Topic: Toward a Sense, If Not a Theory, of Simulationism
Started by: Supplanter
Started on: 6/17/2001
Board: GNS Model Discussion
On 6/17/2001 at 2:52pm, Supplanter wrote:
Toward a Sense, If Not a Theory, of Simulationism
Taking off from some p-mail I got this morning...
The question is how to characterize the goals of simulationist play and not just its taboos. Simulation is "Let's Pretend" in its pure form. Call it escapism or what-have-you. It's a way for (putative) adults to convince themselves that the invented reality (the game world) is out there. It is little girls at tea. It is James Doohan arguing with the director for ten minutes that, goddammit, you activate the transporter by pulling the lever down, not pushing it up, and refusing to yield because goddammit, I know how the transporter really works! It's Loren Wiseman telling me at an Origins that Yes, Hundred Billion Credit Squadron would be an order of magnitude more playable than Trillion Credit Squadron, but that Trillion Credit Squadron is nice because "that way you have as much as a real imperial battle squadron costs," with no sense at all that, by real-world standards, what he has just said is a complete absurdity.
At one pole it is accounting (Rolemaster), at the other, poetry (Amber, when played in simulationist style). The core question of simulationism is precisely the core question of poetry: "What's it like?" The difference in mechanical detail is purely about finding the terms that will make the answer to "What's it like?" intelligible to a particular audience.
The simulationist player does not desire to live out a story of dragonslaying but to live in a world of dragons. This is very hard because the truth is, you can't do that. The successful pretense must be energetic, even zealous. Some schmuck who comes along and tells you it doesn't matter which way you push the fucking slider on the transporter panel can really wreck the mood. This is why, if you read simulationist advocacy with an unsympathetic eye, so much of it seems so anal-retentive: it is hard work keeping your shit together.
The simulationist player wants a sense of life. The simulationist GM wants that and maybe a sense of history. Since, as both Ron and Mytholder have argued from their different perspectives, Story != Life, story values are a subversion of simulationist values. (I have hinted that the reverse is probably not true.)
That doesn't mean there aren't literary models for simulationism. There might be more literary models for simulationism than for dramatism or whatever you want to call it - poetry, biography, travel literature, the anglo-saxon chronicle. An especially pointful contrast might be between a Hero Wars scenario and a King of Dragon Pass session. KoDP generates the clan record. The clan record has a certain voice. It has recurrences of phrasing that give it a certain stylistic integrity. While this comes directly from the text-generating algorithms of the program, the effect is not dissimilar to the repetition of epithets in Homeric poetry or viking saga. It is a document, a history, a chronicle. It can grow rich with the reader's retrospective recognition of emergent themes and arcs of triumph or failure. (Damn, look at my horse count dropping over those ten years!) What it is not is a story. It is the trace pattern of simulationism at work.
Best,
Jim
On 6/17/2001 at 8:50pm, Mytholder wrote:
RE: Toward a Sense, If Not a Theory, of Simulationism
What he said.
On 6/18/2001 at 3:46pm, greyorm wrote:
RE: Toward a Sense, If Not a Theory, of Simulationism
The core question of simulationism is...: "What's it like?"
The simulationist player does not desire to live out a story of dragonslaying but to live in a world of dragons.
so much of it seems so anal-retentive: it is hard work keeping your shit together.
Agreement and agreement, then a query:
Are you saying you can't have a highly detailed world of raving complexity and be a Narrativist?
Since, as both Ron and Mytholder have argued from their different perspectives, Story != Life, story values are a subversion of simulationist values. (I have hinted that the reverse is probably not true.)
I don't follow, clarify?
The simulationist player wants a sense of life. The simulationist GM wants that and maybe a sense of history.
That doesn't mean there aren't literary models for simulationism. There might be more literary models for simulationism than for dramatism or whatever you want to call it - poetry, biography, travel literature, the anglo-saxon chronicle.
What it is not is a story. It is the trace pattern of simulationism at work.
Agreement; as someone else said, the world would continue ticking along even if the GM weren't there pulling the strings. So, question, if I create this sort of world and run a Narrativist game in it, am I suddenly Simulationist?
That is, I focus on plotting concerns and story-concerns for the characters and allow those things to modify the results of their actions instead of what should happen given the factors in play?
(ex: ability with sword is normally detailed by strength, skill and weapon quality; I ignore this and make ability with sword equal to thematic importance of ability with sword for a character at a given time)
It would still be a Simulationist world, since it would "keep on ticking", and that would satisfy the "sense of life" requirement, correct?
Or would the Simulationist be turned off by the use of theme and character-conflict importance to modify situational randomizers (dice) and course of action?
