I was just reading Jared's Beeg Horseshoe Theory and thinking about my talks with him about Sim as a myth (correct me if I'm wrong, Jared!).

It got me thinking about how each of the GNS widgets are made of two components: Entertainment and roleplaying. I'm defining entertainment as: A means to pass the time with no benefit to one's physical survival. (things like bouncing a ball, reading for pleasure, watching a film). I'm defining roleplaying as: Participants control, at a minimum, a Character's role in a continuous and joint effort.

I'll keep running with definitions to keep myself clear:
Gamism - Competition, either against self or other.
Narrativism - Telling a story.
Simulationism - Simulating a reality (not necessarily our reality).

Without the roleplaying aspect, you have these in their pure form. Gamism includes soccer, chess and Pictionary. Narrativism includes novels, films and plays. Simulationism includes model building and SimCity.

When you add roleplaying, you add the element of role. Gamist RPGs include Rune and D&D, Narr include Sorcerer and InSpectres, Sim include Blue Planet (1st ed., don't know about 2nd) and Rolemaster.

Each of these is a valid form of roleplaying because of choice. In a Gamist game, you are free to choose your strategy. Narrative games allow everyone to influence the story in different directions. Simulationist games present a number of realistic options and allow the participants to choose one.

I think this is why Sim is such a contentious thing. There is a sense of "if this was the most realistic option, it will be chosen everytime, thus removing free will." This is what makes it a game.

A Roleplaying game, be it G, N or S, requires unknown outcomes hinging on participants' choices.

Leaving the realm of RPGs, SimCity is a Sim video game because there are so many variables that to a human the outcome is unknown. Candyland is not a Gamist boardgame because you MUST draw a card and you MUST do what it says; the goal of Candyland is to get to the end of the board, but there is no choice on how to get there.

Going back to RPGs, D&D is a Gamist RPG because your choice is strategy in combat, the unknown is how well your strategy works. Dying Earth is a Narr RPG because your choice is where you will spend your resource (in order to improve your odds of "success"), the unknown is what direction the story will lead. Rolemaster is a Sim RPG because your choice is "what options are open to my PC in this situation," the unknown are the choices and their results.

So this post is a long exploration of how Sim can be considered roleplaying. As long as you have choice and the unknown, it's an RPG. As soon as you Simulate so much that there is no choice, poof! It's not a game anymore.

(Note on next paragraph: Pure refers to the play goal in its most undiluted sense. Gamism = competition, Narrativism = storytelling, Simulationism = simulating a reality)

This leads to a question: Can Pure G,N or S be a viable RPG? Pure Gamism would still work because you can offer viable and different strategies. Pure Narrativism also works because there is no "right" way to tell a story; it's an entirely subjective thing. Pure Simluation, however, would allow for no deviance against realism. In a Pure Simulation, if you ran a game with the same initial conditions (same PCs, situation, etc), the outcome would be exactly the same.

So does this mean there is no Pure Simulationism? Or would providing equally likely outcomes allow for a choice even in Pure Simulationism?

Answering this question, if there are equally likely outcomes, and the choice is left up to the Player, you immediately leave Simulationism. You head towards:
Gamist - Which outcome is most advantageous?
Narrativist - Which outcome tells the best story?
Subjective - Which outcome feels the most realistic?

We have to rule out:
Simulationist - I can't decide, because there's an equal chance of each outcome and humans are terrible randomizers. I must use a randomizer (a die, for example), thus removing any Choice.



Do I have Simulationism all wrong, here?

Well, I think perhaps in the rarified field of never obtainable theory you might be on to something...if you believe in predestination. But in reality "doing the most realistic thing" is a far cry different from "having no choices"

Since the root of simulationist gaming is the wargame, and the wargame is a simulation of warfare, lets look at war. Set up a situation, provide every single measureable piece of data that can possibly be collected, provide said data to 100 different generals, and what you'll get back is a 100 different plans (or at least a couple dozen allowing for similiarities).

If we assume each of these generals is a legitimate "expert" in his field, than each is doing "the most realistic thing" yet each is arriving at different choices. So doing what is realistic is not the same as not having choice.

