mean by this is that "announce action completely," "resolve success or failure," and "resolve outcome" are ALWAYS handled in precisely that order. The system OCCURS LAST in the resolution process. ***

This is something of a continuation of the previous post in the series addressing mechanics in game design more completely. As I mentioned in the previous post Ron's intent for the game is to clearly NOT restrict actions to this cause and effect. But the execution of the game as it is currently written very clearly does.

As by now anyone following this thread should have a pretty good idea where I'm going I'm going to try and keep this one brief.

Start with the list of modifiers of page 10: Without exception they refer to applying modifiers to a roll when it is announced and before it is resolved. First the task is announced. Then modifiers to that roll are added and the roll is resolved. Then the number of victories is determined. This is precisely the same order as found in Ron's definition of a simulation. There is no suggestion of making a roll and then describing what it means the way Story Engine does.

Then examine the examples and advice on page 44-45 Actual Play. They are all of the above format.

---------------

Finally the point of it all:

NOTHING in Sorcerer disqualifies it from being a Simulation. The exact same elements that promoters of GNS would use to label Rolemaster or RuneQuest as a Simulation apply to Sorcerer. Yet Sorcerer is NOT categorized as a Simulation it is categorized as a Narrativist game.

Why?

Well to outside observers trying to condemn GNS, the answer is obvious. Because GNS views Simulation as an inferior form of game play and since Sorcerer is Ron's game GNS people will go to great lengths to not let it fall into that category and instead fit it into the "prestigous" category of narrativist.

For those of us who know better such an arguement is clearly bullshit (but one we should be aware of and take pains to address if widespread acceptance of the model is a goal).

I submit that the answer to "Why?" is because the definition of Simulation is not a good one. It is too subjective and thus too easy to catergorize a game as a simulation or not as a simulation based on personal preferences or incomplete understanding.

I submit further that this is not a situation that is resolvable by improving the definition of Simulation because one of the core problems of the current definition is that it is in direct conflict with the actual, original, widely held definition of what the word simulation means. Refinement of the current definition will not solve the problem of having elements of the more traditional definition creeping in and confusing peoples understanding and analysis.

I would suggest that it is carry over impressions from the traditional definition regarding complex rules and goals of realism that are the primary contributor to the subjectivity of the definition. Even though Rolemaster and Sorcerer both meet the same criteria, Rolemaster is a Simulation because it is complex and attempts to be "realistic" while Sorcerer does not. These criteria are being used by GNS proponents to categorize games as simulation even though they are NOT part of the actual GNS definition of Simulation. Even we get confused by it, no wonder the average newbie does too.

Further I submit, that the category itself is misunderstood.
I offer the following reasons as topics for discussion:

1) most of the current work as to what makes a game simulationist was done by people who are not only primarily narrativist in bent but self admittedly don't really understand the appeal of the category.

2) a great many games (most of the efforts of the 80s in fact) get thrown into the simulationist category. Yet the definition of the goals of a simulationist PLAYER are held by such a defineable minority that there are those who claim that that type of player doesn't even exist. Obviously if the type of players who are so completely simulationist are so few as to even generate such a claim there is a clear disconnect between the number of players of that style and the number of games catering to that style.

There are ENORMOUS followings for games such as Rolemaster and GURPs and many of the games we'd call "simulationist". Yet there are not enormous numbers of players who identify with the stringent definitions of what a simulationist player supposedly wants in a game. I believe that this more than anything else is proof positive that the category of Simulationist as GNS defines it is fundamentally wrong.

3) What then accounts for the huge number of players who enjoy "simulationist" games when most of them are not playing them for what GNS would suggest are "simulationist player goals". I offer Explorative play as a the missing feature of the GNS model. These players are attracted to games that allow them to Explore setting, character, and situation...quite apart from the rigid requirements for simulationist play (which are truly alien to most players).

I shan't put forth a description of what Explorative play means, entails and involves, instead I direct your attention back to the GO Critical Hit forum where it is being currently discussed. I will say it is MORE than just a facelift or a name change and it is probably NOT what you've been led to expect that it is. Also it is very unambiguous in nature.

Sorcerer for example in its currrent written form is very clearly a Exploration of Character game.

I know that many here have grown tired of the constant rehashing of GNS. Ron himself has expressed a strong desire to leave this part of the overall model behind for a while and concentrate now on other components like stance or currency.

I truely believe, however, that stance and currency CAN NOT be completely and accurately understood as long as the GNS model fails to account for what I believe to be one of the most common and prevelent player goals...Exploration in all its forms. I also truely believe that it would not be so burdensome to explain GNS to new people if the category of Simulation which is extremely difficult to explain let alone comprehend were replaced with something far more intuitive to grasp.

I further hope that this will not be viewed as an attack, or a challenge to existing "authorities" on the topic, but a true belief of someone who's found in GNS an extraordinary tool, but believes that that tool is flawed in a way that will prevent its acceptance by the gaming public at large.

I welcome discussion:

And look Ron, I started a brand new thread :smile:

[ This Message was edited by: Valamir on 2001-05-26 14:00 ]

First off, Valamir, that was a fine series of posts. I don't really disagree with anything you say except on the level of premise. You've put together an impressive argument based on its controlling assumptions. Some responses:

1) I think that Ron's thinking has changed over time, influenced by his gamist emphasis on mechanics. When I read System Does Matter, it's strongest, most thoroughly demonstrated point seemed to be that system matters in a negative way - that is, the wrong system can prevent a style of play inimical to it. Frex, if your concern is story or character, six-step combat resolution mechanics are not only beside the point, they get in the way. Have you played the Blade Runner computer RPG? (If not, do so!) There is a point where your character has the option of shooting his boss. The point is the decision: shoot him and it says one thing about you, don't shoot him and it says another. Complicate the act of shooting itself and you marginalize what is supposed to be central - you remove attention from the question of murder to the mechanics of it.

Sorcerer seems designed to get the system out of the way of story. By doing so, it is at least partially successful at getting system out of the way of character, so it appeals to a non-narrativist, quasi-ellajatist (s?), stop-and-smell-the-rosist atomist role-player like me.

