Okay, for the sake of experimentation, I tried to design a game with a Sim-supportive System (Exploration of Character and Situation). And by game, I mean there's play structure involved.

It's not Narrative, because there's no narrative Premise. It's not Gamist because there's no win or lose. it's just "Here's your Characters, here's your Situations, what do you do?"

Am I on the right track, here?

http://www.livejournal.com/talkread.bml?journal=zaka&itemid=48121

I sense some hidden agenda.

When you ask if you are on the right track, what do you mean? Yes, I suppose this would qualify as a Sim game, with Exploration of Situation as the primary focus. That Situation being a crew in an isolated spaceship. The conflict set up is near Narrativist, actually, but so broad as to potentially be Sim I suppose.

OTOH, it's a bit weak. But then I suspect that you weren't trying to make a complete game so much as to create an experiment that covers the Sim definition. In other words, there's not a whole lot to explore. Doesn't much fire the ole' imagination. But it does provide the barest of frameworks.

Does that help?

Mike

Well, I'm trying to nail down Sim design in its simplest form, while sticking to "complete rpg needs structure!"

I want to know if the System supports the Sim approach of Exploration of Character & Situation. Exploration of Character = How does my PC work with others, and what is my PC capable of. Exploration of Situation = How does my PC cope with hardship.

And there's no hidden agenda I'm aware of. Just Sim design with a play structure. If I wanted to expand on the game, I would provide tons of Setting and Color, example Characters & Situations. This game gets Setting out of the way during Character Creation, and Situation is created by the GM. Though the GM still has legwork to do, what to do is explicitly given in the rules, rather than some vague "GM Tips."

Well, I think you've got a Sim design. Now what?

Mike

Now what? Nothing. I was just thinking about Sim design. Maybe it becomes a Harlekin-Maus game of the month.

I've seen proponents who enjoy the fact that there isn't a structure. Just a resolution system and a bunch of background material. While that's all good, I wanted to see a complete game.

After the big debates, I wasn't sure it was possible. It looked like Sim design might not allow for a structured game. So I tried designing one. And voila! It looks good to me, and I wanted to get others' opinions. If I designed a game that supports G or N more than S with its System, it's be back to the drawing board.

I think that what you refer to as "Vauge GM tips" are not really all that vague. At least not to me. I'd certainly get more out of GURPS space on the subject of potential adventures, than what you have.

You seem to be concerned that there is some lack of explicitness in Sim games in describing what sort of action should occur, but I never have that problem. At the very worst games resort to published material that can give you an idea of what a session should look like, or the obligatory "Sample Adventure". In fact, most games go overboard with statements like, "the GM will have to prepare adventures that include encounters and maps", yadda, yadda, for the edification of those who've never played. Seems pretty explicit to me.

Not all RPGs need explicit adventure structure to be focused (or complete, whatever that means). Superhero RPGs, frex, are plenty focused just based on the situation that all the characters are superheroes. The best Sim RPGs out there have plenty of focus, structure or no.

Mike

Heres whats missing from this proposal: a model of isolation stress. You have some nods in this direction with Tension and Cameraderie, but deliberate Exploration of such isolationism would need to more, well, strongly simulated. A sim game about isolation would need as much commitment to isolation mechanics as a combat sim game devotes to combat. You need both overt and subtle ways to make that conflict important.

The other thing that sim players would likely expect in such a setting is lots of detail on the ship. Seeing as that is where all play will occur, detail will become very important.

What's the situation?

I mean, sure, they're on a ship or station. Why? What's it like? Why do they have to work together?

This isn't really sim to me, it's narrativist light. What is the relevance of the space element? Would the game be any different if they were lighthouse men or working on an oil tanker?

There doesn't seem much to explore.

Why do games have to have a purpose anyway? There seems to be a presumption floating around on the net at the moment that rpgs need to have some kind of iconic play experience, a goal, a type of adventure which the system is explicitly designed to reinforce. Except in certain very broad and not terribly useful senses I'm just not convinced this is true. True for narrativist and perhaps gamist, sure, but not for sim.

Blue Planet does not have an iconic play experience, nor does Fading Suns. They have interesting and rich environments to explore and act within instead. They don't have purpose and I would suggest would fail to work as good sim games if they did.

What are you trying to achieve here?

Mike Holmes wrote: I think that what you refer to as "Vauge GM tips" are not really all that vague. At least not to me. I'd certainly get more out of GURPS space on the subject of potential adventures, than what you have.

Balbinus wrote: Why do games have to have a purpose anyway? There seems to be a presumption floating around on the net at the moment that rpgs need to have some kind of iconic play experience, a goal, a type of adventure which the system is explicitly designed to reinforce. Except in certain very broad and not terribly useful senses I'm just not convinced this is true. True for narrativist and perhaps gamist, sure, but not for sim.