On another forum, someone asked point-blank "what is Simulationism?" because he didn't quite understand it from the essays. This is understandable; although many of us have an idea of what Simulationism *is*, because we've experienced it, we haven't quite found that simple way of explaining it that feels like it fits with the definitions of Gamism and Narrativism. we can't quite seem to agree what "Exploration Squared" really is.

But I've been thinking about Simulationism recently. We know that Gamism and Narrativism are closer to each other than either is to Simulationism, and we know that Sim is *not* simple Exploration; purer forms of Gamism and Narrativism still have Exploration even when Simulationism is removed.

The extra "oomph" that makes Exploration more intense under Simulationism is missing from Gamism and Narrativism. Up to now, we have always tried to define what that extra bit is; but there's another approach: what's *missing* from Simulationism that's present in Gamism and Narrativism? When you read Ron's essays on Gamism and Narrativism, or read Vincent talking about his approach to game design (which, he admits, is mostly of use to Narrativist design,) you keep seeing social issues raised: Gamism is essentially about social esteem within the playgroup, and Narrativism is about sharing "statements" about moral premises through character decisions.

Now, although I like many people have had moments of Gamism or Narrativism in the middle of a game, I consider myself primarily a Simulationist. When Ron or Vincent or others say how roleplaying is all about the social aspect, the relationship of the real people around the table is the most important part of play, I kind of grouse to myself, because if I'm primarily interested in socializing, I have plenty of ways to socialize; roleplaying is not something I (or, I bet, other Sim players) do primarily for socializing, but primariily for something else.

It's about the Fiction.

We've skirted the issue many times. We've wondered what "The Dream" means. We've attempted to define Simulationism as being about some relationship to "The Dream", suggesting "Fidelity" or "Immersion" or other terms. Some people have decided that Sim is primarily about pastiche or fetishism or celebration towards a source material. All of these are not quite right, but they point the way to the real core of Sim: it places The Fiction over The Group, whereas Gamism and Narrativism place The Group over The Fiction.

This is the difference between Exploration and "Exploration Squared". Exploration is building The Fiction as a group; "Exploration Squared" says "decisions must be made in reference to The Fiction, not some priority outside of The Fiction". It's play centered around *things* rather than *people*.

If you reread the essays now, you'll see this definition of Sim is actually buried in there, but Ron can never come out and say it, as if he recoils in horror from what must appear to him to be the anti-social nature of Sim. We can see it also in the occasional disparaging remarks about Sim that surface in discussions with strong Narrativists and Gamists; they say they don't understand Sim or think it's just about wish-fulfillment or fanboyism, but you can see in their statements that on some level, they understand what it's really about.

Now, you can theorize about how the high number of "geeks" in the hobby helped spawn a Creative Agenda that reverses the "people vs. things" priority of the other two agendas; you can theorize about how much wish-fulfillment or fanboyism played a role in creating early Sim approaches. My point is that, once you come to grips with the fact that it's all about reversing that priority, you can see that there are potential forms of Sim that haven't been fully explored. For example, instead of emulating the Color of a specific body of popular fiction, it's possible to create a small set of Setting/Color rules that generate details during play; Exploration then becomes focused on a Fiction that didn't exist prior to play. Since techniques like this could be useful in Gamist and Narrativist designs as well, it seems like a fertile field for thought... but it's probably going to take a Sim designer to really push that boundary; the other agendas have their own boundaries to explore that are far more important to their approach to play.

I have much more to say, but I will need to meditate on this some more.

Boy, do I disagree with you. Everyone's after the Fiction. Gamists need it to make strategic and tactical and strategic decisions and Narrativists need it as a medium through which to confront a theme.

If you're generating fiction in order to talk about some aspect of the human experience, however trivial, you're engaged in Narrativist play. Only if that Fiction is for the purpose of re-creation of a static, fictional environment can it be considered Sim.

That is, the creation of original, thematic fiction is Narrativist in nature.

Sez me.

John,

It's been my experience that once a person gets narrativism, it's easy for them to see what simulationism must be. The space it fits into is obvious.

When I first got the CAs (and forgive me for being hippie-dippie here) I experienced it as a sudden upward jerk in my perspective. I was like, OH! They're BIGGER than I was looking! And they all clicked into their proper place in my head.

Overwhelmingly, the people here at the Forge who thrash and flail at simulationism - the people who insist that our understanding of simulationism is flawed, that simulationism is problematic, that there's deep unsettledness here about simulationism - are people who don't get what it means to address premise with their friends. Even if they very clearly do it all the time, which some of them do.

Anyhow, if you want to understand simulationism - not just you, John, everybody - you have to understand all three. It may seem contrary, but if you find yourself struggling with simulationism, I'd recommend that you look to narrativism first.

-Vincent

I've grappled with narrativist play and think I sort of get it and thus have moved on to simulationist play to see how it fits.

I'll start with an example of a game I played in around 1988 that I think has some simulationist elements and see how it connects with your views.

The game was Call of Cthulhu, set in San Francisco in the 1890's. I was running an upperclass educated man from back East. The other people in the party included a Chinese man, a Native American, and an African American. I mentally put myself in the role of this character. There are a lot of social rules of etiquette (and racism) that go along with this. I wanted to act as the character would act but also to have the world work in a way that it would have at that time. We were on Knob Hill (high class part of SF) my party mates walked right up to the front door and knocked - expecting to be let in - expecting to be treated like human beings. Without thinking I tried to discourage them of this course of action. I suggested they go to the servant's entrance. That was the only place I could see them being let in at. I of course could go to the front door. (See the built in racism of the character? We were equal in the party but not if anyone else was looking.)

I emersed myself in the character and thus was not aware that the world was not working like that. The GM was perfectly okay with letting the Chinese character in the front door. Something I can not imagine happening in 1890's San Francisco.

We never figured out what was going on and it was a convention game so the session ended the game. The players liked my role playing so I "won". At the time I thought - You just don't get it. I was trying to play out a social system that is now really politically incorrect. This could have verged on narrativist play except that my motivation was not to grapple with racism but more to be true to my character.

I seldom go into emersion like this when I play so this game stands out in my mind.

It was about emersion (a word you used). It was about fiction. I was not focused on the group - but more focused on being true to a character. It wasn't about "winning" since it slowed us down and we never found out what the monster was. This then looks like sim play to me.

Am I wrong? Feedback encouraged.

Chris Engle
Hamster Press = Engle Matrix Games

Being true to a character is a powerful motivation across the CAs.

-Vincent

Considering myself as someone who prefers Sim play, this is definitely something that I've been thinking about as well.

Here's the thing - I feel like there's a way in which it's easy to think that "Nar role-playing" is different from "Gam role-playing" is different from "Sim-roleplaying", leading to the (IMO false) divide between the traditional understanding of what role-playing is and "Forge-style" roleplay, or something along those lines. Like, the sense that playing a Nar-supporting game is somehow a different activity than playing any other kind of RPG.