As to the rest, excellent...you've solved a portion of a problem for me in your description of Simulationist literature. But how do you decide that an autobiography is not a "story" and is there a better word for it than "story"? (that particular word has too many connotations for my tastes)
On 6/18/2001 at 4:20pm, Mytholder wrote:
RE: Toward a Sense, If Not a Theory, of Simulationism
On 2001-06-18 11:46, greyorm wrote:
The core question of simulationism is...: "What's it like?"
The simulationist player does not desire to live out a story of dragonslaying but to live in a world of dragons.
so much of it seems so anal-retentive: it is hard work keeping your shit together.
Agreement and agreement, then a query:
Are you saying you can't have a highly detailed world of raving complexity and be a Narrativist?
No, but at some point, you're probably going to encounter a situation where the world pulls one way and the story pulls another way - and then you'll have to make a choice.
Here's an example: The PCs are fighting on top of a dam. A certain distance away is an airbase from which a squadron of jet fighters have just been launched. The jet fighters are going to blow up the dam once they arrive. Will the PCs defeat their enemies and make it off the dam before it's blown to kingdom come.
In a narrativist game, the jet fighters fly at the speed of plot. If it makes more story sense for them to blow the dam just as the pcs leap to safety, or for the pcs to heroically spend their lives keeping the enemies trapped on the dam, or whatever, that's what happens. The jets arrive whenever it suits the story.
In a simulationist game, the jets fly however fast jets fly. They'll arrive in six rounds of combat or however long they'd normally take. They fly at the same speed no matter what's going on. If the PCs wipe out the enemies in one round, stroll off the dam in another, and then have to sit around on the grass waiting another four rounds for the jets to arrive, that's fine. It's not an exciting story, but it's an accurate simulation of what would happen in the world.
That's not to say that dramatic things can't happen in a simulationist game, it's just that they don't happen for the sake of being dramatic.
Agreement; as someone else said, the world would continue ticking along even if the GM weren't there pulling the strings. So, question, if I create this sort of world and run a Narrativist game in it, am I suddenly Simulationist?
That is, I focus on plotting concerns and story-concerns for the characters and allow those things to modify the results of their actions instead of what should happen given the factors in play?
No, that's narrativist - or dramatist, or whatever, but it's not simulationist. "What should happen" MUST happen for simulationism.
(ex: ability with sword is normally detailed by strength, skill and weapon quality; I ignore this and make ability with sword equal to thematic importance of ability with sword for a character at a given time)
It would still be a Simulationist world, since it would "keep on ticking", and that would satisfy the "sense of life" requirement, correct?
Nope. If I'm fighting that guy, and he suddenly becomes mysteriously "better", and the only reason he's becoming better is 'cos it makes story sense...then yuck. The GM is "cheating". Real people don't magically become "better" like that. My sense of life is violated 'cos the GM has just broken the rules of the world.
(Now, you could have a setting where some heroes can draw upon superhuman reserves of strength, and still keep it simulationist - but that would be done using a mechanic along the lines of l5r's void points, and not by a drama-based thing that kicks in only when it suits the story.)
Or would the Simulationist be turned off by the use of theme and character-conflict importance to modify situational randomizers (dice) and course of action?
Exactly. The world takes precedence over story. Theme and character-conflict DO NOT EXIST in the world, and therefore cannot be allowed to affect the world.
What we're talking about here, of course, is hard-core extreme simulationism, and most gms won't be so strict. I'll happily wobble between Simulationism and Narrativism depending on the game...
As to the rest, excellent...you've solved a portion of a problem for me in your description of Simulationist literature. But how do you decide that an autobiography is not a "story" and is there a better word for it than "story"? (that particular word has too many connotations for my tastes)
Simulationism can be seen as a story *after the fact*. You can look back and say "wow, that's a really good story, with themes and conflicts and drama and everything"...as long as that story was generated entirely by in-game, in-world, in-character actions and events, and the GM (or players) didn't use any out-of-world influence to "tweak" the game.
(Thinking about it, this doesn't mean that simulationism is strictly actor-stance only. It just means that anything the players come up with is subject to an informal group veto if it doesn't fit the simulation. A simulationist player might assert that the group will probably find goblins in them that hills, and the GM might then add goblins to the hill region based on the player's idea - but only if it fits the simulation. If the goblins couldn't logically live in those hills - because of the great green goblineater that dwells there - they're not there.)
[ This Message was edited by: Mytholder on 2001-06-18 12:22 ]
On 6/18/2001 at 5:57pm, greyorm wrote:
RE: Toward a Sense, If Not a Theory, of Simulationism
No, but at some point, you're probably going to encounter a situation where the world pulls one way and the story pulls another way - and then you'll have to make a choice.