If you start to throw in elements like emotions, personal grudges, politics, grandstanding and other assorted realistic but non quantifiable elements you really start to realize that choice is hardly limited at all.

(for a great example of the impact of such factors concider General Custer and how much different the Battle of Little Big Horn would have been with a general not concerned with running for office on the reputation of a war hero)

Now whether its possible to tabulate every possible choice and incorporate ever conceivable modifier and personality quirk and then construct a table that accurately depicts such probabilities is a question for philosophers. I don't believe it for a second.

Hey,

Somehow, this whole thread feels out-of-date to me ... and I realize I'm back at GO a couple of years ago, contending various points with M. J. Young, based on my System Does Matter essay.

The problem is that since then, along came the Scarlet Jester and Exploration, and a whole lot of things changed in the way I was looking at the big picture, or perhaps, I now had the vocabulary to say what I "meant."

There's a section in my essay, in the GNS chapter, that sums up my take on the matter now, called "Controversy: is that third box really there?"

Some elements of Zak's post really need revision, even to address the question properly. First, as I've been at great pains to clarify lately, "tell a story" is a rotten definition for Narrativism. Narrativist play concerns addressing Premise (as defined in the Egri sense) as the prioirty. Second, "realism" is a rotten summary for Simulationism, even with the proviso of an imaginary reality. "Plausibility" might be better, with the proviso, but I prefer "in-game-world causality" as the defining priority.

It seems to me as if Zak has offered a non-question. Our experience of Cause is one of probabilities, not of determinism - this may well be a product of our inadequate perceptive and cognitive faculties toward a deterministic universe, or it may be a product of unassailable stochasticity in the universe at some level. No one knows. But since our experience of Cause is probabilistic, our simulations of Cause are most satisfying and interesting in those terms as well.

Therefore I see no particular reason to think that Simulationist play is "purest" when it relies on non-stochastic determinism.

Best,
Ron

Arguably, totally pure Narrativism is no longer a game, either. Just because it appears that physical sciences of some sort might be able to lock down all the Sim variables doesn't make the other corners un-lock-downable.

In Narrativism, if you were driven by some super-theory of story (just as Sim could conceivably be driven by a super-theory of physical reality, down to character's decisions), you could lock everything down so that the story could only go one way. (Memory fails me summat, but I think Egri and other writers have said that a "perfect" story can't be modified without wrecking it, implying there's only one way for certain stories to go, at least given a certain cast of characters.)

Ultra-completeness could happen to Gamism too, just as tic-tac-toe is what mathematicians call a "known" game. There is a single strategy that will always lead to a tie if both sides use it.

I guess what I'm saying is that while this is sort of interesting, I don't see how it's a special problem for Simulationism.

--JB

Two "Beeg" problems here.

Zak Arntson wrote: Simulationism - Simulating a reality (not necessarily our reality).

Zak Arntson wrote: This leads to a question: Can Pure G, N, or S be a viable RPG?

Zak Arntson wrote: Do I have Simulationism all wrong, here?

Thanks, all! I'm glad everyone helped me to better understand this. I'm constantly shifting between "getting it" and "forgetting it."

Ron, thanks for letting me know that the definitions in my head aren't up to date. Narr = Premise above all else, Sim = Exploration above all else. Is that right?

Choice is not the same as Cause. Probability occurs at the D/F/K (Unknown Factor) stage. Choice is what leads up to those probabilities. When Sim is explained as Exploring X, well, there goes the whole argument on Pure Sim = Purely Simulating In-Game-World Causality.

My whole post is moot. Serves me right, not rereading Ron's essay before posting a ton. (I've read it several times over, just not recently enough :)

And Fang, yes, GNS occurs at the point of decision making. And that's what I was having trouble with, with the Sim = Simulate model (the wrong model). If you are making a decision for pure simulation of "realism," you aren't making a decision at all. But with Sim = Exploration of X, you make a decision based on exploration/experience over plausibility.

Zak Arntson wrote: If you are making a decision for pure simulation of "realism," you aren't making a decision at all.

Zak Arntson wrote: A Roleplaying game, be it G, N or S, requires unknown outcomes hinging on participants' choices.