2) Sorc's design enables story in a way similar to Isaiah Berlin's principle of negative liberty (Bill of Rights type stuff). Ron's recent discussions show an interest in mechanics that are supposed to produce story, a la Berlin's positive liberty (welfare state stuff). I submit that it is by no means proven that the latter approach leads to better stories than the former approach. The design would be more purely narrativist, which would make, say, Sorcerer less appealing to someone like me. But actual game results are not guaranteed to be more vital and compelling, even from a perspective that priveleges story above all other values.

I sometimes think that whatever is most important to you in a game should not have rules for it.

3) Gamism is the elephant in the room here. The emphasis on mechanics of story production is a foregrounding of rules as such, that is, the most "gamey" part of a role-playing game. Take the Humanity score in Sorcerer, which is pure gamism. The Humanity score gains emphasis from one volume of the Sorcerer series of games to the next. Which is not to say that humanity as such gains emphasis.

(Note BTW, in line with your comments on where the authorial power lies, that the definition of what Humanity is is entirely the province of the GM. The rules as written don't contemplate a player being able to say, "Hey, Humanity may represent empathy for all these other schmucks, but my score represents my degree of conformance with Mosaic Law," let alone your telling another player what Humanity represents for his character.)

But the Humanity rules are fundamentally a matter of resource management. If your score gets too high, you have a hard time adding demons. If your score gets too low, you lose your character!

Let's focus on this last for a minute: WHY do you lose your character if Humanity reaches zero? Does the existence of such a character violate the integrity of the game world? No. The character continues to exist in the game world as an NPC. So simulation does not demand removing the zero or negative-Humanity character from player control. Does the existence of a zero or negative-Humanity character in the campaign preclude the generation of Story? No. In fact, there may well be such characters under the control of the gamemaster generating all sorts of story. There is, in principle, no reason why a zero/negative-Humanity character under the control of a player couldn't generate just as much story. Especially if we really don't fear player use of authorial power. So narrative does not demand removing the zero/negative-Humanity character from player control.

Can we imagine that there exists a Sorc player whose character reaches Humanity 0 who would rather not lose his character? Easily. Therefore, reaching Humanity 0 represents defeat for the player. Indeed, everything in the rules emphasizes that if you don't keep your Humanity up you will "lose" (there's that word) your character.

In classic, Gamist RPG fashion, victory = not losing. Didn't die in D&D tonight? You "won." Didn't lose all your SAN in CoC? You won. Didn't become an NPC in Sorc? You won.

So far we have come up with what are not reasons to strip the player of the zero/negative-Humanity character, but not reasons to so strip her. I can think of two possibilities right off the bat: 1) a sqeamishness factor. I do not gainsay this: there are all kinds of depravities I wouldn't enjoy GMing or witnessing in play. But that means Humanity is a punishment/reward system enforcing certain limits on player behavior. 2) a fairness factor: IOW, a sense that the zero-Humanity player might just have Too Much Fun freed from the constraints that still obtain for the other players in the game. They Can't, She Can.

So we're back to player fairness and the mechanics of reward and punishment, which is to say, we are as gamist as it gets.

4) Back in my RGFA days I tended to argue the opposite sides of these issues, and I recall a very relevant thread on whether Hero Points and Plot Points were inevitably metagame or not. It eddied into a specific discussion of how gamist was or was not Theatrix. I was waxing enthusiastic about Theatrix plot point mechanic, using as my example the Incredible Hulk. Why you could give the Hulk a strength of 10, I said, which would still mean that in the ordinary course of things, there would be things he couldn't lift, foes he couldn't knock out etc. But then you give him the descriptor "The Madder Hulk Gets, the Stronger Hulk Gets." Now, he can spend a plot point to activate the descriptor and lift that bigger thing or pummel that formerly unpummelable opponent. But why, the very polite and very sharp interlocutor wanted to know, do you need to bring plot points into it? Why not just have the descriptor, and a player who activates it as appropriate? Why do you have to spend a point for your character to get mad? Her point was that Theatrix' approach was very gamist, but that an emphsis on story did not require that approach.

I had no good answer for her then or now.

Best,


Jim

Oh vey...here we go:

One it obviously should be a game most of us are familiar with, and two I used it as an example elsewhere and got a lot of negativity for the attempt.

When I suggested that Sorcerer by the definitions of GNS is actually more of a Simulation than a Narrativist, game the reaction was just short of abject horror that I could think such a thing.

Well to outside observers trying to condemn GNS, the answer is obvious. Because GNS views Simulation as an inferior form of game play and since Sorcerer is Ron's game GNS people will go to great lengths to not let it fall into that category and instead fit it into the "prestigous" category of narrativist.

"Does this dress make me look fat?"
"No, it looks good! Let's go!"
(This dress is yellow, I look awful in yellow, men always lie to their wives about the dresses they wear to make them hurry, ergo, my husband is lying!)
"You're lying! I do look fat!"

Gamism is the elephant in the room here. The emphasis on mechanics of story production is a foregrounding of rules as such...Take the Humanity score in Sorcerer, which is pure gamism...

Since Sorc's theme is about what makes a person human and how far they'll go to get power...how you balance the two...I'd argue the Humanity mechanic is a facilitator for narrative play since it is being used to support/reflect the conflict and theme mechanically.

Raven...I have no desire to discuss your post with you. You have stuffed far more strawmen into one message than I can even count and absolutely none of it is constructive. Most of it in fact is pointless and counterproductive. Personally, I find it most telling that you spend a lengthy post dissecting a couple of lines from 1 message of a 4 part thread while absolutely saying nothing regarding any of the rest. In otherwords its nothing but the age old tactic of trying to find 1 or 2 sentences to take out of context and blast in an attempt to illegitimize the rest of the arguement, I had thought you were above such things. I'm not interested in going there with you, I've come to expect a much higher calibre of post from you in particular and this forum in general. I do find it odd though that while you spend many words attacking me for expressing that this opinion is out there and held by others you conveniently ignore the part where I agree with you in pointing out that such an attitude is total bullshit.

I also find it telling that while you claim that no one has expressed negativity towards the idea that everything has just been legitimate disagreement, that your post is nothing but negativity with no attempt at legitimate disagreement.

If you have something constructive to add please do so. I was looking forward to the intellegent and informed debate that the Forge is famous for.