[Example snipped] Ok, that is what I would say as well, just wanted to make sure I understood where you were coming from.
mysteriously "better", and the only reason he's becoming better is 'cos it makes story sense...then yuck. The GM is "cheating". Real people don't magically become "better" like that.
(Now, you could have a setting where some heroes can draw upon superhuman reserves of strength, and still keep it simulationist - but that would be done using a mechanic along the lines of l5r's void points, and not by a drama-based thing that kicks in only when it suits the story.)
Interesting...isn't the Void mechanic Narrative, then? I personally perfer to run things that way, with heroic events occuring by expenditure of heroic power (Though notably I'll twist things up for a better story (usually retroactively)).
Example: the characters slew an important NPC sorcerer after a lengthy chase and change-of-heart about the guy. A session or two later, I decided the sorcerer had survived in order to help move the plot forward and keep the game from stagnating...via the use of a healing elixir he kept on him (which was written before they defeated him, he just never had the chance to use them).
Thus it is possible and reasonable that he would have managed to swallow the elixir and stave off death, though it was done more to add a way out to a rough point in the story. Simulationist or Narrative?
(I say Narrative because of the intent...but I'm believing less and less that intent has anything to do with it)
Back to the above question...the inclusion of the Void mechanic in a Simulationist game supports what I said elsewhere about the current disagreement over dramatism/simulationism...you can have a narrative methodology as your ruleset to simulate...in this case you couldn't do things to violate the narrative conventions for non-dramatic concerns.
(Follow? Or am I being obtuse?)
A simulationist player might assert that the group will probably find goblins in them that hills, and the GM might then add goblins to the hill region based on the player's idea - but only if it fits the simulation. If the goblins couldn't logically live in those hills - because of the great green goblineater that dwells there - they're not there.)
Interesting. Hrm.
Thanks!
__________________________________________
-Ravenscrye Grey Daegmorgan
http://www.daegmorgan.net
"Homer, your growing insanity is starting to bother me."
[ This Message was edited by: greyorm on 2001-06-18 13:58 ]
On 6/18/2001 at 6:24pm, Supplanter wrote:
RE: Toward a Sense, If Not a Theory, of Simulationism
Raven's brought forth some excellent questions, most of which Mytholder has responded to in ways that leave me nothing to add. A couple of things:
Interesting...isn't the Void mechanic Narrative, then?
Could someone take pity on the L5R ignoramus and tell me how the Void mechanic works?
(I say Narrative because of the intent...but I'm believing less and less that intent has anything to do with it)
I agree: Narrative because of the intent. I disagree with the second part: intent has everything to do with it. RPGs are intentional acts. It's precisely intentionality that is the proper object of a universal model.
...you can have a narrative methodology as your ruleset to simulate...in this case you couldn't do things to violate the narrative conventions for non-dramatic concerns.
(Follow? Or am I being obtuse?)
Well I don't know. :wink:
In certain moods, I would be willing to argue that the core question for any game designer is: How did Michael Jordan do it?
Jordan was not just gifted. He had a particular gift for, in rpg terms, getting successful action checks when they were most needed. He could shoot 30% for three quarters and then string together a dozen buckets in a row in the fourth. IOW, he had an unfailing gift for rising to the occasion. This was never more true than in his last years (so far!) when age had taken something of the edge off his purely physical ability.
It is especially Late Jordan whom I think is the conundrum game design must solve.
One possible answer is, "Michael Jordan was the hero of his own story. Plot points represent his ability to write the reality of his life to his liking."
Another: "Michael Jordan had reserves of will and fortitude the rest of us can only imagine. Therefore we give him lots of these hero points."
Another: "Michael Jordan was the great captain of an army of one: himself. When you watch the late career games, what you see is a man who knows how to pick his spots, to save his limited reserves for when they are most needed. As the saying goes, 'Amateurs talk strategy; generals talk logistics.' Michael Jordan was his own general."
An Amber answer: "Michael Jordan was first-ranked in Endurance. He allowed his opponents to wear down around him, then struck."
Fudge: "Hey, have you noticed that skills aren't linked to attributes? Jordan changed his game over the course of his career, by expanding his skill set and increasing his existing abilities. How about that fallaway jumper?? In the last years, he was able to make skill rolls where he would earlier have been making attribute rolls - just as his attributes were dropping."
The above list includes narrative, gamist and simulationist answers. Most of the answers are probably simulationist in one way or another. The reasons there are more simulationist answers are, I submit, my own bias, and the fact that the simulationist question "What's it like?" species "What's it like to be the late Michael Jordan?" admits of various answers.