But. ALL role-play lives under the umbrella that includes both social dynamics, and (as you term it) Fiction. It's a social activity - hence, there are social dynamics. It's a social activity in which the paticipants create something fictional - hence, there is fiction. The CA's live under these umbrellas, as I understand them. These are required dynamics for play. No fiction? No roleplay. No social dynamics? No roleplay. I don't think any kind of roleplay (functional roleplay, at least..though maybe even dysfunctional) places one in a consistently dominant role over the other.

Now, does Sim priviledge the Fiction? In some ways, yes. I absolutely think that Exploration on purpose is a key process of Sim play. But, as Josh says, Nar priviledges the elements of the Fiction that enable the players to address Premise. Gam priveldges those elements that enable the players to Step On Up. It's not like there's not Fiction there. I don't think that you're claiming that there's not Fiction in those CAs, but I wanted to point it out just in case.

So, basically, I disagree that there's this fundemental divide that you posit, Group vs. Fiction. I mean, all role-play is basically making stuff up with your friends. [Making stuff up] & [with your friends] are equally weighted.

The basic question - "what is Sim" - remains, I suppose. But in the same sense that the question "What is Narrativism" is still kicking around. The difference, in my mind, is that the Forge's focus has, for one reason or another, centered on Nar-supporting designs, so there's been more actual play and design of those kinds of games. Basically, I think the answer to the question will come out of more design and play of intentionally Sim-supporting games.

talysman, I'd think the deciding factor on your forumlation would be if Sim play with strangers was just as worthwhile as Sim play with friends -- or a slightly weaker and more complex test, if the difference between Sim play with strangers and Sim play with friends was lesser than the difference between Nar or Gam play with strangers and Nar or Gam play with friends.  Obviously, this isn't strictly quantifiable, but I also don't think it's anywhere near true.  Sim play is more fun with people you know.  The social dimension is just as important in Sim as it is for the others, and the Fiction is not "more important" than the People -- in fact, I think you're comparing apples and oranges in that distinction.

For my money, I'd say that there's actually more than one CA in the big bucket we call Simulationism, which is why there's so much trouble pinning Sim down.  As I'm not too interested in that family of roleplay or in developing the Big Model, however, I'll leave the details of what it "really" is up to others with a stronger connection to the subject matter.

Chris, I don't see anything there outside of Nar play. You were addressing a theme. You weren't reproducing just any part of the period; you were reproducing a part that was interesting and clearly problematic.

lumpley wrote: Anyhow, if you want to understand simulationism - not just you, John, everybody - you have to understand all three. It may seem contrary, but if you find yourself struggling with simulationism, I'd recommend that you look to narrativism first.

Jason wrote: (Cross post with Chris, but I think I'll post anyway.)

The basic question - "what is Sim" - remains, I suppose. But in the same sense that the question "What is Narrativism" is still kicking around. The difference, in my mind, is that the Forge's focus has, for one reason or another, centered on Nar-supporting designs, so there's been more actual play and design of those kinds of games. Basically, I think the answer to the question will come out of more design and play of intentionally Sim-supporting games.

Bob, that's an interesting point. Let's see some functional Sim design from someone who groks it!

glyphmonkey wrote:
Bob, that's an interesting point. Let's see some functional Sim design from someone who groks it!

Ah, well, I don't care about the Sim priority except from an academic perspective. I just want to see fewer sucky games. I'm really here just to give support.

I have no idea why someone would want real Sim play and I want some good, positive examples.

glyphmonkey wrote:
Ah, well, I don't care about the Sim priority except from an academic perspective. I just want to see fewer sucky games. I'm really here just to give support.

I have no idea why someone would want real Sim play and I want some good, positive examples.

"The beeg horseshoe," "trouble pinning sim down"... I'm telling you, that's not really how it is. Sim's well and solidly understood, by many of us, as its own thing and pinned down just fine.

That some people don't understand it doesn't mean that it's not.

(Ron's been saying this for a while now, of course. Like here recently: Re: Question for Vincent.)

My very straightforward advice, if you happen to be someone who doesn't understand sim and wants to: stop attending to the idea that sim's not theoretically well-developed here, accept that it's your understanding that's wanting, but apply yourself to understanding narrativism first.

My very straightforward statement, if you happen to be someone who feels that sim is not theoretically well-developed here: in fact, you don't understand the CAs. If you want to, see the previous.

-Vincent

lumpley wrote: "The beeg horseshoe," "trouble pinning sim down"... I'm telling you, that's not really how it is. Sim's well and solidly understood, by many of us, as its own thing and pinned down just fine.

That some people don't understand it doesn't mean that it's not.

(Ron's been saying this for a while now, of course. Like here recently: Re: Question for Vincent.)

My very straightforward advice, if you happen to be someone who doesn't understand sim and wants to: stop attending to the idea that sim's not theoretically well-developed here, accept that it's your understanding that's wanting, but apply yourself to understanding narrativism first.

My very straightforward statement, if you happen to be someone who feels that sim is not theoretically well-developed here: in fact, you don't understand the CAs. If you want to, see the previous.

lumpley wrote:
Being true to a character is a powerful motivation across the CAs.

-Vincent

glyphmonkey wrote:
Chris, I don't see anything there outside of Nar play. You were addressing a theme. You weren't reproducing just any part of the period; you were reproducing a part that was interesting and clearly problematic.

I think there are a few misconceptions in this thread about what I'm saying here. before I get to those, however, I'll answer Vincent directly.

I'm not struggling with Sim. I get it. I get Gamism and Narrativism, too. I like them in their lighter forms; I can think of examples of my past play where I'm playing mild Gamist or mild Narrativist, but lots of other times that are heavy Sim.

I think our disagreement comes from my not making clear what it is I'm saying about Premise, partially because I had a much longer article planned and then abandoned that addressed in detail what the similarity between Gamism and Narrativism really means. the short answer is that it's a something that exists in the person addressing the Premise; it's the player taking situations that arise in the game world, comparing them to personal experience and to other stories, and saying "here is what I think" through the actions of a fictional character.

the reason why this is hard to understand is because yes, if you shine a hard light on Sim, you see that *of course* there's a social component and *of course* the fictional events and characters were created by people around the table, again by comparing what has gone on before in The Fiction to their personal experiences and to other stories. but what I'm saying is: the Sim preference is to exalt The Fiction (Character, Setting, Situation and Color) over the needs of the individual.

it might be easier if I sidetracked and talked about two forms of communication we see in everyday life. there is communication between two people about relationships and there is communication mediated by an impersonal topic of conversation, such as a discussion about how a machine works. one form is personal, the other is impersonal; they can sometimes be confused, with a conversation about the weather or government actually carrying a personal subtext, communicated by body language or tone of voice. there are times when people communicate, but not in the same mode; the person expecting a personal connection considers the other person dry, boring, mechanical, while the other person considers the first to be too intense.

what I'm saying is that Gamism and Narrativism are based on the first form of communication, while Simmulationism is based on the second. Simulationism is *depersonalized*.

parts of what I said are not new. I'm really surprised that some people are having trouble accepting the "Sim exalts The Fiction" part, because Ron said it in dfferent words, and Vincent's said it, and so have others. my point -- the new part -- is the rest of the sentence: Sim exalts The Fiction and is antagonistic towards the personal; it attempts to minimalize the interactions within the group, either the "look at me! I'm great!" interactions of Gamism or the "look at me! I have a meaningful moral statement!" interactions of Narrativism. that sounds harsh, but I'm betting lots of hardcore Sim players think of hardcore Gma/Nar players as egotistical. I've certainly seen the disparaging comments flying around that seems to back this up.