[I shall not retract, but chagrined by Clinton's admonishment I shall rephrase]

The arguement you've repeatedly given that "people who view the model as being degrading don't know what they're talking about so its their fault they feel offended and we're totally blameless" is niether enlightened nor productive. Their perception is a mirror of your attitude. Go back and read the last half dozen posts you've posted here. THAT is why people find the model and its practitioners elitist. You can't use a holier than thou, I'm giving you a lecture as if you were a six year old tone and then pretend you didn't mean to imply anything by it.

You need to seriously make up your mind as to what this model is for my friend. If this model is meant to be nothing more than the special toy of a select few "insiders" than fine. I'll be happy to depart because that would be a total waste of my time. I'm not interested in being part of anyone's vanity project.

If, however, this model is meant to one day be in a position to influence for the better the way professional game designers design games and regular game players select games to buy, you'd better start recognizing that the perception of the "ignorant masses" is a heck of a lot more important than whatever "facts" you think you have on your side. If they think you're a bunch of elitist snobs, than it makes absolutely no difference whether you actually are
or aren't. Overcomeing a false perception is hard enough with out you feeding into it.

If it were possible to do a head count I imagine you'd find that the members of this forum are significantly outnumbered by people who have been so turned off by their perception of your attitude that they want nothing more to do with GNS. Whether their perception is accurate or not is irrelevent, either way it isn't good for the model today (because there are people with potentially deep insights who refuse to participate) and it isn't good for the model's eventual acceptance.

The fact that you seem entirely determined to absolutely refuse to be sensitive to this issue...to recognize that your words and way you speak them affect the way people percieve this model and this group, absolutely baffles me.


[ This Message was edited by: Valamir on 2001-05-27 17:20 ]

I can't believe I need to actually say this, but here's a few notes:

a) Don't be elitist.
b) Don't call someone elitist. It's an indefensible argument for both sides.
c) For Pete's sake, don't call someone's argument bullshit.
d) Don't give bullshit arguments. If you want to say something here, back it up.

e) There's no censorship to be had here at the Forge. I absolutely will not try to censor anyone just because I'm forum administrator. Most of you have much more important things to say than I do.

That said, the one ground rule I expect everyone to live by here is don't post when you feel angered. If you've read a post and you feel angry, repulsed, ignored, or slighted, don't post until you're over it. Posts written in passion benefit no one but yourself.

Be enlightened.

You know, I shouldn't really even respond to this, because I think this is way over-the-top. But it seems to me you're getting all twisted up when you make a statement and someone disagrees; you claim you're being wronged because someone deconstructs your premises or just one or two lines. Well, if those one or two lines are wrong, they're wrong! Don't take it personally.

As well, I've gone into detail on why I don't buy into "quacking to the ducks" elsewhere, so my thoughts on that subject are already known, certainly in regards to "elitism" and "attitudes." Thus I'll stick to everything I have thus far argued here and elsewhere on that topic:
It is exactly similar to a fundamentalist Christian claiming that evolutionary theory encourages atheistic humanism and denies God.

It doesn't.
It isn't a problem with the theory, the way the theory is stated or anything similar. It doesn't make evolutionary theory the dirty-word elitist plaything of bright biologists or etc, etc, etc.
It is simply a problem with the reader expressing his own personal beliefs and attitudes into the theory itself.

Try and explain how the fundamentalist is wrong and you'll be told you are "holier than thou...giving [them] a lecture as if [they] were a six year old", exactly as you claim I am.

Ever try to explain evolutionary theory to someone who uses it to defend "survival of the fittest" as a morality? You get the same response: anger, claims of elitism, personal attacks.

Why is it that when almost anyone that contradicts us or tries to explain anything to us is a threat?

Because one cannot find a cure for ignorance short of education. And education is always "elitist", by definition.

Anyone smarter than you, more knowledgeable than you, unless you are willing to learn from that person, is a threat to you when you don't want to learn or abandon old conceptions.

Memes. Resistance to change.
Alteration of beliefs, gathering new ones is NOT what the adult brain wants...it wants to reinforce the patterns it developed as a child due the survival instinct.
Anything that attempts to alter those patterns is a threat because survival could be compromised ("I know this and thus far I have survived because of it; I do not know if this new thing will allow me to survive so it is suspect"). Even when survival isn't an issue, this thought pattern comes up.
Lovely behavioral psychology, all stemming from before we stepped out of the trees. A problematic artifact at times, but, yes, very useful, too.

But is that a problem with the model?
It doesn't make the model a 'vanity project', it doesn't mean the accuracy or relevancy of people's perceptions mean a thing in regards to the model. It's Zen: "The grass is green."
The model is the model, no matter what people think about it. Perception doesn't alter truth, so don't alter truth for perception. That is, there will always be someone ignorant, someone who doesn't know about the model and chooses to misread it...that can't be the model's problem.

There isn't a problem with the wording in the model, there's a problem with the people reading the model and making uneducated assumptions about what they read...that's a problem. Education about the assumptions is the only cure for that because the model is clear.
This is a problem in every field...and every field that does it is "elitist" too. Mathematics, physics, biology, computer science, literature, history, etc.

So, will readers want to learn more? Maybe. Some will never read it and still put it down, some will decide not to agree with it despite being told where their assumptions are wrong.
That's not a problem with the model.
It's not dirty-word elitist, either.
It just is.

I hope ou don't take something herein as an insult too, but there's nothing I can do about that except avoid posting...but since I'm not insulting you personally or stating anything unprovable, I'm going to post.

I'd like to avoid further insults if we could.
_________________
Ravenscrye Grey Daegmorgan
http://www.daegmorgan.net/
"Homer, your growing insanity is starting to bother me."

[ This Message was edited by: greyorm on 2001-05-27 20:04 ]

Hi Raven. If at some point you want to actually make that argument as opposed to simply glossing it, feel free to join us in the Gamism and Mechanics thread.

