Okay, kids, look at this thread.

Back, now? I want to talk about Jared's comments. He may not be interested in it anymore, but I kinda am. I particuarly am interested in Ron's comment that is a view that several people hold, but are in the closet about. So here's the deal:

Does anyone else share Jared's view? And if they do, can they explain it in such a way that I can undersand it? Am I just dense? It seems to rely of defnitons of "play" and "game" that make no intutive or intellectual sense to me. I'm not trying to be pejorative, I'm genuinely confused.

Here's my definitions, when it comes to designing (and analyzing) roleplaying games. I know these aren't dictionary definitions, but they're much more useful:

Game: An act of entertainment with explicit rules, a goal of play, and an element of choice.
Roleplaying Game: A game where one or more participants roleplay a presence or influence.

War (the card game), Candyland, Snakes & Ladders and a rubber ball are NOT games, by my definition. The first three have purely random outcomes, and the participants have no choice in the matter. The latter example is not a game, because it is merely a ball: It can be a component of a game, but not a game by itself.

Likewise, a Roleplaying Game needs to include both Roleplaying and Game. D&D is a functional RPG, with a goal supported by its rules: How much monster ass can you stomp? Likewise, Call of Cthulhu: Can you survive to stop the horror?

GNS falls into this: GNS is about the time of decision; this is the choice inherent in a game.

D&D, CoC: Gamist
Sorcerer, (my own) Shadows: Narrative

I have trouble with Simulationist games, because many of them are presented as a System and Setting with no explicit goal. I think Exploring Character and Situation and stuff is great (contrary to Jared, I think), only there hasn't been enough structure given to it. Here's some examples:

Blue Planet: Great Setting, cool Situations, and so on, but what do I do? There's nothing in the first edition that lets me jump in and start. Our gaming group has to actually _add a piece to Blue Planet to make it playable_. Granted, there may be some "campaign suggestions" in the text somewhere, but there's no explicit, "here's how to play the game." It's just "here's how to resolve chancy situations."

Fading Suns: Again, cool Setting, neat Characters, amazing Flavor. How do we start?

Too many Sim games provide the toolbox, a pile of pieces, but no instructions. The Players are required to somehow implicitly know how to begin playing. In truth, a Sim game needs explicit instructions on actually playing to be a full roleplaying game.

The "you can do anything" attitude is a crutch. You can't do anything, especially given a specific System. You can do what is within the limits of the rules. And those rules need to include specific playing goals and not just means of modelling the game's plausibility.

I'm sure there's a counter-argument that goes: Sim games, by their definition of exploration, require the absence of structure. There should be freedom to explore the Situation/Character/etc. To which I respond: This is not a functional or complete game.

Zak Arntson wrote:
Blue Planet: Great Setting, cool Situations, and so on, but what do I do? There's nothing in the first edition that lets me jump in and start. Our gaming group has to actually _add a piece to Blue Planet to make it playable_. Granted, there may be some "campaign suggestions" in the text somewhere, but there's no explicit, "here's how to play the game." It's just "here's how to resolve chancy situations."

Too many Sim games provide the toolbox, a pile of pieces, but no instructions. The Players are required to somehow implicitly know how to begin playing. In truth, a Sim game needs explicit instructions on actually playing to be a full roleplaying game.

The "you can do anything" attitude is a crutch. You can't do anything, especially given a specific System. You can do what is within the limits of the rules. And those rules need to include specific playing goals and not just means of modelling the game's plausibility.

I'm sure there's a counter-argument that goes: Sim games, by their definition of exploration, require the absence of structure. There should be freedom to explore the Situation/Character/etc. To which I respond: This is not a functional or complete game.

That's just it. "Working out what they want to do in the game." That's a presupposition of Sim design that doesn't need to be there. I could write a Sim game that, in addition to detailing the XYZ bits you are to explore, lays out what to do and voila! You've got a functional Sim _game_. Note that I'm being a stickler on what game means (using my own definition above).

Mytholder wrote: It's not "you can do anything", it's "there are no goals within the sim other than those of your character".

Interesting. Given Gareth's reply, which I agree with, it would seem that this is a case of "To what extent does system matter?" Apparently to the Simulationist, the system only matters so far as it allows him to explore something. To the Gamist or Narrativist, the system must enable the sorts of conflicts that are important for each in addition. So system not only matters, it is critical.

