This is in Indie Game Design, because I want to find games to study and help me become a better designer.

So ... I know there are tons of Sim games (and remember, by Sim game I mean "Exploration of XYZ promoted by Simulationist decision-making") that seem to require much background information before a group can play coherently. Blue Planet, Deadlands, most GURPS, Fading Suns, and so on. All these games require the Players to know about the background and have a shared knowledge-base so that they can properly Explore.

(an aside: I can imagine Sim games based on pop culture (Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, Mario Brothers, etc.) would work well, since the Players can be assumed to know the field. But someone not immersed in pop culture wouldn't have a clue about these things.)

Are there other Sim games out there that don't require this pre-play preparation?

Zak,

I would argue that most of these Sim games don't require so much background information. Seeing as their primary goal is Exploration of Setting, most can be run coherently by filling in the players with a small amount of background, the amount that their characters would know, and exploring from there.

Examples:

- A group consisting of a noble and some mercenaries (or guards) in Fading Suns. The players know the background of the noble's House, and more specifically, of his immediate family and home world. They learn more through play as they travel.

- A group playing Unknown Armies consisting of mostly normal people and one magician or perhaps avatar. They know the basic rudiments of magic, but nothing about the Occult Underground - they learn it during play.

- A group playing Deadlands. They know the town they live in well, know some about their state, and a vague amount about the entire Wild West. They learn more as they encounter weirdness.

I know there are tons of Sim games (and remember, by Sim game I mean "Exploration of XYZ promoted by Simulationist decision-making") that seem to require much background information before a group can play coherently.

Oops, my bad. I should have used participants instead of Players. By learning background information, I mean all parties involved, including the GM. While it's a valid (and common) method to have the GM know about the setting, that still means one participant must spend a bunch of time prepping. I want a Sim game where all participants (GM included) can get together and casually play.

And, no I don't think I have a blind spot (but I could be blind to it, natch). I've played and run games where the GM knows the setting and the Players are novice. These are fun and a fine way to roleplay. For example, I'd love to play Fading Suns with a knowledgable and skilled GM. I'm looking for Sim games without a GM-heavy information (or skill) reliance.

We disagree a lot on this, which may be due to my definition of focused. Here's where I'm coming from:
Tightly Focused: Participants all know the entirety of the game with little prep time; especially where play structure is defined to keep prep time low.
Loosely Focused: One or more participants must really study elements of the game before play; in addition, the actual play structure is not well defined in the game, usually being defined by the GM before play.

I really can't think of a better word for "focused." My distinction probably differs from yours, which probably explains my take on your game examples:

I've run Paranoia once, but that experience was entirely Gamist. Every player decision was based on outliving and killing the other PCs. This could be the group, but I'm guessing it's due to the game in a large part.

d20 CoC is a Gamist rpg. The scenario design method creates mystery, conflict and resolution. It's default mode of play is to fight against the onslaught of darkness. PCs cooperating to beat unnameable horror. While there is a ton of emphasis on creepy atmosphere, the player-decisions will be: Finding out the truth and elimating the truth.

I haven't played Chaosium's CoC in a long time, but it seemed to play out more Sim, though this was way before I knew about GNS.

I haven't played Champions but once in a store about a decade ago, but it does seem like a loosely focused (meaning: Play structure is left to the GM. A lot can happen within the confines of 4-color comic) Exploration of Character & Situation game.

My problem with Fading Suns is that they claim a Narrative Premise, telling a Passion Play, the System doesn't support it. I think we disagree on Sim vs. Narrativism here, though. If you tell a Passion Play, your decisions are going to be based on the Play rather than what would plausibly happen.

I haven't played Pendragon, but yes, it does sound like a tightly focused game. I will try to get a copy of this one.

Feng Shui is definitely a Sim game from my reading (not playing) it. Your PCs will always kick ass, so it's not a matter of competition. It's showing off how awesomely you kick ass. Tightly focused? If you dropped the background setting (or condensed it to a page of reading for both GM and Player), then yep.

I don't know about Shadowrun. I've never played it, and only owned the first edition. It seemed like a Gamist thing, decisions based on winning the mission.