It's late, and I haven't been feeling well this weekend, which made me miss out on a bunch of gaming, so appolgies if this comes across as grumpy and/or incoherent. But . . . my overall impression at this point is that Valamir has put his finger on some of the core issues, but has overstated a number of points in service of . . . I'm not sure what, but the overstatement doesn't seem to help either his case nor the overall clarity of examination of the issues. As background, I do NOT yet own Sorcerror, and am a "budding" (at best) Narartivist as it is described here. Let me try quoting some bits that struck me and including my thoughts:

..[>> quoted bits from from Sorcerror, I assume - > from Valamir]..
>>"...what do you want? How far would you go? How far have
>>you gone already?"
>>"What price have you already paid? Faced with madess,
>>armed with madness, how do you hold on to your humanity?"
>>"What kind of crisis has driven you to immediate action,
>> Are you out for worldly gain, using sorcery merely as a
>> tool? Or are you an esoteric seeker probing at the fringes
>> of human understanding? Or are you desperate and driven,
>> perhaps for vengeance or battling against something
>> intolerably unjust?"

>ALL of the above is focused NOT on story but
>on experienceing what it is to be a sorcerer.

I could just as easily say (as Ron probably would say) "ALL of the above is focused on how to tell a compelling story about Power, Humanity, and Other Capitol Letter Things". That's not to say that it CAN'T be used for "experiencing what is to be a sorceror", but by no means MUST it be - to say it is NOT focused on story is just flat out wrong.

>Heres a particularly compelling line from the same section:
>>"Nothing--literally nothing--is more important than what you
>>want out of a situation..."

>In other words, the entire set up for the game, from introduction
>to instructions to players is to create a compelling character
>in an effort to experience what it is like to be that character.

". . . in an effort to tell the story described above". A completely valid alteration.

So what does this show us? Offhand (and remember those 1st-sentence caveats), I think the places Valamir is looking to answer his "Sorcerer is NOT categorized as a Simulation it is categorized as a Narrativist game - Why?" are insufficient to the task of anwering it. He eliminates "intent" as a deciding factor - I'd disagree with its. elimination, but agree it can't be the be-all end-all. He points to "execution" as the alternative . . . but most of the example he uses (esp. the examples I picked - and that's surely no coincidence :wink:) aren't REALLY about execution - in the sense of something that FORCES (or even strongly biases) things into a non-Narrativist direction. The fact that they could also (perhaps) be used to further Simulative ends doesn't invalidate their Narrativism.

Not owning Sorceror, I can't comment on the "overall" emphasis of the system, nor on some of Valamir's direct claims of "lack of Author stance support" and etc. Valamir claims " . . . the point here is not to pigeon hole Sorcerer but to illustrate how the existing definition of Simulation doesn't work very well". I'm not sure the problem is in the definition - it may well be in how to apply it. I'm not certain of this, and I have my own questions about the defintion(s) itself, but I definitely see Valamir and other APPLYING it in invalid ways. So I'm not prepared (yet, anyway) to agree that the definition is bad.

Uhm. I think I'm repeating myself . . . hope this is useful. Tomorrow is another day.

Gorodn C. Landis

So what does this show us? Offhand (and remember those 1st-sentence caveats), I think the places Valamir is looking to answer his "Sorcerer is NOT categorized as a Simulation it is categorized as a Narrativist game - Why?" are insufficient to the task of anwering it. He eliminates "intent" as a deciding factor - I'd disagree with its. elimination, but agree it can't be the be-all end-all. He points to "execution" as the alternative . . . but most of the example he uses (esp. the examples I picked - and that's surely no coincidence :wink:) aren't REALLY about execution - in the sense of something that FORCES (or even strongly biases) things into a non-Narrativist direction. The fact that they could also (perhaps) be used to further Simulative ends doesn't invalidate their Narrativism.

Uhm. I think I'm repeating myself . . . hope this is useful. Tomorrow is another day.

Gorodn C. Landis

OK, you've convinced me; Sorcerer is Simulationist.

OK, before I get slammed for not understanding the argument, the above is tongue-in-cheek. To an extent. What I mean to say is that maybe there are more Simulationist elements in first edition Sorcerer than Ron would like to admit. It was developed a while ago, and may suffer from a design that intends to be Narrativist, but has Simulationist elements as many Narrativist elements had not been developed yet. Just like, say, Vampire, but not as bad. As I've said before, by the current definition, Narrativist describes the actual mechanics of very few games at the moment. This does not invalidate the goal.

And yet, I can see the other POV as well, that Sorcerer is Narrativist. There is definite evidence. I happened to be one of those people who are cursed by being able to see both sides of an argument as equally valid. And everyone is making some good arguments here each way.

Next consider that we have somebody describing just about every game with any mechanics as Gamist (OK that's an overstatement, but he says Sorcerer is Gamist). So this makes Sorcerer Gamist, theoretically.

My conclusion? What this really seems to represent is what James was trying to say in the thread below about "rotating axes". That from certain perspectives these definitions can be used to describe most any game as most any style. (BTW, this seems to me to potentially indicate a bias, but that's not up for discussion here).

But this doesn't change the fact that the axes still exist. To say otherwise is to chuck the entire model and begin anew. And just because we all see particular games in a slightly different light doesn't mean that the threefold model of axes cannot be applied effectively in either game design, choice of style, or matching players (and GMs) to games.

The fact that Narrativist and Gamist are equally as potentially confusing as Simulationist should be proof that Simulationist is no less well defined than the others, and, threfore, in no more need of adjustment.

I still think explorationist is sexier, though. ; - )

Mike Holmes

I don't buy it.

Name another game that you could run using the Sorcerer rules, as written -- yes, that includes demons and Humanity (which I contend are NOT plug-ins the way "fantasy magic" or "cyberware" or "anime superheroes" or "vampires" are plug-ins to existing Simulationist systems).

Even if the setting changes, the Premise remains the same -- it's integral to the game and that is what makes it Narrativist.

Explorative, while being a cute term, is bunk. It describes player/GM goals. Hell, using Explorative as a term, then ANY RPG is explorative -- even a game like Puppetland or Dying Earth or Stuporpowers.

- J

On 2001-05-29 19:44, Jared A. Sorensen wrote:
I don't buy it.

Name another game that you could run using the Sorcerer rules, as written -- yes, that includes demons and Humanity (which I contend are NOT plug-ins the way "fantasy magic" or "cyberware" or "anime superheroes" or "vampires" are plug-ins to existing Simulationist systems).

Even if the setting changes, the Premise remains the same -- it's integral to the game and that is what makes it Narrativist.