I just bought my wife Myst III - Exile for mother's day. She loves these games, and I like them too. They are a perfect example of a completely railroaded Sim. Often there aren't even two choices as to what to do next, it's just a matter of finding it. I'm willing to bet that this sort of game is liked by Simulationists, but disliked by Narrativists. Gamists might see it as a puzzle to solve, and like it for that. But the Simulationist like myself just like ambling about the nifty landscapes and seeing what comes next. To be frank the puzzles annoy me quite often. I just want to immerse myself in that world, and see what's to see.

Does that explain it at all? I fear that those who find Myst boring or Simulationism for that matter will probably never understand the motivation. I think it's a very primal thing that some people like myself have to see what's over the next hill, just for the sake of seeing what's over the hill. Apparently you either have it or you don't.

We're getting caught up in terminology again. Maybe Sims are not games. So what? Neither is taking a walk over the hill, but I still want to do it.

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote: We're getting caught up in terminology again. Maybe Sims are not games. So what? Neither is taking a walk over the hill, but I still want to do it.

I'm willing to bet that this sort of game is liked by Simulationists, but disliked by Narrativists.

Hello,

I'm confused about the question. The title of the thread says, "Is Pure sim a game?" I have two sources of confusion.

1) I think that the accompanying thread illustrates that the term "game" is problematic enough by itself to preclude being a criterion for anything.

2) What's all this stuff about "pure"? I have no idea what "purity" refers to in GNS terms. A given instance of play is one of G, N, or S, by definition.

Best,
Ron

Ron,
I'm guessing the body and subject of the first post are disjoint. I responded to the post's body (do you share Jared's view on Sim not being an rpg).

Yeah, "game" is a problematic concept. It looks to me like we have essentially two different views that aren't likely to come to an agreement.

Zak,

Ah, so the question is, "Is Simulationism actually role-playing?" (Is this right, Kirt?)

My answer is contained in my essay. It differs from Jared's, I think - although certainly he and I share similar preferences regarding this mode of play.

Best,
Ron

Zoiks! If it's "is Sim roleplaying" then I should put my thoughts in Indie Game Design. My opinions would be better over there than this semi-debate (it's more like a clarification of different opinions). My big contention is that there's a slew of incomplete Sim games published; something to be addressed more in design than theory.

Ron Edwards wrote: I'm confused about the question. The title of the thread says, "Is Pure sim a game?" I have two sources of confusion.

1) I think that the accompanying thread illustrates that the term "game" is problematic enough by itself to preclude being a criterion for anything.

2) What's all this stuff about "pure"? I have no idea what "purity" refers to in GNS terms. A given instance of play is one of G, N, or S, by definition.

Confused, rambling text follows:

I think answering the question is important NOT to dismiss someone else's idea of a good time, but rather to try and figure out what people are gonna clash once they sit down at the table.

Look at any Vampire LARP and you see the problems which arise from mis-aligned goals. The players locked in sim mode are not looking past their characters...I get frusterated because NOTHING gets done and we all end up standing around in some underground parking garage with our thumbs up our asses.

Frankly, the people who really really enjoy sim play...well, playing in a game with them (for me) would be akin to jamming a needle through my eye. And above and beyond all this, I think that game design can only improve once sim play is discarded as any kind of goal. I really do. Games like Blue Planet, Fading Suns, Vampire...they're NOT games. They suffer from a lack of design. I'm a game designer...of course I'm puzzled/frusterated by peoples' enjoyment in an activity that (to me) is meaningless.

Roleplaying as an activity is just that: an activity. Something to do. But it's unfocused, unstructured play. It's "let's pretend." And while I recognize that playing "let's play that we're pirates" can be a lotta fun, I don't think that it works in the context of an RPG. If it does, please show me...because although I can pick out elements of sim RPGs and say, "Oh cool." I can't see how they're anything but fuel for someone else's playtime. In other words, why isn't everyone playing (frex) GURPS: (your favorite setting here?). Because to my eyes, there's no difference between Blue Planet, Talislanta, Fading Suns, Ars Magica, etc. and you might as well just use GURPS.

End rambling text, enter worthwhile line of thought:

If someone wrote an RPG that was explicitly focused on "exploration of setting/character" (esp. character) and had the system to back that up, THEN I would be interested. I have a sneaking suspicion that such a beast would drift heavily toward Narrativism (if not BE a Narrativist game outright). So if you know of any, or are working on any, please let me know...

Edited to add incendiary closing statement:
Ultimately, I'm thinking that GNS could be appended/replaced with "Game X has a point, Game Y doesn't." N and G are so closely aligned...and S is way the hell out there in left field. I think that's my biggest problem: S-styled play is dominant "out there" but it's also so far removed from the other two modes of play that it seems like comparing two types of apple with one orange.