I completely agree with Vincent. For a while I was one of those who thought Sim was underdeveloped/misunderstood. But after a few key experience of seeing the three CAs in action, I came to the realization that Ron's celebrationism/emulationism (whatever he's calling it) works perfectly fine. I'll also be honest---I think most people who propose definitions of Sim hold a too narrow view of what Sim is.

I know there aren't many, but I know there are a few good, 100% Sim games out there. Metal Opera is the one I've played most recent (which was a while ago). I don't view this of a fault of the Forge, though. Ron has argued for some time that the percentage of *true* Sim-prefering players is actually pretty low. I think he's probably right, and I think that's why we don't see more Sim games.

(I think we also don't see as much Gam as we do Nar because there are other venues for people to scratch that itch.)

komradebob wrote:
May I suggest that some of the failure to "get" sim comes from the aversion to the Sim designs that we've seen commercially?

Those designs tend to have a whole lot of fat that maybe should be trimmed, but tradition has dictated that there are systems and subsystems within commercial/ trad/mainstream Sim designs that have come to be expected. Sim designs tend toward Sacred Cow bloat more than Gam or Narr designs.

Valamir wrote:
Simulationism has long been a problematic agenda to understand.  In my effort to more clearly define it I have elected to replace the Right to Dream with Discovery, not as an additional term, but because I think Discovery more accurately relates to what Simulationism is about.  In my opinion, the Right to Dream is what all of role playing is about and is thus more accurately applied to Exploration than to Simulationism.  Dreaming is a rather passive endeavor.  But Discovery requires decisive action and focus and is more appropriately on par with the other two agendas.

I would like to add that I hope the above addition answers some of the specific questions raised by Nathan, Joshua, and others. I'm not saying there's no social component to Sim, that there is no Group; I'm saying that Sim prioritizes The Fiction over The Group. perhaps, in some cases, pretending there is no Group, that the individual concerns of the people around the table don't really matter even when they do.

Joshua: I don't think the deciding factor is going to be whether playing Sim with strangers is closer to playing Sim with friends than playing Nar/Gam with strangers is to playing Nar/Gam with friends. for a couple reasons: first, because I'm not saying group dynamics and personal feelings have nothing to do with anything; I'm saying Sim disparages certain kinds of social interactions that Gam/Nar prefer. second, it's possible to make friends with strangers through roleplaying, with any agenda, which makes judging these things tricky. third, I have the sneaking suspicion that Nar/Gam with strangers works *better* than Sim with strangers.

the deciding factor, to me, is whether people who prefer impersonal communication over personal communication outside of roleplaying will prefer Sim or Gam/Nar. for an example, high-end autistics are known for getting more excited about things than about people, since they don't pick up on interpersonal cues; so, which Creative Agenda attracts the most high-end autistics?

I think Bob's suggestion about the lack of quality Sim design is dead on. I also think that, yes, part of the problem is that most of the discussion about Sim has been initiated or directed by people who fundamentally don't like Sim. I like Sim, but I'm pointing out what just might be the deep reason for the hatred people feel for Sim, as well as the antagonism Sim-only players feel towards Gam/Nar. I feel I've got a good grasp on the definitions of all three agendas, but I've been disappointed with the discussion of Sim because of the anti-Sim taint. even in Ron's essay on Sim, it's clear that Ron doesn't quite like it except as support for Nar/Gam and thinks there's something a little broken about people who play only Sim. Vincent's had some pretty harsh opinions of Sim, too. reading comments about Sim from people who prefer Nar/Gam means weeding out the hostile opinions from the true insights. and, to spread the blame around a little, it doesn't help the discussion that some Sim people react defensively towards this latent hostility, even to the point of defending their specific playstyle from other Sim people.

we need to look at Sim a little more clearly. and, as I suggested, there's a whole potential area of Sim that hasn't been fully explored: mechanical techniques to generate Setting and Color during play, from a minimal set of rules. Sim mechanical generation of Setting and Color has been limited to clunky random tables that are mostly used for GM prep, since use during play slows things down a bit, although there's always that one random table or two a GM will toss in. on-the-fly Setting/Color generation has usually been freeform and nonmechanical. I think this sharp distinction has caused some mistaken opinions about mechanics vs. freeform, but we can only be certain by exploring this.

John wrote: I know that M.J. has had theories about GNS Sim as "wanting the increase in knowledge from discovery" -- but I don't have a thread reference specifically on that topic.

John L: Oh! Oh, I see.

Yes. If you mean by "exalting the fiction" basically the same thing that Ron means by "celebrating the input," then yeah, right on.

talysman wrote:
...as I suggested, there's a whole potential area of Sim that hasn't been fully explored: mechanical techniques to generate Setting and Color during play, from a minimal set of rules.

You know, I had a whole response here about dysfunctional Sim, and then I closed the stupid window.

The gist was, give everyone an opportunity to play Sim, to celebrate your source material, and don't reserve the fun for the GM, and you'll have a fun game for those who want it. I don't think that exists.

glyphmonkey wrote:
You know, I had a whole response here about dysfunctional Sim, and then I closed the stupid window.

The gist was, give everyone an opportunity to play Sim, to celebrate your source material, and don't reserve the fun for the GM, and you'll have a fun game for those who want it. I don't think that exists.

lumpley wrote:
"The beeg horseshoe," "trouble pinning sim down"... I'm telling you, that's not really how it is. Sim's well and solidly understood, by many of us, as its own thing and pinned down just fine.

Okay. I completely and unreservedly endorse the definition of Sim as celebration/intensification of input, AND I like it. I don't like it as much as I do N - it's definitely candy and not steak for me - but I do really enjoy it. My particular brand is adventure stories - pulp, superhero, and action. My characters don't face or engage with genuine Premise - to the extent that genuine human issues are important in the material that I'm celebrating, the protagonists hardly ever engage them in any problematized way. Captain Crusader (yes, I've really played a character by that name) doesn't have a second thought about his ideals - and indeed, I'd be annoyed if a GM kept throwing him moral dilemmas. His universe doesn't have them. You beat the bad guys, they go to jail until the next time. You're a Hero. I'm not deconstructing, I'm not challenging, I'm revelling in something fun that I love with other people who love it too.

That's Sim as I understand it.

When I play the same genre, but choose to confront and interrogate the material? That's N.

Joshua wrote:

lumpley wrote:
"The beeg horseshoe," "trouble pinning sim down"... I'm telling you, that's not really how it is. Sim's well and solidly understood, by many of us, as its own thing and pinned down just fine.

The thing that really bothers me, Vincent, is that the people who "get" Simulationism generally don't like Simulationism, so I am extremely leery of accepting their definition and characterization of the agenda.  It's like a vegetarian telling you about steak.

To compound the problem, nearly every poster who does avow a preference for Sim repeatedly gets their observations drowned out by the people who don't.  I mean, hell, I don't like Sim, but I'd like to hear from somebody that does what it is that characterizes their preferences.

