Hey

I was wondering what the "indie" guys here at the Forge think of "Shared Creationism" as the next evolutionary step for Simulationist game play.

In most simulationist games there is usually some room for "creationist" play by the participants, whether it be by the creation of new magic items, new weapons, new vehicles/Mecha/Starships, new classess/archetypes/professions, new monsters, their own kingdoms, etc. etc. And for a lot of people this can be a major draw, to see their pet idea "alive" in the game setting, it is the natural step after creating character's, to create the items/objects with which they interact within the game world.

However, here is a minor point, the fun for "creationist" play is the object itself, how it feels and works within the game world, not as the creation of the object as backdrop or backstory, but prop and special FX.


They want to be able to interact with it of it's own accord, the giant starships (or whatever) are not (only) there to imply a theme or a mood, but because they exist and real of themselves. The players can go up and poke around and mess with it, see the main guns fire, cruise it's launch bays and fighter decks, take the turbo-lift to the bridge, etc.

Not just because it's a good place to have a scene but because it exists. I mentioned the idea of "cool toys and great special effects" earlier. In many ways that is also draw for many simulationist players. On the one hand is the major immersionist/explorative/experential simulationist player, on the other there is the re-creationist/experiment/play-with player.

He likes to be able to experience the world as it exists in a concrete, vicarious fashion. He wants to pick up the imaginary guns- feel the kick and experience the rush of a hit, stomp around in the Exomecha, see the power gathering as he prepares the spell.

This is "immersion" in the FPS/Sim sense of computer games, they like that a world is defined that they can "play" in, full of toys that they can interact with, whether it be a first person shooter/looter, or a mech or starship or air combat sim.

Taking this simulationism to the Creationist model, we provide the players the tool set to create the objects and environment that interests them and interact with and experience it. This has been represented in small portions in many games, with vehicle/mecha/starship creation rules, or magic item/weapon creation rules, etc. All sorts of limited construction sets for the players to use.

What I intend to do with my game is to make this one part of themajor focus of what they players do with the game. They are given lots of toolsets and guidelines on how to create cool toys and play with them in the world.

Thus they have the option for wargamey bits of small arms combat, or Mech battles, or star-ship and air combat games, or magical duels between mages on Skyships, or whizzy blaster fights on skycycles, etc.

To this I plan to provide a solid if less ambitious setting toolset for immersionist/explorative/experential simulationist shared creation along the lines of Arias rich/detailed believable setting creation. Allowing the players to experience the world in a "emotional/experential" way as someone who lives there, and deals with the major causes and concerns of the world.

To explain this 2 part shared creationism, let me take for example a imaginary game where you play in a setup similar to Israel/Palestine currently.

On the one hand, there is the sim "fun" of recreating and experiencing the very enthralling, engaging nature (sans the emotional context) of the conflict there.

There are the weapons, tanks, planes, heli-copters and other machines of war, involved in the conflict, which have a vivid, engaging reality to many players, they are marvels of technology, cold precise applications of technology and science. It's like watching Weapons At War on the discovery channel, but better as you get to hold the weapons, pull the trigger, see the impact of your armament, they have a whole secret reality that is intriguing and absolute in its application.

Second there is the very real sim of the political, religious, social and economic realities of the place. Imagine how it is to be caught in this conflict as an Israeli, dealing the daily death of your comrades and citizens, fighting to keep your place in the world in a region where you are hated. Of the palestinian, thrust from their homeland by invading armies, oppressed by the occupying army, bereft of your homeland.

This immersionist/explorative/experential focus comes from dealing with the careful construction and enumeration of the various details of the "narrative setting." And striving and living in this reality as one of it's natives would.

The strength and depth of both these experiences would be predicated upon the quality and believability with which they were simulated within the game, as represented by the rules. The idea is to provide a toolset and guidelines for the players to be able to create these sim bits, and to make the shared creation and exploration of the shared setting/reality the focus of the game.

So what do you guys think, any comments?

Rob Muadib
(token simulationist)



[ This Message was edited by: RobMuadib on 2001-07-17 21:13 ]

Sorry, but I'm having a heck of a time figuring out what you'd actually do in this game. Can you give a more concrete example of what a session would be like? (I thought you were going there with the Israeli/Palestinian thing, but it got derailed ...)

What you're describing looks more like it's heading towards a freeform play-by-mail political/wargame. I've run those, and they're a lot of fun, but I'm having trouble figuring out the role-playing-game perspective...