Deadlands & Unknown Armies: Both of these need a knowledgable GM. Deadlands would be a tightly focused game if the metaplot was dropped (which I'm guessing many groups do anyway) and GM prep time brought down with a good scenario design section (or maybe there is one, I haven't read the thing in a long time).

---

Please note that I'm not saying long-prep time or heavy GM-reliance is a bad thing. It's just a common feature of rpgs, and I'm looking for something different. Something a group can pick up and play with little preparation. This is both from a practical standpoint (Monday Night Gaming), and a design one (designing more accessible rpgs)

If you mean that you want examples of publishged games that can be played by a GM who has read less than a single book's worth of information, then, yes, those are going to be rare. But it seems like very little to ask that the GM read just the core book. Unknown Armies is, what, 64 pages of mostly art? That's "loosely focused" because the GM has to read that little? How many words is "tightly focused" then, exactly?

I was using the definition of focused that relates to players having an idea of what to do in play. That's how I read Ron and other's usage. Your definition is expanding on that old usage. Which is fine, I get you.

But we do have different perspectives, as I think that knowing a small book worth of material is not very much to ask. In fact, I personally like absorbing all sorts of Setting material.

Hmm. Universalis without the players selecting a Premise would be a Fairly focused Sim game, I think (though the main game text does reach 20 pages or so).

In general, the technique you're looking for here is to give your players the power to create everything but that "Unknown" that you always talk about on the fly. That unknown will be the center of play and what is to be explored, but must be determined by the GM. Otherwise, you are slipping into Narrativism.

So, your system seems to do that pretty well. In fact I could see a generic Sim system like this where you just roll on tables to see what sort of action occurs. Would result in generic adventures like:

Someone approaches players to retrieve a lost item. When they find the item it turns out that it does not belong to person who sent them.

Or just pick up GURPS lite, and a copy of the latest "The only 32 plots that exist" book.

I don't know how much of an audience there is for such "tightly focused" games. I think that in general that people who like Sim designs in general, don't mind reading the book(s) necessary to have that background to make the game more interesting. OTOH, maybe there's a huge potential market for this out there. I dunno.

Mike

Mike,

I think you're on the money. Role-players are, by and large, readers, and a lot of them like reading concept-heavy books like modern fantasy and SF, with tons of accompaning background. I don't even like to play many of these games, and I still enjoy the hell out of reading them - I couldn't, for example, get enough background on Fading Suns. The concepts were just that fun. I don't think a solid Sim player really minds reading 50 pages of background material.

Clinton

Yeah, this topic has a lousy subject line. Would it be cool to change it? Or should I let it stand?

About gamers being readers: Are most gamers readers because gamers enjoy reading? Or because most mainstream rpgs require reading, so only readers become gamers? As it stands, the current market seems geared towards readers. Hell, I bought Blue Planet knowing I wouldn't ever play the thing :)

Mike,
Yeah, I'm looking for Sim games with extremely low prep time: "GM needs maybe 15-60 minutes (preferably 15) of reading time before the game, Players need no time. Rules explainable in 1 minute or less. PCs generated within 5-15 minutes." Non-Sim games, as examples: Pantheon, Dying Earth Lite (okay, that's something I need to write, not a real product), InSpectres.

A generic Sim system wouldn't be tightly focused. In my space station game, you're always on a space station. You're always dealing with a friend and foe. There's always the same play structure (hook, problem, problem resolved). That's a tight focus. How would you write a generic Sim system with focus? Unless the charts include areas of Exploration, rules on how to Simulation that Exploration, etc. But then, you don't know what you're getting into unless you choose from the charts rather than roll randomly.

Hmm ... after I get done writing Shadows (Narrative base system, and tons of simple add-ons for different Narr. experiences), I'll go ahead and write a Sim base w/ tons of simple Add-ons. Best part about being a game designer: You can just write the games you want.

Mike Holmes wrote:
In general, the technique you're looking for here is to give your players the power to create everything but that "Unknown" that you always talk about on the fly. That unknown will be the center of play and what is to be explored, but must be determined by the GM. Otherwise, you are slipping into Narrativism.