Best,
Jim
On 6/18/2001 at 7:49pm, Mytholder wrote:
RE: Toward a Sense, If Not a Theory, of Simulationism
On 2001-06-18 15:49, Mytholder wrote:
For those who don't know L5R - Void is a special statistic humans and some other creatures have in L5R. It represents a connection with the universe, inner power, ki, etc. You can spend a void point to power certain mystical abilities, roll an extra dice. Some GMs allow PCs to use void to alter events retroactively, avoid death etc.
Ok...is Void narrativist? Not necessarily. It's not quite a metagame mechanic. It can be played as such - and works well as such, no question of it. It's not a purely metagame mechanic, though - my CHARACTER can be aware of the void. Void can be regained by the CHARACTER meditating or performing the tea ceremony. Void doesn't necessarily have to be a metagame thing - it can be done entirely in-game. Characters in the l5r world might know that heroes have access to great inner reserves of power.
(Void can be considered gamist, too, of course. It's a resource to be marshalled and managed.)
(Hmm. How's this for a definition of simulationism: Simulationism is the style where you never see the GM's fingerprints in the game....)
Example: the characters slew an important NPC sorcerer after a lengthy chase and change-of-heart about the guy. A session or two later, I decided the sorcerer had survived in order to help move the plot forward and keep the game from stagnating...via the use of a healing elixir he kept on him (which was written before they defeated him, he just never had the chance to use them).
Thus it is possible and reasonable that he would have managed to swallow the elixir and stave off death, though it was done more to add a way out to a rough point in the story. Simulationist or Narrative?
(I say Narrative because of the intent...but I'm believing less and less that intent has anything to do with it)
Could be either. It comes down largely to intent, though. If you'd added the healing potion just because it would make a better story that he'd survive, that's a narrative-based decision. (Equally, if it's better for the story that he dies, and you make the potion disappear, that's narrative-based.). A simulationist would think "if he's got the potion, he'll survive. If he doesn't have the potion, he'll die. Would he logically, in terms of the game world, have a potion? Well...he knows he's being chased. He could probably buy a potion. It makes sense that he did. Ok, he's got a potion. Now, did he drink it in time? Hmm. *rolls dice*. Nope. He's dead."
Any help?
Back to the above question...the inclusion of the Void mechanic in a Simulationist game supports what I said elsewhere about the current disagreement over dramatism/simulationism...you can have a narrative methodology as your ruleset to simulate...in this case you couldn't do things to violate the narrative conventions for non-dramatic concerns.
Hmm. You can have a narrative methodology which you're trying to simulate, but you have to stick to it. If the rules of the world are "characters can do whatever is dramatically appropriate for that character", then you can't change that mid-game. Let's say we're playing a swashbuckling game in pre-revolution France. My character, Louis de Montfort, can duel a hundred men at once, leap from his horse to a convientent chandelier no matter where he is, and generally can do whatever story logic would allow him to do.
Ok...now, Louis is riding to the home of his current amour, Mme Souffle, when he spies the dastardly villian & englishment, Evil Bob, kidnapping her. The GM thinks it would make a better story if Louis' horse breaks its leg now, so Louis cannot pursue this minuteand must instead embark on a long quest to rescue Mme Souffle.
The horse breaking its leg is a purely narrative-based call by the GM. There's no in-world reason for the horse to break its leg there. It's not called for by the story logic. It's an intrusion from outside the world.
(At this point, I'm feeling dizzy and confused myself. We're breaking simulationism here - adding this many dramatic elements means you're playing a dramatist game...)
[ This Message was edited by: Mytholder on 2001-06-18 16:07 ]
[ This Message was edited by: Mytholder on 2001-06-18 16:08 ]
On 6/18/2001 at 9:24pm, Epoch wrote:
RE: Toward a Sense, If Not a Theory, of Simulationism
(Hmm. How's this for a definition of simulationism: Simulationism is the style where you never see the GM's fingerprints in the game....)
It's been used, essentially. The RGFA denizens speak of the "ugly hand of the GM" or some-such, when speaking of Simulationism.
It suffers all the usual problems with a Simulationist definition -- it describes the style of play be the absense of something.
On 6/18/2001 at 9:41pm, james_west wrote:
RE: Toward a Sense, If Not a Theory, of Simulationism
I have very much liked the discussion on this thread, especially the jet-fighter-and-dam example. It is such a good example of the distinction between simulationism and narrativism, it probably ought to be included in the FAQ.
On 6/19/2001 at 12:35am, greyorm wrote:
RE: Toward a Sense, If Not a Theory, of Simulationism
Raven's brought forth some excellent questions, most of which Mytholder has responded to in ways that leave me nothing to add. A couple of things:
Thank you!
I disagree with the second part: intent has everything to do with it. RPGs are intentional acts. It's precisely intentionality that is the proper object of a universal model.