Jack Spencer Jr wrote: Another players enjoys genre Sim. He feels that a RPG should accurately represent the conventions of a particular style, such as Anime or, let's say Hentai since the blanket of Anime is like saying "television show" or "genre," but I digress. He's not interested in any premise or other Narrativist concern, unless it helps him in his goal of genre Sim. In this case, what we actually have is a hybrid S/N player, but he could play for decades with just S until he discovers how N can help improve his satisfaction in play.

Another path uses genre as a platform for "deeper issues." Let's take The Abyss. A buncha miners trapped underwater during a big storm. Enter crazed SEAL Michael Biehn. Enter nuclear missle. Enter alien lifeforms. What's all this color do? Just that; it provides color. The real "game" is about the characters and their relationships and how the whole premise is introduced and resolved. Pure Narrativism.

But what's the issue here?

Pure simulationism cannot have a metagame goal so it is not a "game." I'll buy that. I can also point out (along JB's lines) that pure narrativism doesn't admit any interactivity (no "playing") and that pure gamism completely nullifies the concept of "role."

A martini can be more dry (less vermouth) or less dry (more vermouth). If there's no vermouth whatsoever it's not a martini any more. Neither is a glass of pure vermouth. This is suppoed to be controversial?

- Walt

And here we see (I guess) Jared's bomb explode. But what I really want to do is expand upon Laurel's comment:

Laurel wrote: #2 has the player making decisions based on the internal reality of the game itself as perceived by the character- completely based on the character's perspectives and needs and what the player knows to be "true" for the game world

Right on, Gordon my man, right on.

Mike

Jared A. Sorensen wrote: ...a few seconds after hitting "Submit" it hit me: this is roleplaying, but strictly in the psychological/sexual sense: adopting an alternate persona. So I guess you could be dealing with psychological issues through a proxy but still...definitely not a game. And definitely leave me out of that kind of "play." I'm not into that whole leather and whips thing (okay, but only from an aesthetic angle).

Gordon C. Landis wrote: And there is NOT (except perhaps rarely) only one way to make those decisions. That is (I think) why Jared's charges of 'merely' aping genre conventions and etc. don't always hold up. I mean, he IS right that that can happen, and maybe even often does. But anytime there is a variety of possibly-valid decisions to make, in a vareity of situations, over time, there's an opportunity for 'creative' play.

Regardless of what you call them, "games" are a very particular thing. One commonality (uh) is that all games have goals. Sure, that's not listed on dictionary.com but man, don't be pulling semantic games here. This ain't that other forum. Oh...and RPGs don't have winners/losers? That's a major assumption that probably belongs in that other thread.

So let's approach it from a purely atypical POV.

I'm at home. Let's say I'm writing out a poem or something...on paper. I write some lines, they suck. I crumple up the piece of paper and toss it in the wastebasket (which is at the other end of the room). If I make it a conscious decision that "the goal is to make the shot," then it's a game. It's not necessarily "fun" or a way to pass time (it's really just an off-shoot of the poetry-writing debacle). It's just something I decide to do. If I just decide to throw crumpled-up paper over my should, that's not a game. Arguably I'm doing the same thing: throwing paper. But one is clearly a game I've presented to myself. The other is not.

The old guy who waves at cars? Is he playing a game? Well, is he trying to wave to twenty yellow cars...or is he just waving?

So now we're talking about Role Playing Games. Simulationist play (however you define it) doesn't have a goal that the player is conscious of. And no, I don't accept "being my character" as a valid goal, any more than I could accept "throwing paper" or "waving at cars" as being a goal. Those are activities.

By itself, saying "RPGs need goals" is like saying "Mars needs women." It doesn't really mean anything ("Hey, who cares if it's a "real" game, right?"). But when this concept of game=goal dovetails into all sorts of other game design concerns, it starts to matter.

Anyway, like I've said before. I'm not here to debate or argue my ideas, hoping you'll see the light. I can only explain how I see the world working, if only to give people something else to stick in their toolbox (or discard, as I suspect many of y'all are doing).

Jared A. Sorensen wrote: Anyway, like I've said before. I'm not here to debate or argue my ideas, hoping you'll see the light. I can only explain how I see the world working, if only to give people something else to stick in their toolbox (or discard, as I suspect many of y'all are doing).