Explorative, while being a cute term, is bunk. It describes player/GM goals. Hell, using Explorative as a term, then ANY RPG is explorative -- even a game like Puppetland or Dying Earth or Stuporpowers.

On 2001-05-29 20:38, GreatWolf wrote:

Vampire: The Dark Ages. Setting changes, Premise stays the same. Is Vampire Narrativist? I think that we both agree that it is not.

I agree with Valamir that design follows from player/GM goals, just like form follows function. Mechanical design and gaming group goals are not severable.

But that's not the point. Whether or not you could use the Sorcerer system (including demons and Humanity) to run another game is irrelevant. Simulationism (Explorationism) is not defined by whether or not the rules system can be plugged into a different genre.

One could make the same challenge regarding Vampire. "Name me one game that you can play using the Vampire rules--yes, that means Humanity and Blood Pool and Disciplines and all."

Hey Jared,

Vampire is not a narrativist game. If it was, it certainly wouldn't require blood points or disciplines. it would only require virtues, humanity and willpower.

This is a good point. Although I do think there's latent Narrative value in the blood points, the execution undermines that by being too Gamist. In the game as designed, blood points are power ups without any real thematic context. The idea that your enhanced strength is based on taking the strength of someone else should have a more direct and personal linkage to Humanity.

Paul

The original goal of this thread seems to be to clarify the difference between simulationism and narrativism. Given that most things in life, and G/N/S certainly included, are easier to provide paradigms for than to define, here are my paradigms:

In the unattainable ideal for a simulationist game, the GM knows absolutely everything that’s going on in the setting. These things are fixed, except perhaps as they would naturally evolve over time, and only change either in response to PC actions or as they would change according to the internal rules of the setting (ie, the GM may have the villains actions planned out, and these proceed in the absence of PC interference). PC stance is firmly fixed in “actor” mode. In my experience, the big problem with strict simulationism is that usually the GM only has an interesting thing going on in one part of the setting, and if the PCs miss it, or miss a critical clue, nothing at all interesting happens, and it gets friggin’ dull.

The ideal for a narrativist game involves a group of aggressively creative players who make up a beautiful, consistent, thematically satisfying story on the spot, with the GM’s input being limited to his use as a sounding board. The big problem with narrativist games is that, unless your game group consists of Shakespeare and the entire cast of “Who’s Line is it, anyway?” they probably don’t have nearly that level of initiative. Even the “Who’s line ?” guys require a starting situation … so, again, nothing happens.

The ideal for a gamist game involves the GM producing a set of challenges finely tuned to require both clever play on the part of the players and clever design on the part of their characters. The main problem with these is that unless you have the Imperial War College working on your scenarios in their spare time, one fight tends to look like another, your “shoot” and “dodge” skills are all you need, and they’re pretty easy to minmax. At least stuff's always happening ...

I have to say, then, that purists in any of these memes drive me buggy, and lead to dull games. I strongly suspect that some of the most satisfying sessions of any game are based on a combination of these elements. It’s which one’s dominant, and in what combinations, that differentiate interests.

Back to Valamir's original point:
Put in these terms, exploration of setting is usually going to be simulationist in nature, while exploration of character can be either simulationist or narrativist (depending on how you go about it.).

However, I think that basically what the issue here is is related to what I was talking about in my 'game space' essay: G/N/S is a set of vectors that define a space. You can define other quite different vectors that define the same space (I can recreate your 'explorative' vector with a combination of narrativism and simulationism). This doesn't mean that your vector is inferior; I haven't read the article in GO, but I presume that if the system is well designed, you can recreate any G/N/S example using it instead. Am I convinced that G/N/S is the best possible set of vectors for defining the space ? No, although I'm not convinced they're -not-, either. Further, I guess I've met a LOT of people (most people who aren't explicitly gamist) who are explicitly simulationist. So I guess I feel that they're fairly workable, and a reasonable jumping off point.


- James

P.S. I have to stress that these aren’t definitions; they’re paradigms, examples that fall very clearly into each meme. Can you change them and remain within the meme ? Very likely. Just the more you change them, the more they start to look like another of them.

Something about the discussion in general has been bothering me...I can't put my finger on it, but I had it on the tip of my tongue earlier tonight and lost it.
It's related to the whole 'axis-shift' of the game depending on how its viewed/played, and using the mechanics to determine whether a game is within a certain category or not.
There's something major that's being overlooked or forgotten about that would change the whole paradigm of discussion.

I know, I know...this isn't incredibly useful, or even slightly so, but I felt I had to bring this up in case anyone else is experiencing this uncomfortable feeling as well, or in case it sparks someone into trying to think about the situation in a new light.

I've had a similar feeling with respect to some games. The thing is, you can't use any individual mechanic in isolation to determine a game's emphasis because any given mechanic can support any given emphasis (G, N or S) depending on the designer's intent. Instead, you really must look at the bulk of the mechanics as a whole with respect to the designer's stated intent to get a sense of the game's overall emphasis.

The limitation here is that GMs and players can subtly (or not so subtly) alter the designer's intent for a game by applying their own emphasis to it. Deleting certain rules or tweaking other rules can really change the character of a game. Mike Holmes pointed this out very clearly with GURPS. Dump the point-counting system for char gen, and GURPS loses most of its Gamist thrust. It then becomes a much more effective platform for Simulationist play.

All that said, I must add that intent clearly does matter. So does the expression of that intent. It's easy to look at individual mechanics from a game like Sorcerer and say, "This mechanic does this. Therefore, the result is THIS." Well, if you look at an individual mechanic, you can say that, but you're probably wrong. You really need to look at the sum total of all mechanics.

With respect to Sorcerer, read the character design section and especially Chapter 7. The Narrativist intent is there, and the bulk of the mechanics support it. Maybe the earlier edition of the game doesn't express Ron's vision as well as the print version will. Maybe for now you also really need to look at the Sorcerer discussions to get the complete picture. Maybe you still want Sorcerer's Soul to see how some of the game's best concepts really fit into the big picture. This is somewhat inconvenient, but in this case, it doesn't hurt anything. First and foremost, as presented, Sorcerer is a playable game with a lot of potential. Now, let's tell the truth: A game that's available only as a PDF on the internet is really only available to players with internet access. Those people are going to look at the online discussion and they're going to ask their questions. Even if the last set of rules isn't as updated as it could be, the current state of the Sorcerer game is pretty accessible, and it's pretty obvious that it's a Narrative-oriented game. As far as I'm concerned, that's the context for evaluating Sorcerer.