You are right, allow me to rephrase:
Intent is not the ONLY factor to be considered.
Too often, I think it is, but its too vague and unobservable to serve as the only basis for categorization.
simulationist answers are, I submit, my own bias, and the fact that the simulationist question "What's it like?" species "What's it like to be the late Michael Jordan?" admits of various answers.
Of course when one tries to apply gaming methodology to real-life situations, one will usually refer to Simulationist techniques, because the real world isn't a story, and I'm not the 'avatar' of some other being or presence out there looking to face challenges. In other words, a game and real-life, even a novel and real-life, aren't comparable things.
On 6/23/2001 at 5:50pm, Justin Bacon wrote:
RE: Toward a Sense, If Not a Theory, of Simulationism
In certain moods, I would be willing to argue that the core question for any game designer is: How did Michael Jordan do it?
I wouldn't go so far as to say that this is a "core question for any game designer". In a typical D&D game, for example, I don't really have much interest in the level of detail necessary to model Jordan's "saving my energy for one big push" -- although I could, if I wanted to.
A very narrativist way of doing this would be to require the expenditure of Hero Points or Luck Points or Character Points or whatever your local equivalent may be.
Another way of modelling it from a narrativist perspective would be a rule which say "in any extended encounter -- such as a basketball game or a conflict with -- Heroes receive greater pluses as the encounter reaches an end". This would also be a great way of modelling POWER RANGERS -- where the characters always postpone using the "big attack that always beats the enemy" until the last five minutes of the show.
A simulationist way of handling this would be to let a character expend "fatigue points" in order to get a bonus on their skill roles. Jordan saves his energy in the early parts of the game (conserving his "fatigue points"), but in the fourth quarter he puts all of his effort into it (spending his "fatigue points"). The downside would be that, if the game went into overtime, Jordan would be tired (because he's spent fatigue points) and would start suffering penalties.
Another way to do it would be to introduce some sort of "strategy" mechanic for extended skill use. For example, in D&D3 I might create a Feat called "Strategy". In any situation where multiple action resolutions are required to reach a given result (a basketball game, melee with orcs, climbing Mt. Everest, whatever) I can create bonus points for use in one place by giving myself penalties somewhere else. Thus Jordan would have the "Strategy" feat, and be penalizing his skill rolls in the early part of the game, as he conserves energy for a really big push at the end.
Justin Bacon
triad3204@aol.com
On 6/24/2001 at 1:18am, greyorm wrote:
RE: Toward a Sense, If Not a Theory, of Simulationism
detail necessary to model Jordan's "saving my energy for one big push" -- although I could, if I wanted to.
A very narrativist way of doing this would be to require the expenditure of Hero Points or Luck Points or Character Points or whatever your local equivalent may be.
Another way of modelling it from a narrativist perspective would be a rule which say "in any extended encounter -- such as a basketball game or a conflict with -- Heroes receive greater pluses as the encounter reaches an end".
Hrm...none of that sounds very Narrativist to me. It seems to me the question in the Narrative would be "How does the importance of making that shot reflect on the character's current attempt at (literature-defined-->) conflict resolution?" and any modifiers would be based on the answer to that.
On 6/24/2001 at 5:51pm, JohnMorrow wrote:
RE: Toward a Sense, If Not a Theory, of Simulationism
On 2001-06-18 17:24, Epoch wrote:
It suffers all the usual problems with a Simulationist definition -- it describes the style of play be the absense of something.
FYI, my current thinking is that Simulationism (in the r.g.f.a sense) is the absence of other styles. This actually explains one of David Berkman's continued claims on r.g.f.a that is games were also Simulationist as well as Dramatist (r.g.f.a sense). I sometime think that the Threefold is flawwed because it would be better to represent things as Simulation (as the absense of any metagame) being the baseline with various metagame considerations (story, challenge, social factors, etc.) built on top of it. Games are simulationist by default and are something else by adding something. It is like a salad with dressing on it and some people, like my wife, like their salads without dressing. Any dressing will spoil the salad for them.
On 7/1/2001 at 3:52pm, Supplanter wrote:
RE: Toward a Sense, If Not a Theory, of Simulationism
Note: For the purposes of the following post, I use "simulationism" in the rgfa sense as I understand it. I write without reference to the use of the term in the GNS model.
I sometime think that the Threefold is flawed because it would be better to represent things as Simulation (as the absense of any metagame) being the baseline with various metagame considerations (story, challenge, social factors, etc.) built on top of it. Games are simulationist by default and are something else by adding something. It is like a salad with dressing on it and some people, like my wife, like their salads without dressing. Any dressing will spoil the salad for them.