Mark wrote:
Okay. I completely and unreservedly endorse the definition of Sim as celebration/intensification of input, AND I like it. I don't like it as much as I do N - it's definitely candy and not steak for me - but I do really enjoy it. My particular brand is adventure stories - pulp, superhero, and action. My characters don't face or engage with genuine Premise - to the extent that genuine human issues are important in the material that I'm celebrating, the protagonists hardly ever engage them in any problematized way. Captain Crusader (yes, I've really played a character by that name) doesn't have a second thought about his ideals - and indeed, I'd be annoyed if a GM kept throwing him moral dilemmas. His universe doesn't have them. You beat the bad guys, they go to jail until the next time. You're a Hero. I'm not deconstructing, I'm not challenging, I'm revelling in something fun that I love with other people who love it too.

That's Sim as I understand it.

When I play the same genre, but choose to confront and interrogate the material? That's N.

Just a thought here...

It really seems like Simulationism has been defined in a specific way for use in the GNS model. That's what I take Ron to mean in the thread that Vincent cites when he says that it is a labile term- that it could have very different meanings in different contexts, but that it is being used to mean a very specific concept in this context.

It also seems like a lot of people have a preconception of what Simulationism should mean. They either have a sense of what that word means in other contexts, and are using that, instead of Ron's definition, to decide what it means in this context, or maybe they feel like there is another Creative Agenda besides the ones listed in the GNS model, and that Simulationism should refer to that. So they find the definition of the term given by the GNS model problematic.

Perhaps it is useful to note that GNS, as a term in the context of roleplaying design theory, doesn't have an existing nature or meaning to be discovered. It isn't like Simulationism was something we all knew about before GNS, and that the GNS model was an explanation of what we already knew to exist. It is a system of classification, that invented the use of the term in this context. So in that sense, Simulationism means whatever they said it means.

Now, you could challenge that model as being flawed for some reason. For example, you might say that there is a fourth CA worth talking about besides the four listed, or that they should be divided differently. But this is different from trying to figure out what the terms mean. It seems to me, now that I have had it explained, that they have a reasonably clear meaning in this context.

I'm worried that this isn't concrete enough, so I'll comment on something a previous poster said from this point of view, which might make my point clearer.

Joshua, you compared the way Simulationism is defined to a vegetarian telling people about meat. But I think these cases are very different in an important way. Meat and vegetarianism were well defined before the hypothetical vegetarian made his argument. So when he explains what meat eating is, and how he dislikes it, he might have a slanted view point. But the case is very different if he were defining a new term. His new word means whatever he says it means, he can't really be biased in creating a new concept. If he describes something unpleasant, he can't really be said to be biased against his new concept, it just happens to describe something some find negative.

So the definition created here can't really be biased against Simulationism, because Simulationism wasn't a concept that existed before it was defined. Whatever the word was coined to mean, that is what it means. It might be confusing because the word has connotations besides what it actually denotes, but I don't see how the people who defined it could be wrong about what they meant by it. And if we are talking about Simulationism in the context of GNS, it seems like there are some very specific people who meant particular things.

This make sense to anyone else?

Ron has said many times, ctrail, that he didn't invent any of the agendas, he coined terms to fit what already existed.  I don't know if that still holds true under Big Model, which is blazing trails a little more than his first configuration.  Nonetheless, Ron still isn't making things up out of thin air; he's inventing terms to be applied to phenomena that already exist.  As such, his terms and their definitions may not actually fit what he proposes they fit.

I can invent the word "Carfoodle" and say that it's a piece of a space ship engine, but if I point at a giraffe and say that's a Carfoodle, I'm still wrong.

lumpley wrote:
John L: Oh! Oh, I see.

Yes. If you mean by "exalting the fiction" basically the same thing that Ron means by "celebrating the input," then yeah, right on.

Gaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!

I’ve been champing at the bit all day to get into this thread!

Hey John!

talysman wrote: When Ron or Vincent or others say how roleplaying is all about the social aspect, the relationship of the real people around the table is the most important part of play, I kind of grouse to myself, because if I'm primarily interested in socializing, I have plenty of ways to socialize; roleplaying is not something I (or, I bet, other Sim players) do primarily for socializing, but primariily for something else.

It's about the Fiction.

This is the difference between Exploration and "Exploration Squared". Exploration is building The Fiction as a group; "Exploration Squared" says "decisions must be made in reference to The Fiction, not some priority outside of The Fiction". It's play centered around *things* rather than *people*.

clehrich wrote: So just like in regular play, the Big Model operates diagnostically to shift down the level of concern away from straight-up Social Contract.  If it’s really Social Contract that is disastrously breaking the game, we have to say, “Get new friends, these people and you will never get along,” or “You’re an asshole, it’s your fault, go away.”  Nobody wants to say that, if nothing else because it’s not tactful.

But why not?  That sounds like a stupid question, but it’s quite serious.

Answer:

Because the whole elaborate structure here is socially constituted from the start to the finish, bottom to top and in reverse

Which means...

The whole structure of gaming is socially reinforcing

…

…So why does it work at all?  Because each piece has now been tooled by us, ever so slightly, and that tooling and tweaking has told us, deep down, that we are okay as a game group.  The fact that it’s a horrible mess means nothing; we don’t care.  What we care about is that on a case-by-case basis, we can handle things in a way that makes us feel positive about our gameplay, which means that we feel positive about ourselves, individually and especially as a social group.

talysman wrote: Now, you can theorize about how the high number of "geeks" in the hobby helped spawn a Creative Agenda that reverses the "people vs. things" priority of the other two agendas; you can theorize about how much wish-fulfillment or fanboyism played a role in creating early Sim approaches. My point is that, once you come to grips with the fact that it's all about reversing that priority, you can see that there are potential forms of Sim that haven't been fully explored. For example, instead of emulating the Color of a specific body of popular fiction, it's possible to create a small set of Setting/Color rules that generate details during play; Exploration then becomes focused on a Fiction that didn't exist prior to play. Since techniques like this could be useful in Gamist and Narrativist designs as well, it seems like a fertile field for thought... but it's probably going to take a Sim designer to really push that boundary; the other agendas have their own boundaries to explore that are far more important to their approach to play.

Jason wrote:

lumpley wrote: "The beeg horseshoe," "trouble pinning sim down"... I'm telling you, that's not really how it is. Sim's well and solidly understood, by many of us, as its own thing and pinned down just fine.

That some people don't understand it doesn't mean that it's not.

(Ron's been saying this for a while now, of course. Like here recently: Re: Question for Vincent.)

My very straightforward advice, if you happen to be someone who doesn't understand sim and wants to: stop attending to the idea that sim's not theoretically well-developed here, accept that it's your understanding that's wanting, but apply yourself to understanding narrativism first.

My very straightforward statement, if you happen to be someone who feels that sim is not theoretically well-developed here: in fact, you don't understand the CAs. If you want to, see the previous.