If I have found one annoying, recurring source of irritation in these 3-fold discussions, it's that people just love to take things out of context and twist them into something else. It doesn't just happen here. It's everywhere. It's pointless, and 9 times out of 10, the people doing it know they're doing it and they do it just to be annoying. I have 2 words for everyone doing that: STOP IT! :wink:

Thank you and good night.

Best,

Logan

Jared wrote

Explorative, while being a cute term, is bunk. It describes player/GM goals. Hell, using Explorative as a term, then ANY RPG is explorative -- even a game like Puppetland or Dying Earth or Stuporpowers.

I'm with Mytholder on this one. The whole Explorative/Explorationist term takes aspects of the Simulationist definition and makes them the emphasis. The term Simulationist as we use it doesn't negate the "Explorative" aspects, but it emphasizes the "Simulative" aspects. Explorationist as it's been expressed... I think it does try to negate or suppress the Simulative aspects of gaming, because it's really a term brought out to express the whole Elaytijist, deep in-character immersion style of play mostly used in LARPs. At least, it seems the people who most want the label change seem most attuned to that idea.

One of the interesting pitfalls produced in the entire Explorative/Elaytijist branch of the debate is the idea that "In-Character mode is Exploration of Character. Any time you use In-Character mode, you're Exploring Character, so all games must be Explorative or Simulationist." Now, this is just the impression I have from reading many posts, and I've condensed it. I've stumbled into the thing myself. For a while, I was looking at the enforced In-Character stance found in Puppetland and saying, "Gee, I wonder if Puppetland really is an Explorative game, not Narrative?" Then I realized, that's not the way it is at all.

A player can be In-Character or Out-of-Character in any Stance and in any sort of game. Being in-character does not automatically mean the game is a simulation or that primary emphasis is on exploration of character any more than having a story in an RPG automatically makes the thing Narrativist. Again, it's context and the intent of designer, GM, and players.

The Elaytijists are an extreme and singular example of one style of play. You really can't point at them and say, "This is what Simulationist (or even Explorationist) play is all about." They've made simulation of character with enforced in-character mode their sole mechanism for play. But consider this: Their "other" goal is to help the GM realize his vision for the game, and they're supposed to make allowances for that. Also consider that if you follow the polarized Elaytijist/Explorationist vector to its logical conclusion, guys like Mike Holmes, people who really embody the spirit of Simulationism (but who think Explorationism sounds sexier) get left pretty much out in the cold.

So this begs questions. Who are the Explorationists? What do the Explorationists want? Are the Explorationists actually Simulationists with a shiny coat of paint, or are the Explorationists actually a reaction to the conventions of Simulationism seeking their very own corner in a Manifold model?

I will front-load this. I don't care which term is used. I do care about what the term means. I think the Elaytijists are at one end of the Sim/Exp range, while the rules-heavy, detail-layered World Simulationists are at the other. In between, you have a lot of possibilities. I also think the Elaytijist method of play is too limited, too rigidly defined to be a corner on the model. That's my opinion. What's your opinion?

Best,

Logan

(It was suggested on RPGNet that I make this challenge to Ron to see the result, but I can't imagine anyone making the effort for something that would gave so little benefit)

On 2001-05-30 09:57, Logan wrote:
So this begs questions. Who are the Explorationists? What do the Explorationists want? Are the Explorationists actually Simulationists with a shiny coat of paint, or are the Explorationists actually a reaction to the conventions of Simulationism seeking their very own corner in a Manifold model?

I'll probably hear from Jester for saying this, but Jester's model is really Jester's model. It's its own entity independent from but dependent on both Ron's model and the rgfa model. He did pretty much what I predicted he would do, and I salute him for that. OTOH, as much as I respect Jester's work, admire his passion for the topic, and value his insight, it doesn't really help very much.

I'm specifically interested in what people are thinking with respect to Simulationism and the possibility of adding Exploration to our lexicon here, either as a new term with its own ramifications or as a replacement for Simulationism. At this point, I'm specifically not using information from his freshly-minted GENder model. I'm only using what is already known about our model and what you and others have added to the debate here. I don't think this discussion is anywhere near over, but I would like to see some sign that it is moving forward.

Best,

Logan

I'm not sure I understand your position here Logan. On the one hand you point (correctly) to the idea that the GEN model was influenced by GNS and earlier work, yet then you suggest that its not helpful to have GNS be influenced by GEN's work.

On the one hand you ask an open ended question about what role Exploration should or shouldn't have in the context of GNS but on the other you express reluctance to draw ideas and information from the source that has probably done the most work regarding what Exploration is.

I would think that a cross pollination of ideas would be extremely productive. Why don't you see it that way?

Everything in its turn. Cross-pollination is fine, but my current priority is on the discussion here and on the reference doc.

Best,

Logan

Bolt Factory, a short allegory

There was once a bolt factory where they made bolts for anyone to use. The owner of the factory had thought long and hard about it and decided people needed three things to fasten stuff with bolts--actual bolts, nuts, and washers.

One day, though, the oldest guy in the factory retired, and the owner had to look for a new hand on the line. He interviewed dozens of people, and thought he'd found the right guy--the guy knew a heck of a lot about bolts--but he kept referring to them as screws.

"Why in the world do you keep calling those bolts screws?" the owner asked.

"That's what they are--you put a washer on and screw it into the nut," the new guy said.

The owner thought long and hard about this, and guessed the new guy was sort of right--you did screw the bolts into the nuts.

But then the new guy started taking orders. Old customers didn't know what to say when he kept calling the bolts 'screws,' and new customers kept getting surprised when they ordered 'screws' and got bolts.

In the end, the boss had to fire the new guy. The new guy asked why, and the owner said:

You seem to know a heck of a lot about screws, but that ain't what we're selling here.

On 2001-05-30 15:33, Clinton R Nixon wrote:

In other news, could people please stop saying things like:

I would think that a cross pollination of ideas would be extremely productive. Why don't you see it that way?