I'm just trying to understand you, here, Jared. I'm not quoting dictionary definitions at you to argue semantics. I'm quoting them because it's like you're talking a totally different language as far as I can tell. It sounds a lot like English, but a lot of the words seem to mean ideosyncratic things. I don't mean that to sound harsh. I mean that I find your concepts genuinely confusing, and at odds with my basic understanding of the words you're using.

Jared A. Sorensen wrote: So now we're talking about Role Playing Games. Simulationist play (however you define it) doesn't have a goal that the player is conscious of. And no, I don't accept "being my character" as a valid goal, any more than I could accept "throwing paper" or "waving at cars" as being a goal. Those are activities.

And that, my friend, is Simulationism.

Ah, but it's not "pure" Simulationism because it's now tainted with an element of challenge ("can I portray my character in a way that's interesting and realistic up to my own standards?") or competition ("can I portray my character better than I did last session, or better than the other players portray theirs?").

I think this is a non-issue simply because it's a definitional tautology between "pure simulationism" and "game." How do we tell if the simulationism is "pure?" It's "pure" when it has no goal beyond the performance of the activity itself. How do we tell if it's a "game?" It's a "game" only if it has a goal beyond the performance of the activity itself. Ergo the main assertion follows trivially.

But I still have to ask, so what? "Pure" simulationism, if it can exist at all (which is doubtful on a sort of quantum uncertainty level; see congruence), is such a rare and specialized beast that whether or not it fits the technical definition of role playing game is manifestly irrelevant.

- Walt

(And speaking of irrelevant, I guess it would be no great loss if this post gets dropped in the server changeover.)

wfreitag wrote: And that, my friend, is Simulationism.

Ah, but it's not "pure" Simulationism because it's now tainted with an element of challenge ("can I portray my character in a way that's interesting and realistic up to my own standards?") or competition ("can I portray my character better than I did last session, or better than the other players portray theirs?").

contracycle wrote: No it isn't. All xiombarg said was In that case, '"being my character" is a valid goal. ' - and that is absolutely correct. How the character is portrayed to other players is NOT necessarily a concern (and boy does that piss me off), and competing with yourself or others is equally unnecessary. The goal of the game is exactly the same as that of fancy dress - the event itself is an excuse to get into the fancy dress. What you do once you are in the fancy dress is not necessarily germane.

It being a game, in which the participants have little or no real stakes from the real world, there is much greater latitude to explore situations and circumstances that the player would not be directly exposed to in person. There is no need for an abyss RPG to be about the relationships among the characters, or to be a survival challenge - the colour CAN BE the point. The players are able to be there to explore the colour and let the rest of it go hang. Survival and inter-character relationships may occur - partly as colour, partly as obstacle, partly as Exploration of human interaction - but they need not be a goal, or even important.

Hello,

Let's clarify some things about this thread.

1) Zak, correct me if I'm wrong, but the concern you've raised in your first post has been dealt with in some detail, from several different angles.

2) Jared, correct me if I'm wrong, but you have provided your point of view without the intent of debating it (just making it clear).

If I'm correct in both of these, then there's no need to continue the thread. In fact, if #1 is correct, then there's no need to continue this thread; if #2 is incorrect, then the topic (Jared's point) should be the basis for a new thread.

Best,
Ron

EDIT: Post deleted after seeing Ron's simultaneous post.

- Walt

Ron Edwards wrote:
1) Zak, correct me if I'm wrong, but the concern you've raised in your first post has been dealt with in some detail, from several different angles.

Ron Edwards wrote: 2) Jared, correct me if I'm wrong, but you have provided your point of view without the intent of debating it (just making it clear).

Hi Jared,

This might surprise people, but I think your point bears considering and may represent a "closet view" held by more than one person. Therefore I will be the first to say that expressing it is not counter to the goals of the Forge, and you shouldn't think that it was inappropriate to post. But since we're talking about a value judgment, and acknowledging it as such, there's no point in a medley of "I agree" and "I disagree" developing from there.

Anyway, given Jared's and Zak's responses, I think it's time to bid this thread Good Night, Sleep Tight, and enjoy all the links to it, in later discussions but no need to add more posts.

Best,
Ron