This is button for me, so you'll have to excuse my tone.  Just because you don't agree with something doesn't mean you don't understand it.  Also, something can be fully understood and still be flawed; understanding involves understanding the flaws as well, not daydreaming about perfection.  And a flawed theory doesn't equate to an under developed theory.  Sim can be fully understood, fully developed, and still flawed.  It's like the Yugo of Creative Agenda.

talysman wrote: what I'm saying is: the Sim preference is to exalt The Fiction (Character, Setting, Situation and Color) over the needs of the individual.

talysman wrote: what I'm saying is that Gamism and Narrativism are based on the first form of communication, while Simmulationism is based on the second. Simulationism is *depersonalized*.

talysman wrote: Sim exalts The Fiction and is antagonistic towards the personal; it attempts to minimalize the interactions within the group, either the "look at me! I'm great!" interactions of Gamism or the "look at me! I have a meaningful moral statement!" interactions of Narrativism. that sounds harsh, but I'm betting lots of hardcore Sim players think of hardcore Gma/Nar players as egotistical.

John wrote: To my mind, this is the basic problem with definitional debates.  That is, there's nothing wrong with a category of gaming which is about pursuing increase in knowlege (as M.J. suggests); or a category about bricolage (as Jay suggests); or about pursuing discovery (as Ralph suggests); or about celebration (as Ron suggests most recently).  However, these are overloading a single term.

talysman wrote: I think Bob's suggestion about the lack of quality Sim design is dead on. I also think that, yes, part of the problem is that most of the discussion about Sim has been initiated or directed by people who fundamentally don't like Sim. I like Sim, but I'm pointing out what just might be the deep reason for the hatred people feel for Sim, as well as the antagonism Sim-only players feel towards Gam/Nar. I feel I've got a good grasp on the definitions of all three agendas, but I've been disappointed with the discussion of Sim because of the anti-Sim taint.

Joshua wrote: The thing that really bothers me, Vincent, is that the people who "get" Simulationism generally don't like Simulationism, so I am extremely leery of accepting their definition and characterization of the agenda.  It's like a vegetarian telling you about steak.

To compound the problem, nearly every poster who does avow a preference for Sim repeatedly gets their observations drowned out by the people who don't.

komradebob wrote: What I find muddles the issue however, is that when folks who favor Sim point to what they like, inevitably someone comes along and co-opts it for another agenda. Matrix-Gamer's example screams Sim to me, yet someone immediately came along and claimed it to be Narr. That's the sort of thing I'm talking about. There seems to be this overwhelming need for any enjoyable experience to be lumped with Narr ( or more unusually, Gam) and anything dull, drab, overwritten or otherwise annoying to be labelled Sim.

talysman wrote: I don't disagree with Ron's definition, I just though it was missing something extra, and that missing something is at the core of a lot of bitter arguments about Sim.

Jay, I'll repeat myself, just for you: to understand simulationism, you have to understand all the CAs. You don't understand the CAs. That's clear from what you've written and what you continue to write. If you'd like to understand simulationism, I think you'll have better luck pursuing an understanding of narrativism first.

I'm certain that you don't feel that you don't understand the CAs - you've made that very clear too. I can't help that; all I can do is tell you the truth.

-Vincent

Joshua wrote:
Ron has said many times, ctrail, that he didn't invent any of the agendas, he coined terms to fit what already existed.  I don't know if that still holds true under Big Model, which is blazing trails a little more than his first configuration.  Nonetheless, Ron still isn't making things up out of thin air; he's inventing terms to be applied to phenomena that already exist.  As such, his terms and their definitions may not actually fit what he proposes they fit.

I can invent the word "Carfoodle" and say that it's a piece of a space ship engine, but if I point at a giraffe and say that's a Carfoodle, I'm still wrong.

Collin:

we're going to get sidetracked if we debate what the proper analogy for the naming process behind the three Creative Agendas is or should be. it's not really relevant to what I'm saying or what people are trying to do when they discuss Simulationism. I will say, however, that before there was GNS and The Big Model, there was GDS (Gamism, Drama, and Simulationism,) aka the Threefold Model; Ron developed GNS because he wasn't quite happy with what The Threefold Model was attempting to analyze (GM motivations,) because he had his own ideas about what was interesting. both forms of Simulationism get their name from repeated references in roleplaying texts to simulating an environment or fantasy world; there are reasons why "simulation" is considered a poor way of describing what's going on, but Simulationism is considered a good enough term to suggest the kind of activity we're talking about.

Jay:

I'm going to ask you to step back a bit from your insistence that Simulationism is about specific techniques and consider what I'm saying in terms of Simulationism as a Creative Agenda, not a Technical Agenda. it's been said many times that techniques cross agenda lines, and every technique you've described has shown up in Gamism, Narrativism, and Simulationism. even briccolage. even the question of which comes first, mechanics or exploration. I'm asking you to set these Technical Agendas aside because I play Sim, but I don't play the way you play, and whenever a Sim discussion rises, you claim that my way of playing and every other Sim player's way of playing isn't Sim. that's not going to lead us to anything useful.

so, setting aside the Technical Agendas, let's focus on the whole social issue. I believe you've missed the comments I made about how Simulationism *is* a social process. I'm not saying there is no social activity in Sim; I'm saying something about the way social acitiviy is conducted; it's all focused on The Fiction, not on external matters.

this doesn't mean that The Fiction holds no personal relevance, as you debate here:

Silmenume wrote:

talysman wrote: what I'm saying is that Gamism and Narrativism are based on the first form of communication, while Simmulationism is based on the second. Simulationism is *depersonalized*.

I’m afraid that I’m going to have to disagree with you most strenuously on that is one!  Suffice it to say that I have never played in or observed more intense play than the game I am in currently now.  It is Sim through and through (totally matches up the Chris’ Bricolage) and we have frequent emotional overloads with new Players – the game is so intense.  In one of the less *ahem* illustrious moments in the game’s history one Player took it so personally he tried to burn his own apartment down after a game.  He took the game extremely personally and while that was an extraordinary act his “personalization” of the game was not unusual.

it might be easier if I sidetracked and talked about two forms of communication we see in everyday life. there is communication between two people about relationships and there is communication mediated by an impersonal topic of conversation, such as a discussion about how a machine works. one form is personal, the other is impersonal; they can sometimes be confused, with a conversation about the weather or government actually carrying a personal subtext, communicated by body language or tone of voice. there are times when people communicate, but not in the same mode; the person expecting a personal connection considers the other person dry, boring, mechanical, while the other person considers the first to be too intense.

The problem is that the definition of “celebrating” the input is applicable to all 3 CA’s.  I mean what is the oohing and aaahing of Player’s address of Premise if not the “celebration” of said Player’s input?  We’re still short a defined process and any governing principles.

Silmenume wrote:

John wrote: To my mind, this is the basic problem with definitional debates.  That is, there's nothing wrong with a category of gaming which is about pursuing increase in knowlege (as M.J. suggests); or a category about bricolage (as Jay suggests); or about pursuing discovery (as Ralph suggests); or about celebration (as Ron suggests most recently).  However, these are overloading a single term.