I've been thinking about this idea for a few days, and I almost wonder if, for the purposes of building a theory from the ground up, it isn't exactly backwards. (I also wonder if it may be, horror of horrors, simulationist bias that would lead one to see simulationism as the root condition from which all other gaming styles spring. :wink:)
But here's what I mean by "backwards." For the purposes of a "from the ground up" theory, shouldn't one start from the purely social end and work one's way into various styles? We are folks before we are gamers, and we are a bunch of folks in a room (real or virtual) or a bunch of folks on a mailing list, before we are gamers. I've tried to get various theorists to add "Dude mode" to their stance lists with no success. Damn if I don't keep trying.
The social concerns of human beings become "metagame concerns" only at a relatively late stage of the negotiations and interactions. First someone says, "There's this guy," or "I know a place," or "See if you can beat this." If someone else says, "And this guy does X" and the first person says, "No he does not" or "I know a better place" or "All right, I beat," you need principles for resolving the conflict: "Get your own guy," or "I'm the There's This Place Guy, not you" or, "Come on, you only beat if you get to the last purple square first." Or whatever.
Gaming styles, stances and techniques can all be seen as negations of and limits on Pure Dude Mode. When all those paradoxes that philosophers and critics like Frederick Turner and Richard Wilbur and others who talk about limits (rules) as generative come into play, the negations produce positive outcomes: a story, a contest, a shared experience.
Way way down the line, simulationism abjures the metagame entirely - except of course for the impurity it can not shed, which is itself, the desire to embrace the game world purely on its own terms being itself a metagame desire.
Now the difficulties I see immediately are as follows:
1) The model can be seen as classing simulationism as some ultimate achievement. Is this not also prima facie evidence of simulationist bias?
2) The theoretical model does not match the chronological development of the hobby, at least if the frame of reference is early 70s to now. One has to assert that the true history of the hobby stretches back through shah mat and includes tall tale competitions, children's playtimes and drinking contests, among other things, to make Dude-Minus even vaguely fit the historical record.
However, I discovered in a p-mail exchange this weekend that it no longer troubles me especially that simulationism is classically defined as a negation and is the only style so defined. After all, if we have a theory of religion in which only Zen is defined as a negation, that does not mean we need a better definition of Zen.
Thoughts?
Best,
Jim
_________________
-----------------------------------------
Let's start a ridiculous trend
You and I, let's pretend
We know what's going on
Tim Finn, End of a Popular Song
[ This Message was edited by: Supplanter on 2001-07-01 11:53 ]
[ This Message was edited by: Supplanter on 2001-07-01 11:57 ]
[ This Message was edited by: Supplanter on 2001-07-01 12:03 ]
On 7/1/2001 at 6:07pm, JohnMorrow wrote:
RE: Toward a Sense, If Not a Theory, of Simulationism
On 2001-07-01 11:52, Supplanter wrote:
I've been thinking about this idea for a few days, and I almost wonder if, for the purposes of building a theory from the ground up, it isn't exactly backwards. (I also wonder if it may be, horror of horrors, simulationist bias that would lead one to see simulationism as the root condition from which all other gaming styles spring. :wink:)
Yes, I'd say that the original r.g.f.a Threefold has Simulationist bias. More specifically, I would say it has an Immersive Simulationist bias. And I'm perfectly willing to consider than anything I say has that bias, as well.
The reason I'm tossing that out is that David Berkman always asserted that he ran Simulationist games using Theatrix (which is a problematic assertion for both the Threefold and GNS as it stands). My reasoning is that if Simulationism is the absence of megagame and Gamism and Dramatism are defined by metagame concerns, then when those modes of play hit situations where their metagame concerns are not in play, they will default to no metagame -- or Simulationism.
Simulationism has always been easier to define by saying what it isn't instead of what it is. I realize why people are uncomfortable with defining it that way but I think that trying to define it in other ways often only confuses what it is. It is like a vaccuum. It is easier to define what it is the absence of than to define what it is.
But here's what I mean by "backwards." For the purposes of a "from the ground up" theory, shouldn't one start from the purely social end and work one's way into various styles? We are folks before we are gamers, and we are a bunch of folks in a room (real or virtual) or a bunch of folks on a mailing list, before we are gamers. I've tried to get various theorists to add "Dude mode" to their stance lists with no success. Damn if I don't keep trying.
I frequently mention the Social axis. I think it is legitimate. But if you remove Social concerns, Drama concerns, and Game concerns, what are we left with? On the other hand, if we remove Simulationist world concerns along with everything else, what are we left with? Can you imagine a game like that? Can you imagine a game in which every decision is always Dramatist or Gamist and never simply Simulationist (i.e. simply what would happen in the game world)?