Mike Holmes wrote:
I just bought my wife Myst III - Exile for mother's day. She loves these games, and I like them too. They are a perfect example of a completely railroaded Sim. Often there aren't even two choices as to what to do next, it's just a matter of finding it. I'm willing to bet that this sort of game is liked by Simulationists, but disliked by Narrativists. Gamists might see it as a puzzle to solve, and like it for that. But the Simulationist like myself just like ambling about the nifty landscapes and seeing what comes next. To be frank the puzzles annoy me quite often. I just want to immerse myself in that world, and see what's to see.

Does that explain it at all? I fear that those who find Myst boring or Simulationism for that matter will probably never understand the motivation. I think it's a very primal thing that some people like myself have to see what's over the next hill, just for the sake of seeing what's over the hill. Apparently you either have it or you don't.

We're getting caught up in terminology again. Maybe Sims are not games. So what? Neither is taking a walk over the hill, but I still want to do it.

Hi Zak,

The sim systems you're discussing require gamemasters. The gamemaster may or may not define goals. If the GM delineates goals, then there is no question that for the non-GM players at least, it's a game. If the GM does not delineate goals, then perhaps the ensuing play will be technically not a game, but more likely the players will choose their own goals, which is also sufficient to make it a game.

You're correct, I believe, that there's potential for trouble here. If the GM invents goals and assumes the players will follow them but fails to communicate those goals to the players; if the players self-select goals that conflict with one another; if the GM selects goals the players aren't interested in pursuing; if the players are expecting the GM to establish goals while the GM expects the same of the players... all potentially dysfunctional. (And note that this is all entirely within Simulationist play -- by goals I don't mean G, N, or S, I mean "what issues are our characters supposed to be addressing in this world?" -- that is to say, what is the simulationist premise?)

But the scenario you seem to be suggesting, a group of players buys a simulationist game book and then sits around confused wondering what they're supposed to do with it, is reckoning without the gamemaster, who's usually a very important part of the simualtionist equation. The lack of a built in goal of play means that a player cannot tell what the goal of play is just by reading the book; dialog with the GM is required. But is that such a big drawback? How far are you going to get without communication with the GM in any event? On the other side of the coin, how much do GMs really suffer from the absence of instructions for how to begin playing? Don't those that wish such handholding choose systems that provide it?

- Walt

What Walt said.

I agree about the potential for dysfunction. I admitted to that in the long debates about Illusionism. But that doesn't mean every Sim game is dysfunctional. And a tight focus does not insure completely against dysfunction either.

It's the same thing I say about Generic games which are probably some of the most unfocused games available. They are good for providing a minimal structure so that a game can get off the ground if there is no other more specific game available that covers the GMs needs. But if a game that has the specific focus that you're looking for can be found, that will be superior. This also, BTW, means that for a GM who wants to take the game lots of disparate places, that a somewhat less focused game may be superior.

It's a spectrum, in any case, and people will choose their level of focus to fit. On the far end of the spectrum from the completely unfocused game (which doesn't exist, the rules alone create some structure), is the (equally unknown) totally focused game where it plays out identically every time you play. Since neither exists, nor is anyone really very interested in either, I suggest that we view all games as ranging from slight focus to lots of focus, and realize that they are all potentially entertaining to different people under different circumstances.

And if they are entertaining, they're not broke.

Mike

I have many paragraphs of unposted text on this subject, trying to puzzle out just what Jared means, explain Sim as perhaps not a goal, but an outcome of play (including, but not limited to, roleplay), and some similar thoughts.

But it all comes down to this, I think: Jared sees Sim as kinda an "odd man out" in GNS theory - one he's not particualrly interested in. We've talked about that before, I believe - Jared adds the focus that this "odd man out" status (if you accept it), particularly in terms of finding a realizeable, supportable-by-mechanics GOAL for Sim, is especially problematic when you're trying to put together a focused game design.

Folks who are interested in Sim . . . know that they enjoy RPGs and don't much care if there's a Nar Premise or a Game Challenge involved. And no matter how hard I try, I haven't come up with anything more insightful on the subject than the "Controversy: is that third box really there?" section of Ron's essay. Sim as a "goal" is a bit different than Nar and Game, but not fundamentally so. At least SOME Sim games (and Sim game design) DO have a point - they are not about "doing nothing". I think Jared confuses the fact that he doesn't LIKE that point - and that there are certain problems with making game designs that fascilitate acheiving it - with the idea that there is no point.