I’m a broken record here, and I apologize, but bricolage does encompass an increase of knowledge, pursuing discovery and celebration.

talysman,

you may not be unifying the simulationists, or even strengthening its definition, but as newbie to the Forge, you have certainly helped me understand G/N/S better. I have been "lurking" here trying to figure out where I even fit as far as a Gamist, Narrativist or Simulationist. I had initially thrown Simulationism out but now see that was my first and biggest mistake. The frustrations I have had in a number of the games I have played are a result of this "flow" or more specifically, lack there of.

I play with two D&D (gasp) groups who have both adopted the "Forgotten Realms" fiction. They reference the novels, the source books, etc... Then Rule Lawyer for three hours straight, using none of the "color" they have chosen, nor focusing on using this imagined world for all it's amazing resources. I came in, created a character, filled him to the brim with back story set in this world, and then was plugged in as "The Ranger."

I've found the few games I've played in where a Simulationist play as come to the fore front have "flowed" the best and been the most rewarding experience.

I played the Cthulhu-Dark Ages Master's Tournament at this year's Gen-con, and those games were very Simulationist. I wish I had the time to go into it more here.

I've digressed, my apologies. I'm just feeling much more enlightened. John may not have "defined" Simulationism as it is in the G/N/S, but he has, in my opinion, found its essence.

I play with two D&D (gasp) groups who have both adopted the "Forgotten Realms" fiction. They reference the novels, the source books, etc... Then Rule Lawyer for three hours straight, using none of the "color" they have chosen, nor focusing on using this imagined world for all it's amazing resources. I came in, created a character, filled him to the brim with back story set in this world, and then was plugged in as "The Ranger."

Caldis wrote:
I'm afraid Joel that the rules lawyering you seem to dislike is a big part of the sim CA.  Getting the system right can be just as important for Sim as the setting and the color.  That's why games like Gurps have traditionally been listed as supporting sim, no background setting info but tons of system.

contracycle wrote: This "if you think Sim is problematic you don't undserstand the CA's" line of argument is bullshit - complete and utter bullshit from start to finish. Arrogance is not a suitable substitution for argument.

There is much work yet to be done on Sim, I think.

As there are always calls for people to design games that incorporate our current Sim ideas, I wanted to bring it people's attention that my upcoming game, In a Land Called, contains alot of what I consider to be "New Skool" Sim. If you want to discuss it, I've started [a thread] over in Indie Design.

Along those same lines, I consider Timestream to be a Sim-supporting design. Check out This thread for some material on why I think so. Also, I just blogged about Sim, and at the bottom I talk more about why Timestream supports it. Also, Shadows In The Fog has a whole lot of Sim in it, IMO.

"Beeeg Horseshoe" and "Big Model" are incompatible theories, to some degree; to say that you use the "Beeeg Horseshoe" to understand Simulationism is in essence to say that simulationism is not an agendum, but the absence of any agendum, the persistent quashing of both narrativist and gamist impulses.  The problem I have with such a position is that there is then no reason for anyone to like simulationism, because the agendum provides the "why we are playing", or more concretely "what is it about playing this game that makes it 'fun'". In the Big Model, the answer is still being debated; in the Beeeg Horseshoe, the answer is that there is nothing that makes simulationist play fun, and there is no motivation to play that way. Although Mike might object to this, even he admits that in his view of the model those in the middle are constantly drifting toward one or the other, middle-point simulationism being more like zilchplay in the Beeeg Horseshoe construction, play without any motivation or objective, play without an agendum.

komradebob wrote: Please name five things, possibly with examples ( short) and why you associate them with Sim priorities and why you find them negative. If you can, please tie them to your idea of "real Sim".

The mechanical question of how to design a Simulationist game comes back to a question of what people think simulates a world.

On one extreme we have Historical re-enactors - who want to be hit by swords, shot at by cannon, and taste the dirt in their coffee. Obviously for them, simulation is living it.

Simulation can be done with an analog. So I build my world in a sandbox pour water on it and roll marbles to knock little men over. The miniature scale is not living it for real but does conform to some of the physical laws of the full scale.

Simulation can be an algorithm. So I know from years of observation that the outcomes are X plus or minus Y. I apply a normal curve to it and feel like I understand what I'm looking at.

Role play games and miniatures games almost always fall in the last group.

Exactly what is "realistic" and what isn't - in other words, how well an algorithm is at simulating reality - is a debate that has raged in Wargame circles, well... forever. It boils down to a stand off between people who think tons of rules are more true, and people who think that simple elegant rules are more accurate. Personally I don't think that debate is an honest one. It isn't about which one is better it is more about which one is better at simulating what part of the reality sought after.

For instance, a re-enactor can claim "authenticity" and point to their wool uniform, but they are not actually being shot at, there are not real political stakes at hand, and they can go home to TV that night so they are not experiencing the full reality either. Kind of like how SCA Pensic War attendees only "live the dream" for two weeks in August.

I understand that simulation and simulationist are not synonimous but there are some interesting parralells here.

For the two of you who have sim designs in the works, What part of the reality of your game world do you want players to experience?

Chris Engle
Hamster Press = Engle Matrix Games

M. wrote: "Beeeg Horseshoe" and "Big Model" are incompatible theories, to some degree; to say that you use the "Beeeg Horseshoe" to understand Simulationism is in essence to say that simulationism is not an agendum, but the absence of any agendum, the persistent quashing of both narrativist and gamist impulses.  The problem I have with such a position is that there is then no reason for anyone to like simulationism, because the agendum provides the "why we are playing", or more concretely "what is it about playing this game that makes it 'fun'". In the Big Model, the answer is still being debated; in the Beeeg Horseshoe, the answer is that there is nothing that makes simulationist play fun, and there is no motivation to play that way. Although Mike might object to this, even he admits that in his view of the model those in the middle are constantly drifting toward one or the other, middle-point simulationism being more like zilchplay in the Beeeg Horseshoe construction, play without any motivation or objective, play without an agendum.

Me wrote: Issues of where the Beeg Horseshoe/Hybrid concepts and hard to find reward cycles place Sim in the model are likely to occur, but those are just flaws that have to be accepted because the definition of Creative Agenda outgrew Sim.

The Dream definition and The Discovery definition are two ways of expressing the same concept. The game is driven by the desire to know and understand and experience the imagined reality.

It is my impression, as one who I think does understand CA and has been cited for explaining it well, that Ron, Vincent, Ralph, and several others who have been cited as offering different views of simulationism, as well as I, all have a pretty clear agreement concerning what the thing is, and are more stymied by how to express it in language that communicates the same idea to others. Thus Vincent is right that if you don't really understand what simulationism is, you probably don't really understand Creative Agenda at all, or at least not well enough to see how they work. It's very much about why we play, or what we hope to get from play, or what is the objective of our getting together to play--about why is this fun. There is a very specific reason why simulationist is fun for those who enjoy it, one which at a fundamental level encompasses all that is called simulationism, but getting a description of that on which everyone agrees as to how well it describes that nebulous "it" has been problematic.

Jason wrote:
I disagree that the dream definition of Sim and the discovery definition are compatible.  The definition of Sim in the essay (which I'm calling the dream definition) supports hybrid play and is linked to causality, whereas the discovery definition rejects hybrid play and is not dependent of causality - just to site a couple fundamental differences.  I don't think there is a lack of ability to describe the dream, discovery, or other definitions.  The problem is that the language cannot be found for a definition that encompasses them all because they aren't the same thing.  No amount of rewording is going to make concepts that take opposite stances the same.