The social concerns of human beings become "metagame concerns" only at a relatively late stage of the negotiations and interactions. First someone says, "There's this guy," or "I know a place," or "See if you can beat this." If someone else says, "And this guy does X" and the first person says, "No he does not" or "I know a better place" or "All right, I beat," you need principles for resolving the conflict: "Get your own guy," or "I'm the There's This Place Guy, not you" or, "Come on, you only beat if you get to the last purple square first." Or whatever.
[more text deleted]
Sorry, but I found that very confusing. :smile:
What I think you are trying to say is that the metagame stuff comes up only when decisions are made. If so, I'd point out that the r.g.f.a Threefold is a model designed to describe how decisions are made. It does a very poor job of describing the difference between the "set up" of a scenario and how it plays out. That's one of its flaws, in my opinion. since it confuses a lot of people.
Way way down the line, simulationism abjures the metagame entirely - except of course for the impurity it can not shed, which is itself, the desire to embrace the game world purely on its own terms being itself a metagame desire.
Yes. This is a very good way to describe it, I think.
Now the difficulties I see immediately are as follows:
1) The model can be seen as classing simulationism as some ultimate achievement. Is this not also prima facie evidence of simulationist bias?
Any of the modes can be cast as an ultimate achievement, especially by making negative comparisions to other styles. Dramatism is frequently described as an evolutionary achievement by its advocates. But this if one of the major problems with defining Simulationism in relation to the other styles.
The important thing to remember here is that simulationism often produces what can only be called bad games. Players and GMs can be quite unhappy with the results. Mary Kuhner, one of the principle IC Simulationists on r.g.f.a, has come to use Dramatist metagame techniques to insure that her games don't collapse in the way that Simulationist games have a tendency to. A more negative (and perhaps tragic :smile: ) way of describing Simulationists might be that hey are willing to have a game be disappointing because they are more disappointed by the techniques that might otherwise prevent a game from being disappointing. It is, in many ways, a lesser of two evils style of play. And that's why I think so many people who aren't Simulationists don't understand why anyone would want to play that way. "Why would you want to allow your game to be disappointing when there are so many metagame techniques that could prevent it?" Because the techniques are even more dispappointing to a Simulationist than the collapse of the game.
Another way of thinking of it is to simply say that Simulationism is vanilla role-playing without any of the metagame techniques that you could use to help you produce a certain type of game that might be more satisfying to many people.
2) The theoretical model does not match the chronological development of the hobby, at least if the frame of reference is early 70s to now. One has to assert that the true history of the hobby stretches back through shah mat and includes tall tale competitions, children's playtimes and drinking contests, among other things, to make Dude-Minus even vaguely fit the historical record.
I don't think the model has to match the development of the hobby. I think this line of thinking produces a different sort of "ultimate achievement". A lot of Dramatists, in my experience, fall into the "evolution" trap where they think that gamers should evolve from Gamists through Simulationists into Dramatists. WotC marketing data suggests that most people don't change styles and my own experience is that many of the people who have a profound and wonderful experience playing Dramatist games were often Dramatists trapped in the wrong style of play, not Simulationists or Gamist who evolved into Dramatists. I am sure some people change over time. I simply don't think that the change is common, inevitable, or necessary.
However, I discovered in a p-mail exchange this weekend that it no longer troubles me especially that simulationism is classically defined as a negation and is the only style so defined. After all, if we have a theory of religion in which only Zen is defined as a negation, that does not mean we need a better definition of Zen.
Well, Atheism is best defined as an absence of religion. That doesn't mean that it is better than religion. Simply that a absence of all religion can exist. The other styles involve using specific metagame techniques to get specific results. Simulation is an absense of metagame and, as a result, it cannot guarantee specific results. That's the big negative. A purely simulationist game can end with all the PCs dead in the first session and the evil overlord taking over and enslaving the world, much to the dissatisfaction of everyone involved. I'm aware that pure Simulationism isn't for everyone but I do think that there is quite a bit of Simulationist decisionmaking sprinkled in many games.
On 7/1/2001 at 7:55pm, Knight wrote:
RE: Toward a Sense, If Not a Theory, of Simulationism
Well, I've now seen people accuse the original threefold of being byassed towards all three direction. For the record, I tend to think it leant towards dramatism.
I frequently mention the Social axis. I think it is legitimate. But if you remove Social concerns, Drama concerns, and Game concerns, what are we left with? On the other hand, if we remove Simulationist world concerns along with everything else, what are we left with? Can you imagine a game like that? Can you imagine a game in which every decision is always Dramatist or Gamist and never simply Simulationist (i.e. simply what would happen in the game world)?