And that's where I'm going to leave it at the moment - gettin' a little busy at work again . . .

Gordon

Hmm, curious thread, I've had similar thoughts myself, only directed towards Narrativism rather than Sim. (My thoughts tend to go "huh ? you want a satisfying story ? well get together and write a satisfying story, why are you faffing about with rules ?").

(and yeah I know Narr isn't just about the story, it is about premise and goals and stances, etc., the same logic can still be applied)

(that said I can see that playing Narr and the rules involved can be fun, not dissing it, just doesn't seem very RPG to me)

The vast majority of games on the market are sim. By any useful definition, Blue Planet, Fading Suns, Vampire are rpgs. Whether or not they are considered games seems to me academic to the point of absurdity. I would note, however, that their designers and players clearly all consider them to be games.

Definitions can be twisted however people want, after a while however they become so far from normal experience that they become useless.

To say that when I sit down with my players and play, say, Fading Suns we are not playing a role playing game is simply silly. That is what the hobby is. That is what people actually do.

Jared may not see the point of such games, that's fine - we all have different tastes, but if you were to ask the participants what they were doing I suggest that very few of them would not consider themselves to be playing a game. My group, unabashedly sim, actually refers to our weekly meet as The Game. We all consider ourselves to be meeting up to play games, games such as the extremely sim-my Runequest.

GNS can be an extremely useful tool. I refer to this thread http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2056 which to me shows how valuable an understanding of GNS can be in enabling actual play. However, theories which start to exclude whole swathes of actual activity, actual play, seem to me to be losing this utility.

Theories are tools. They are devices to reach an end, not an end in themselves. I'm not quite sure where this particular theory is going or what the desired end is. Improved play does not appear to be that end, as most people's play is excluded from the discussion.

Finally, this quote from Jared "Because to my eyes, there's no difference between Blue Planet, Talislanta, Fading Suns, Ars Magica, etc. and you might as well just use GURPS." These games, to me, have very little in common. Fading Suns could not be done just as well in Gurps. To suggest that indicates to me not that these are not games but that they are games so far from Jared's personal taste that they have all become mutually incomprehensible for him. As I said, his taste is as valid as anyone's, but I am not persuaded there is any larger conclusion to draw here than just noting that some people don't enjoy sim rpgs. Nobody ever claimed that everyone did.

I'm coming in late on this discussion, but it's something I have been thinking about, and reached a semi-conclusion about, so I'll go ahead and drop a few lines here.

I think the root of the conflict stems from the fact that the goals of simulationist play are focused on a different area of play than those of other styles. That is, in narrative and gamist play the goals focus on the ends: a compelling narrative in narrativist play, posing a challenge in gamist play, for example. In simulationist play the goal is not on the ends, but on the means. The ends are really unimportant, so long as we *reach them a certain way.* In other words, the goal of simulationism is upheld as long as the ends are reached by a certain method, regardless of what those ends are.

I've seen a lot of online arguments springing from this fundamental difference of goals. Simulationists are unhappy if the method doesn't match their expectations (which is why design discussions with a simulationist often involves terms like accuracy, precision, and verisimillitude <sp?>) while a narrativist, for example, couldn't care less *how* the end is achieved, as long as it's satisfying.

So, the bottom line is, I think that such simulation *is* in fact gaming. There is a goal, even though the goal lies in performing the act in a certain way, rather than the more familiar goal in result.

Ob. disclaimer: Yes, of course, I am speaking in hypothetical absolutes. There's no such thing as a pure form of any one of these gamers... most narrativists do care somewhat about the means used to achieve the ends etc.

Holy Cow, Batman! This is all coming together....

What simulationism really is.... Why my friends don't get it... Why Jack is incesently asking what you do in my RPG... I finally understand! Thank you! Thank you! THANK YOU!

I am a true simulationist. I once said that, "RPG's should only transfer what happens in reality into mechanics." This was before I ever heard of GNS. You see. I think that simulationism is no different than the other two branches of GNS. It is simply misunderstood. For example, when Ron stated that GNS is about exploring, I didn't understand, for I always took upon an organised quest when playing in a simulationism game. Now I understand that he meant. Simulationism is about interacting with the environment. It's about learning. It's about having a simple effect on the environment and learning something for it. An objective is found in the PROCESS instead of the PREMIS. That is how I'd define it. So is simulationism a game? In the name of my great immature friend, "Hell yeah!"