M. wrote:
Thus there really is no "exalting the fiction over the needs of the individual", because definitively within the agendum the individual needs to discover the fiction, and thus the fiction is what is serving the individual. Preserving the integrity of the fiction (often very important in simulationism) is not done because the fiction requires it although the needs of the individual might dictate something else; it is done because the needs of the individual are for the integrity of the fiction to be maintained.

lumpley wrote:
Gareth, I'm pretty sure that if you looked you'd find plenty of arguments leading up to my current position.

I'm stongly in favour of the "discovery" idea in sim, and I don't think its that complicated really.  I also think that "the fiction" is a bad term to use, becuase the source material may well be factual rather than fictional.l

You see, my perspective is that most games, especially games played by children, are forms of training.  Hide-and-seek, for example, is not a game about step-on-up, it is about kids practicing running, dodging, hiding, spotting.  "Lets pretend" and "doctor" are explorations of adult behaviour and roles.  Kids games have a function that is totally unrelated to games-as-entertainment, they are games as practice and discovery.  And this practice is so extensive its not even limited to humans, and may not even be limited to mammals.

And thus I fully agree with Jason that the Discovery idea does indeed permnit gamist hybridisation, partly becuase the built-in motive to perform repetitive practive is the subjective experience of fun, and partly because the thing you want to discover and learn about my itself be a set of bounded interactions, that is, a game.  This is why Flight Simulations work so well as a game - the topic of intended discovery is easily abstracted into the console-and-monitor format.  And Flight Sims show precisely the same overlap with the Gamist agenda we see in RPG Sim - at the extreme ends you have totally realistic flight models with no combat at all, and infinite-ammo shoot-em-ups that are all combat all the time.  Most games fall in the middle, using a partly realistic flight model so the game has some veracity, and a mostly fun combat system to feed the demand for sensations of entertainment.

But why, then, should sim gaming incorporate multiple people?  Well, precisely because they serve as a reality check on your errors.  Rather like hide-and-seek, its no good thinking you understand the flight model, or are good at hiding, if in fact you are not.  Exposure to others is a way of testing your understanding and your abilities, NOT becuase of some self esteem or status issue, but purely for self-satisfaction and verification of comrehension.  At the very least, such differences of perception can be aired and discussed and with any luck everyone will walk away better informed than they had been when they arrived.

IMO, most games make most sense when understood as forms of training and practice.  In this regard, it is Narr that is the weird agenda, the odd one out, attempting to take a methodology of learning and use it for the address of moral premise, whereas gamism is easily explicable as the enjoyment of pure challenge.

talysman wrote: causality? it's there, even in Discovery, because Discovery depends on the theory that the things you are discovering exist in The Fiction for a reason.

hybrids? hybrids are still possible under The Big Model and are possible under a Discovery model for Sim also. the key to seeing how is to recognize how hybrids work: they are not simultaneously Sim and Nar or Sim and Gam, but instead have prominent Sim phases that occasionally switch into Nar or Gam phases -- usually, its seems, mixing high Sim physical combat with Nar tools (The Riddle of Steel is usually cited as an example of this.)

it would work the same way with Discovery: you would have Discovery phases which would switch to Nar or Gam at particular high moments.

Jason wrote:
Ok, I should probably just let M.J. handle the topic of hybrids.  Ah hell, I'll do it anyway.  Hybrid play is logically incompatible with the Big Model, which is why the discovery definition rejects hybrid play.  Why hybrid play is incompatible with the Big Model is because Creative Agenda is assessed as a dominant mode over an instance of play, and no more than one agenda can dominate a rewards cycle due to the requirement that agendas be able to conflict.

Man am I late to this party.

But, um, I like sim. At least as much as I like narrativism. But I like that, too, Gamism, too.

I'm pretty convinced that the Forge bias against simulationism comes directly from most games associated with sim having actually been badly incoherent. That is, the real culprits are things like the Impossible Thing, and standard Gamism/Simulationism incoherence. Which is so, so common amongst pre-Forge games.

What's remarkable to me is that people like myself fought tooth and nail against Beeg Horseshoe, which says that sim is dysfunctional, to come up with the current definition because it's a definition of sim as a functional sort of play. Anyone who sees the definition as including dysfunctional play is merely seeing people's preferences against sim, which I think are largely extant because of the nature of previous sim designs. Note that, interestingly, people here are "OK" with gamism (though they don't play it), because they understand that it's supposed to just look like fun play of checkers or other pre-RPG games.

And I have tried on several occasions to help with the explication process of what sim is. I don't think that I can be blamed for merely being about supporting the status quo when I'm so willing to accept alternate descriptions. I don't accept alternate definitions for the most part, but that's because it always seems to me that everybody is talking about the same thing with sim, just using different terms for it.

Well, everyone but Jay. And I'd be willing to accept Jay's changes, too, if they didn't throw out large chunks of functional play (though if they didn't do that, then I think that Bricolage would be the same as discovery, etc, etc). Hell, I'll chuck all of the Big Theory and GNS later this afternoon if somebody presents me with a model that they can demonstrate is acutally superior.

I don't think we have an adversity to changing the model, I think we have an adversity to changing the model just to match one person's point of view, when that doesn't match anyone else's. I mean how many people here would agree that their problem with simulationism is merely in the terms used to define it, and not what the scope of it is? As far as I can tell, Jay is the only person who has a problem with the implied nature of simulationism. Gareth has a problem with the bias (and perhaps rightly so), but not against the definition AFAICT. MJ merely sees "discovery" as more accurate. Marco has problems with how problematic GNS is, but not with what Simulationism is. I try to describe it every way under the sun, but it's pretty much always the same thing I'm describing. Ralph "quavers" from the ironclad definition only to accept MJ's term change. John Kim worries about the precise sim/nar line, but otherwise understands what it is. Chris Lehrich agrees with me apparently that it's best to see sim as part of hybrids where it's the primary mode. Jason says that it's problematic, but that, when push comes to shove, the definition works for day to day operations. John's thread here is using "fiction" as a replacement for exploration pretty much one for one (though saying that having a priority to explore the fiction that exceeds your priority is a contradiction - sim is player desire for "exalting the fiction" being higher than the other two by definition).

Have I missed anyone?

Seems like a tremendous non-issue to me. But, then, I'm probably just being a stubborn propoent of the CORE (Cult of Ron Edwards!) hegemony that seeks to arrogantly put down anyone who thinks outside the box. Oh, well, being brainwashed, I suppose there's nothing I can do...

Mike

Hey, Mike. I have a problem with the scope of Sim. But the difficulty of discussing the problem on this board is extreme. So I believe that it's far more useful here to talk about CA in a flexible manner, as a coherent alignment of the layers of the Big Model, than to talk about fixed categories of play.

I slipped up the other day, but since you ask, I'm raising my hand.