Think about this for a second. This is a carefully crafted piece of debate that can't be deflected. On the one hand, someone could say, "I do see it that way," and suddenly you're in agreement. On the other, you could stick by your point, and then be accused of not being open to 'cross pollination of ideas.'

Please, debate and learn. This isn't the place to win, though, but learn. Keep that in mind.

First, I need to establish a new login, so we can differenciate between what I say as "Clinton the kind-of-quasi-administrator" and "Clinton the forum poster."

All previous posts in this thread are done as "Clinton the forum poster" (besides the 'debate and learn clause') and I'll have an admin login soon.

Ok:
Brian said, "But I thought you had a higher goal in mind then inbreeding."

As Clinton the forum poster, I reply, "Not really." Seriously. This ties in directly with Valamir giving me a dressing down about ignoring a Explorative discussion over at GO.

If I was at all interested in the opinions of the people at GO on game design, I'd spend my time on that forum and not this one.

A lot of people have been throwing around the word elitist recently. No one's owned up to that so far, but I will. I am elitist. I think a small group of people can come up with a better theory than the soupy morass created by many. I think this 'everybody jump in the GNS discussion and define our own version of GNS' madness is infuriating, and it's stopped me from posting much on the board that I host, much less some monster pool of crack-headed-ness like GO.

I've studied the GNS model we have here. I agree with it fully. I don't think every game can fit into it. Furthermore, I think any game that can't fit into it is flawed.

I'm interested in discussing this with a small group of like-minded people. I'm not interested in re-hashing the same topic we have been re-hashing for two years: "GNS: Yea or Nay? How can we improve it?"

Maybe one re-naming would be a good idea: what I refer to as GNS is now officially the "Ron Edwards G/N/S model". And as far as I'm concerned--and I think quite a few would agree with me--that model's complete. If you want a new model of your own, I do think that's a worthy enterprise--but make it your own and don't try to wedge pieces of it in this one.

There. That didn't accomplish a thing. I'm going to cease posting now. Have fun making a mess.

In other news, if anyone wants to be a forum administrator, e-mail me.

_________________
Clinton R. Nixon
indie-rpgs.com webmaster
www.acid-reflex.com

[ This Message was edited by: Clinton R Nixon on 2001-05-30 18:14 ]

i have to admit, i agree w/ clinton--i feel i have a pretty good grasp of what "gamist", "narrativist", & "simulationist" is, & i'm not all that interested in debating or arguing about it anymore (which is why i've stayed out of this thread--tho for the record, i do not think "sorcerer" is simulationist, i think it's narrativist, in a very similar way to one of its influences, "over the edge")...
i realize that adds nothing to this thread, i just felt like saying it...
now, i am very interested in discussing ways of creating & running games that are aimed primarily at one of the three methods/goals--creating a narrativist game, or running a narrativist game...i'd love to see more written on ways to successfully create & run a gamist game, or a simulationist game...but arguing over what each word means gets really tiresome after a while & starts to become really academic (in the negative sense of the word)...

[ This Message was edited by: joshua neff on 2001-05-30 21:33 ]

Heh. Well, Clinton, as you probably know I 100% completely disagree with you.

But I also 100% completely respect you for coming right out and making this post in no uncertain terms. I have a feeling that the above attitude is exactly the impression alot of visitors to the Forge have recieved and labeled as elitist. I applaud you for stateing clearly those feelings which seem to be ubiquitous here despite protestations to the contrary.

I much prefer knowing exactly where I stand rather than being left confused and frustration.

I've stated before that my suggestions were made with the idea of making the model more wide spread and broadly accepted, and that they weren't necessarily applicable if there was no such desire. Thank you for letting me know that there is no such desire, too bad you didn't express this earlier so I could have avoided wasting so much time and effort.

I will say this:

I totally disagree with the assumption that a small group is by definition more effective than a large one. I think here it has led to a great case of missing the forest for the trees.

I disagree that the model can categorize most games/gamers and those it can't are flawed. I think Explorative style play is not only valid but probably has more practitioners than either narrativist or what you consider simulationist. I happen to enjoy my style of gameplay very much and I can't find me in GNS, and I don't believe that makes me flawed (I can clearly find me in GEN, however, as can many others). Nor is Explorative play part of Simulative play because Simulative play carries with it restrictions and qualifications that simply aren't applicable to me or many others.

I also disagree with the idea that the model is complete. No model is ever complete. If you only ever discuss the model with like minded individuals, how can you ever be certain its not flawed? Seems to me the only people you can be certain your model applies to are your select group of like minded individuals.

But with all that said, this is not my web site or my forum, so I am not in a position to tell you how to run your facility.

If you are comfortable with what you have here, than have fun with your clique and enjoy your status quo. I shant waste my time any further.

Again, in all seriousness and no sarcasm intended, thank you for clearly letting me know your position. May I suggest this post become section one of your FAQ.

Meanwhile, I shall take my crack headed contributions over to GO so as not to disturb you any further.

Clinton -

Ok - introducing the term Exploration, even if it may be a more accurate description of what's going on, might be confusing. However - the Explorationist thread over on GO had one of the best and most thoughtful dissections of what simulationist/explorationist want and try to achieve in a game session that I've ever seen. Simulationism is certainly the least understood member of the triad here - a lot of recent threads have proved that.

Dismissing all that strikes me as being somewhat shortsighted.

Mind if I grab some stuff out of context?

I've studied the GNS model we have here. I agree with it fully. I don't think every game can fit into it. Furthermore, I think any game that can't fit into it is flawed.

I'm interested in discussing this with a small group of like-minded people. I'm not interested in re-hashing the same topic we have been re-hashing for two years: "GNS: Yea or Nay? How can we improve it?"

No model is ever complete. If you only ever discuss the model with like minded individuals, how can you ever be certain its not flawed?

On 2001-05-30 18:50, Valamir wrote:
Thank you for letting me know that there is no such desire, too bad you didn't express this earlier so I could have avoided wasting so much time and effort.

I wanted to apologize for my response to Clinton's message. It was entirely unfair and unjustifiable of me to extend his sentiments to the members at large.

His post seriously pissed me off, and I responded poorly to it.

One thing that has become clear is that just about every member has his own definitions and perceptions about what the components of the model mean. This makes it difficult, to say the least, to debate the merits of various components objectively.