I don't think this is just a simulationist thing - you can't acheive total purity of any of the elements. Any game which didn't have a least some aspect of all three would no longer be recognisable as an rpg, IMHO.
On 7/7/2001 at 5:11pm, Supplanter wrote:
RE: Toward a Sense, If Not a Theory, of Simulationism
Sorry, but I found that very confusing.
What I think you are trying to say is that the metagame stuff comes up only when decisions are made.
I believe that what I said was confusing, because I was not saying "metagame comes up only when decisions are made." I'm actually saying that metagame comes first. Specifically, that social comes first - that the social interactions of actual people are the "base condition" and that various styles of decision-making channel those interactions productively. (And what is produced is a role-playing game.)
(What I haven't said, and will say now, is that if "simulationism" is a term that needs replacing, metagame needs replacing a lot more. IIRC, the term's history predates the incorporation of gamism into the rgfa model. What is really meant is "metaworld." Once you have "gamism," using "metagame" to mean "metaworld" is, IMHO, asking for trouble.)
The example phrases in the paragraph that I made so unclear represent the set of impulses we think of as leading to "rpg behavior":
story-telling - "There's this guy"
world creation - "I know a place"
contest/problem-solving - "See if you can beat this"
The "someone else" statements represent risks to storytelling, world creation and challenge if one does not channel the purely social realm:
"And this guy does X" - interloper usurps the story-telling function. The person who began "there's this guy" may violently disagree that "this guy does X."
"I know a better place" - kibitzer aborts the first person's world-creation. Which darn place is it?
"All right, I beat" - challenged party trivializes the contest with an arbitrary declaration of victory.
The third set of statements promulgate some high-level rules that resolve the social conflict (who tells what part of the story, what place we shall imagine, how shall victory be determined) be depersonalizing and regularizing authority. IOW, by making a game of it. (Which is why "metagame" becomes a problematic term.) The solution statements represent a set of traditional answers to the problem:
"Get your own guy" - you tell me what your character does and I'll tell you what mine does
"I'm the 'there's this place' guy" - We need a gamemaster as the ultimate arbiter of the world in which our characters' 'stories' (problem word, I know! sub 'chronicle' if it makes you feel better) take place
"You only win if you get to the last purple square first" - here's a victory (defeat) condition we can all understand and work towards with no "Is not is too" rancor.
People have imagined different sets of answers to the social problems that they still think of as constituting a role-playing game. The narrativists, frex, reduce the polarity of the character ownership and world ownership functions. (Perhaps in a narrativist Star Trek game they would reverse the polarity!;-)) But they still regularize the authority functions with rules - plot points etc.
A role-playing game is a set of rules for harmonizing conflicts of imaginative vision. (Potential conflicts, that is.) These rules may be mechanics (regardless of your imaginative vision, "this guy" dies when he runs out of hit points, frex), or they may be decision priorities. (What will happen is whatever I deem the most interesting outcome, frex.) Imaginative visions are personal things, and when you have multiple people trying to reach personal goals together, you have a social situation.
And that's why I think so many people who aren't Simulationists don't understand why anyone would want to play that way. "Why would you want to allow your game to be disappointing when there are so many metagame techniques that could prevent it?" Because the techniques are even more dispappointing to a Simulationist than the collapse of the game.
Absolutely. That's well put.
The other styles involve using specific metagame techniques to get specific results. Simulation is an absense of metagame and, as a result, it cannot guarantee specific results. That's the big negative. A purely simulationist game can end with all the PCs dead in the first session and the evil overlord taking over and enslaving the world, much to the dissatisfaction of everyone involved.
We are not in disagreement about this.
But if you remove Social concerns, Drama concerns, and Game concerns, what are we left with? On the other hand, if we remove Simulationist world concerns along with everything else, what are we left with? Can you imagine a game like that? Can you imagine a game in which every decision is always Dramatist or Gamist and never simply Simulationist (i.e. simply what would happen in the game world)?
Yes. After all, early in the hobby, "the game world" either didn't exist at all or was the thinnest tissue. The dungeon was set up to provide an appropriate level of challenge and to evoke a particular set of emotions in players. (I think there is a lot to be said about this latter topic at some point.) "The integrity of the game world" never entered the picture.
I can easily imagine an RPG of the "pure storytelling variety" - this would be a game in which "the game world" is revealed purely through player and GM decisions and exists only to the extent that the course of action establishes it. Consider Delaney's essays on how an sf text constructs an sf world - one abstracts the background from the foreground details. We read "the door irised" and now we know what doors are like in the spaceships of that universe. I don't see any reason why there couldn't be an RPG in which the game world exists entirely as the product of player and GM author function during play, with the author function aiming at story value rather than world consistency.
Best,
Jim