I'm sure that, in fact, there's no complete consensus on precisely what the scope of any mode is. And I wasn't trying to say that there would be nobody that objects to the definition of the scope currently - my point wasn't that nobody other than Jay could possibly disagree with the scope. In fact, I'm sure that there are probably some silent number of people out there rooting for Jay's theroy.

But I think that even more people agree with you and I that it's time to move on from this. That is, it's Ron's theory, and he's stated that it's past time for us to move on away from this as well. That is, it's really just not that important to have a perfectly precise definition of the scope of simulationism. When I say that most everyone agrees on the scope and such, I'm saying that the general concept is well enough fixed in everyone's minds (including Jay's definition that's not completely out of left field or something, but rather just nailing down certain particulars) that given that we're moving on from GNS, "fixing" the imperfection of the definition has become largely academic.

Basically it's largely distracting the debate from important things like "How can I create a functional agenda that includes rules-shifting?" to subjects that have dubious value. If people think that sim is somehow being missed out on, the one really good way to get people's attention would be to design a sim game that made the points in question. Otherwise I'd suggest that perhaps proposing whole new models of play with other goals might be a better option than trying to revise Ron's rapidly aging model.

Why aren't we talking about Mendel's PCom3? Or looking at things more in terms of John Kim's Virtuality and some of his other theory? John Kirk's design patterns book? Costick's recent presentations on the future of gaming? Montola's upcoming doctoral thesis? All highly academic stuff for those who don't want to delve into actual game design. And all probably more important than the definition of simulationism.

If it helps, I'll cop to having prolonged this by allowing myself to get dragged back into the discussion on the subject. I certainly can't resist a good debate.

Mike

I have two things to add to this thread this week; one of them is directly relevant and the other probably needs it's own thread, but it's Thanksgiving for goodness' sake and starting a new thread that probably wouldn't go anywhere is not something for which I can spare the time.

The directly on point matter is the idea that simulationism can never be influenced by metagame concerns. Assuming the discovery definition (and assuming the other definitions are other ways of trying to communicate the same idea--I'm just using the discover definition for the sake of the terminology appropriate to it) this can be shown not to be so.

Let us suppose we are playing in a simulationist exploration of Middle Earth. We're in Fanghorn Forest. Suddenly someone--in most credibility distributions it would have to be the referee--thinks, what would happen if the Entwives returned? He then starts events that suggest that the Entwives have been seen somewhere near the edges of the map, and starts to explore what happens from that.

The first point here is that the decision to bring in this event is still completely simulationist, but also entirely metagame, geared toward the question of discovering facts about Middle Earth and its residents by creating situations that reveal aspects of them not already known.

The second point here is that the limitation that this can only be introduced by the referee is entirely arbitrary and not essential to simulationist play--it's only a strongly tendential preference within it. There is no a priori reason why Radagast the Brown's player could not introduce the idea by stating that he heard from one of the birds that there were Ents, or something like them, moving in the northlands. Author or even director stance could be used to initiate this as a new area of exploration, without breaking out of the mode of simulationist play.

The question of hybrids is the other problem, the one that should have its own thread--except that I remember starting that thread a long time ago (or maybe someone else started it and I replied to it), and I have no clue how to begin looking for it. Thus I'm going to keep these somewhat off-point points brief, and hope that if there really is something to discuss here someone will open a new thread.

No one debates whether it's possible to design a game that inherently drifts or openly transitions as part of play. Scattershot was supposed to do that with built-in mechanics. Multiverser does it from player/referee interaction. The Riddle of Steel is often cited for it.

The question, though, is what we mean by "hybrid". If all we mean is that the game supports different agenda during different play phases or different situations, that's a given. However, there are three other possible definitions of the concept that have been discussed on this forum, and usually when the word "hybrid" is mentioned, it means one of those two.

One, sometimes thought to be represented by The Riddle of Steel, is a simultaneous full commitment to two distinct agenda by each player. Given the Sim/Nar hybrid which TRoS is supposed to be, that would mean that in combat players are fully committed simultaneously to making moral statements based on the Spiritual Attributes and to experiencing the dream in terms of knowing what it might really be like to be in such a combat. The difficult question is whether it is really possible to have that complete commitment to two so disparate agenda during the same in-play events. Like Jason (who handled it admirably) I think this is not possible; in early "GNS" discussions my assertion that I "was all three" led to the conclusion that I "was only one at a time". That sort of drift/transition play is not at all that uncommon in my experience, in that given the right game players will move to different agenda in response to different situations. This sort of "I want both of these things absolutely right now, and will not sacrifice either for the other" play is questionable to me.

The other theoretical hybrid is characterized by a word which I think I picked for it but can't remember (and Mike was citing me for it just within the past few weeks)--convergence? That might be it. Whatever the word was, the concept was that a game might be so designed that two different agenda would tend toward the same in-game decisions, thus facilitating coherent play between players with differing agenda. My model for this was a Viet Nam-type combat unit game. Gamism, narrativism, and simulationism would all tend to point to making the same choices in most of the situations that arose in play, and where they led to different choices those tensions would become support for all three agenda. For example, the question of whether to attack the village becomes a debate between the characters. For the narrativist, this is addressing premise, that the characters have this tension over a moral issue. For the simulationist, this is exploring what it was really like to be part of such a unit where the debates over what was the right thing to do compromised the effectiveness as a combat unit. For the gamist, this became one of the liabilities that had to be overcome to beat the odds, that he not only had to fight well against the baddies, he had to overcome the negative baggage at the same time. That game was never designed, so there's no certainty as to whether it could work. However, convergence as a hybrid concept is one of the possible definitions, which would mean a game which simultaneously supported different agenda among different players in such a way that their choices would mesh in play.

The final definition of hybrid is a game which provides sufficient support for two different agenda that it can be played out of the box either way without discarding any of the rules, with minimal rules/agendum conflict for either choice. TRoS is also cited for this sometimes.

The discussion of whether a hybrid is possible thus must first satisfy the question of what a hybrid is. In Ron's earliest discussions of GNS suggested that hybrids by the definition of players prioritizing more than one agendum were not possible. Later they became theoretically possible, and potential examples were suggested. Ultimately, I believe he concluded that they were at best extremely unlikely and never demonstrated to be possible.

I personally think the term has little use, because its definition is so uncertain. By one definition they may well be impossible; by another I'm sure they're quite common.

--M. J. Young

I tried to reply to this while I was off on vacation, but ran into a technical problem.

just to make things clear:

• I don't agree with Jay that Sim is bricolage, but that's not what this thread is about.
• I think hybrids are not only possible, but also have a clear design approach; that's not what this thread is about.
• I know that SIm is just as social as Gamis or Narrativism; the presence/absence or quantity of social interactions is not what this thread is about.
• I agree with M. J. (and disagree with Jay) that there are metagame decisions in Sim, but that's not quite what this thread is about.
• I agree with Ron's definition of Sim, but would like it to be "grabbier", like Narrativism and Story Now. that's not even what this thread is about.

what the thread is about is the quality of the social interactions and metagame behaviors in Sim. Mike, you say:

sim is player desire for "exalting the fiction" being higher than the other two by definition

Hiya,

I'm validating the closure, and also stating that that final post contains just about anything and everything I'm interested in saying about Simulationist play.

Best,
Ron