I shall therefor defer further comments on the subject until the FAQ is posted.

I disagree that the model can categorize most games/gamers and those it can't are flawed. I think Explorative style play is not only valid but probably has more practitioners than either narrativist or what you consider simulationist. I happen to enjoy my style of gameplay very much and I can't find me in GNS, and I don't believe that makes me flawed (I can clearly find me in GEN, however, as can many others). Nor is Explorative play part of Simulative play because Simulative play carries with it restrictions and qualifications that simply aren't applicable to me or many others.

But you will use it to misrepresent the design goals of any number of games.

To respond to Gordon on a couple of points.

Regarding the restrictiveness of Simulation vs Exploration, those restrictions are part of Ron's definition of Simulation (as expressed in the alternate phylogeny thread, the might possibly be modified in the FAQ). According to that definition a Simulation requires 2 things, 1) No Author Stance, and 2) Mechanics that are entirely chronological cause and effect based. While these might be legitimate restrictions to describe a Simulation they do not (necessarily) apply to Explorative play. Explorative play might be a Simulation as described, or it might not require such restriction. I can enjoy Exploration of Setting for instance and make full use of Author Stance or Fortune in the Middle mechanics. This doesn't necessarily qualify it as Narrative with a Setting emphasis either since my goals don't necessarily place the creation of the story as highest priority.

With regards to criticism being leveled at the model, I think that will hopefully be deflated by the very inclusive FAQ that Logan and Ron are working on. The model itself hasn't intentionally attempted to miscategorize games, but I think a few practitioners have miscategorized them due to an incomplete understanding of the model which hopefully the FAQ will rectify.

As Clinton the forum poster, I reply, "Not really." Seriously. This ties in directly with Valamir giving me a dressing down about ignoring a Explorative discussion over at GO.

A lot of people have been throwing around the word elitist recently. No one's owned up to that so far, but I will. I am elitist. I think a small group of people can come up with a better theory than the soupy morass created by many.

(everyone, please, before responding to this out of a sense of righteous indignation, please count to ten and note the disclaimer further below)

I think this 'everybody jump in the GNS discussion and define our own version of GNS' madness is infuriating

[1]: It is not my intention to single out anyone here as a student and others as professionals, though I'm quite aware through sentiment elsewhere who people will assume I place in what group. All I can say is: Don't assume.

The statements provide support to why discussions involving people of varying levels of subject-knowledge don't work, so stating that I am talking about anyone here is taking my words and reasons out of context.

I'm also incredibly perturbed that I even have to include the above statement, but I don't wish a flamewar to erupt over unintentional slights.

I just want to query one thing here.

How does one establish who a professional game player is?

I understand the analogy with regards to medicine, and quantum mechanics and such...but there are very clear differentiators there...degrees, thesis papers, etc.

How does one identify a professional game player?
Years of experience in playing?
Number of different systems tried?
Actual professional publishing?
The E.F. Hutton Effect?
What?

What establishes one person as an authority who worthwhile of including in discussion vs a non authority whose efforts at discussion are merely dilutive?

Without an objective way to identify who is an authority and who isn't I don't see how this differentiation can work. If there is no such objective measure than it merely becomes an excercize in personal preference as to who is the student and who is the master.

Do you have criteria that you suggest be used for this differentiation?

I have to agree with how to define an authority.

I would say a (Forge) authority is someone who:

a) Has read the upcoming FAQ,
b) Plays RPGs,
c) Thinks about RPG theory
d) Debates & Discusses politely
e) Posts to the Forge

I could see the idea of "Published = Authority" but what about _players_?

I was afraid that was going to happen, so let me restate what I was said in my disclaimer before anyone else gets hung up on the idea of students vs. teachers:

Firstly, the distinction between who is knowledgable and who isn't was not the meat of the post...I pointed out that the more relvant portion of the argument I was making was the "launching point" section.
I said so precisely because it will be difficult in this specific discussion context to tell who is an "acceptable authority."

To reiterate the less important point:
a> There are two types of people, people who know something and people who don't know that something.

b> Letting the people who don't know something into a debate (not a question/answer session) based on advanced concepts which that person has not grasped or unerstood/agreed with leads to dilution of the discussion as the common-ground for discussion is erased.

We can't control that factor in this medium, and whether we should in other mediums is a different discussion entirely.

Point being that engaged in what we are here on these forums, we should strive to fully comprehend what it is we are discussing and ask questions to be certain that we are understanding the opponent's point of view. This ensures that we can discuss from a common perception before we begin offering our own insights on the matter.

I suggest this because at the point of shared understanding, the insights we have to offer will be more solid, they will be more pertinent to the questions at hand and as they address understanding from the common ground they will allowing easier communication and exploration of presented ideas (whether the ideas end up valid in the end or not).

To do so, many of us will need to put ourselves firmly into 'question/student' mode, regardless of what our wagging tongues wish to engage in. As I said, SEE your opponent's point...SEE its validity, then take it apart if you still disagree.

As well, I am not judging anyone ELSE here as being student OR teacher, but I put myself firmly in the 'student' category for many topics.
I leave it to everyone individually to determine what they wish to be at any given moment and over the course of the discussion and in relation to the topic and their current understanding of it from the presented view.

I do not have a suitable method for designating either student or teacher, nor was it the point of the discussion: How to move discussion forward, what would make it stall and how to keep everyone happy were more to the point.

PLEASE, everyone, don't dwell on making a student/teacher split among anyone here. Everyone has something to teach, everyone has something to learn...however, before any of us make statements about anything, we should damn well understand the opponent's position/stance clearly or there will be trouble, as repeatedly evidenced already.

Oops. I didn't come off very clear in my post.

I meant that I have to agree that there's no good way to define an authority, and any definition would have to be very very loose.

I would firmly place myself in Student mode, but I ask LOTS of questions as a Student, and I often pose a statement (as if I were the Teacher) to the Teacher to see if it's correct. Hopefully that won't come off as authoritative. I'll have to start using more question marks?

I would firmly place myself in Student mode, but I ask LOTS of questions as a Student, and I often pose a statement (as if I were the Teacher) to the Teacher to see if it's correct. Hopefully that won't come off as authoritative. I'll have to start using more question marks?