I agree with Clintons thoughts on people buying these books for the joy of the concepts - this is definately one of the biggest draws for me. It's also why I'd be quite happy to buy a setting like blue planet without an attached system - I agree that it is not a game which is focussed. By comparison, Conspiracy X is also sim and concept heavy, but its system is much for focussed and the PC's are a more tightly defined group. I think that sim games probably suffer to an extent from being focussed, in that the creation of structure and explicit pattern of play may work against the freedom to explore anything anywhere that might take your fancy. To some extent, Blue Planet is set up on the expectation that the characters would be engaged in the economic politics of the setting one way or another - but the kind of game I'd be interested in would probably be more on the human in nature theme - shipwrecks, violent weather, unreliable machinery and improvising life-saving equipment out of bottle tops and bits of string. The lack of explicit pre-framing of the play experience gives me the latitude (no pun intended) to do whatever I want in this setting. BP's tacit expectation that I'm running cyberpunk in a faraway land is present, but can be overcome with reasonable ease, more so than the hack job that would be reuqired to turn Con-X's assumptions of play activity ibnto something else.

I recently ran a game using the Elric rules system based vaguely on Clark Ashton Smith and Robert E Howard.

Players were told to use the Elric rules, excluding magic, to create characters who were from distant lands. The details of those lands the players were entirely free to create.

They were told that each character had a powerful need or desire to reach the city of Illyria of the Seven Towers. Why would be up to each player as part of their backstory, provided the motivation was powerful enough.

I then told them that they were presently on a road approaching the city of Khem on the edge of the Great Western Desert, which they needed to cross to reach Illyria.

Note, I have no idea what Illyria is like, I did no prep for Khem, I just made up some in-genre sounding names for places and npcs and prepped one combat in case I dried up and couldn't think of anything.

Frankly, the prep on this took less than an hour for me, probably around half that. The players created their characters on the night and we were playing within half an hour of their arrival. Exploring Khem, trading, robbing a tower guarded by a "big fucking snake", classic pulp fantasy material.

Pure sim, minimal prep, exploration of setting with the setting coming into existence as it was explored, around the characters. It worked very well.

Is there a published game doing this? Not really, people like to see some content in the books they buy and most would get irked if a game said "make up some cool sounding names and then think up the details as you go along". Actual play need not follow the worlds we are given in the games we buy. Explorationist sim style play need not be about the worlds publishers hand us. We can make up our own.

This is why I love Sorceror and Sword so much. A great deal of Ron's advice in that book applies way beyond narrativist play. I see much of it as damn near a manifesto about what fantasy can be like if we liberate our thinking a little. That manifesto works for all three playstyles.

I think all of this is why you won't find what you're looking for on the shelves. I am presently running a game using Pendragon rules, again pure sim but the world is entirely my own. People do what you're looking for at home with their players, it's not on the shelves waiting for them. The games are being played, they're just not being sold.

Exploration requires a rich world, but the world need not be there until the characters reach it. The richness evolves in play. Sim without extensive prep, without heavy reading, just playing and seeing how it goes.

Hmm - but IS this still sim play? I really, really hate the idea of creating the setting on the fly, either by players or GM's.

contracycle wrote: Hmm - but IS this still sim play? I really, really hate the idea of creating the setting on the fly, either by players or GM's.

Well explained, I see what you mean.

Balbinus wrote:
Is there a published game doing this? Not really, people like to see some content in the books they buy and most would get irked if a game said "make up some cool sounding names and then think up the details as you go along".

Clinton R Nixon wrote:
Role-players are, by and large, readers, and a lot of them like reading concept-heavy books like modern fantasy and SF, with tons of accompaning background. I don't even like to play many of these games, and I still enjoy the hell out of reading them - I couldn't, for example, get enough background on Fading Suns. The concepts were just that fun. I don't think a solid Sim player really minds reading 50 pages of background material.

Mike Holmes wrote: In general, the technique you're looking for here is to give your players the power to create everything but that "Unknown" that you always talk about on the fly. That unknown will be the center of play and what is to be explored, but must be determined by the GM. Otherwise, you are slipping into Narrativism.