- James

[ This Message was edited by: james_west on 2001-07-21 13:58 ]

james_west Posted: 2001-07-21 13:57

Sorry, but I'm having a heck of a time figuring out what you'd actually do in this game. Can you give a more concrete example of what a session would be like? (I thought you were going there with the Israeli/Palestinian thing, but it got derailed ...)

What you're describing looks more like it's heading towards a freeform play-by-mail political/wargame. I've run those, and they're a lot of fun, but I'm having trouble figuring out the role-playing-game perspective...


James, sorry I took so long to respond to this, been busy working on core game mechanics stuff. (I am trying to build quite the majestic structure with my game, but I found in order to that you have to dig a deep foundation, and it takes alot of work to fill it back in to start building up from:) )

As to the concept of the game. I guess I ended up waxing far too poetic, and obscure in my previous post, ended up doing a good job of exploring the outlines of the theory behind the thrust of the game, but terrible job actually explaining it.

Which brings us to what the hell you are supposed to do with the game. In the game, which is tentatively titled, The Million Worlds: Chronicle Of The Eternal Cycle (TM), the players collaborate in the creation of a game world, and then stage adventures/games/narratives within that world.

Now, what distinguishes the game is the style and spirit in which this is done. I found that the method of play involved in the game can be compared to a small theatre company. Indeed, The best way to refer to the participants in the game is as the Company. Much like a Theatre company, the participants work together to stage a Production.

As in a theatre company, there is alot of behind the scenes work that must be done in order to facillitate the staging of the play. There is the playwright to prepare the script, the director, perhaps a fight choreographer, there are costumers, props masters, makeup people, all the technical people who build and decorate the sets, and then there are the actors, who actually act in the play, the stage manager who manages the events and concerns of the play as it is staged, etc. Now, in our game, as in a small theater company, the Actors are often responsible for doing the other work involved in the production.

The same idea is involved in play of TMW:COTEC. The idea is that the players spend about half of their time getting together to develop/craft/build/create the elements needed to stage the actual "performance" part of the game, and half in the actual performance, utilizing the elements they have constructed for their Production.

Now, since this is a small Company, the duties that must be performed by each role are shared between the participants, with each participant taking a hand in staging their individual production. This translate into the players working together to create various elements of the game world they want to create, with an eye to the production they want to stage.

Here is where the game follows in the path of games such as Ars Magica, & Aria, in that the players collaborate to create a shared setting, and stage productions within that setting. The Ideas is to get all the players to share in the fun bits of world creation, things that are usually reserved to GM's, creating worlds, cultures, races, their attendant, weapons, vehicles, magic, powers, and unusual elements.

That is, all of the players share in the writing of the script elements, the direction and rehearsing, desigining the settings and it's attentdant backdrops, working to create the unique costumes, and props and special effects necessary to bring that world alive on their stage.

To facillitate this the game will feature detailed creation systems that all of the players can utilize (taking the cues here from Aria, but small parts of other games.)

A big influence here was Traveller, the original traveller had all kinds of interesting design and creation systems (especially with the Fire, Fusion & Steel supplement.) But these were usually reserved to the GM. With them the GM could design solar systems, create beasts, starships, weapons, vehicles, all kinds of interesting things for the players character's to find and use, etc. Except, that we open these systems up to all the players, to use collaboratively in building the elements neccessary for their production.

Once this work is complete, it's show time, and the participants, this time acting as Players or taking various Guide Roles (Rules Guide, Story Guide, etc.)then put on their play, getting to act against the backdrops and sets they created, as well as using the costumes, and props, and special effects they prepared for the game.

So, there is the basic concept of the game. Which is very much a face to face, group activity. Again the concept of the participants as being a small theatre Company, staging a Production of their bold new play, or perhaps their interpratation of a classic, is most apt. Including the passion and involvement of the people participating.

Hopefully the idea behind the game will make more sense to you know.

Rob Muadib.

I like this idea alot. I can't wait to see some sort of a working set of rules. Any idea when you'll have some tasty tidbits to throw to the dogs?

T

On 2001-08-14 14:39, FilthySuperman wrote:
I like this idea alot. I can't wait to see some sort of a working set of rules. Any idea when you'll have some tasty tidbits to throw to the dogs?

T

Next step for Simulationism?

Yup, fer sure.

What you're describing is exactly my preferred mode of play, and I'd recommend it to most anybody. Good for you for systemitizing it and taking the time to find terms to describe it to others.

Friends of mine use the term "toy" to describe how they use their rpg world. This gets at the enjoyment of the experience of play with the world itself, and although they have plots and story arcs etc as usual, it shows their lack of emphasis on achieving goal or "winning".

Opening up the mechanics to all of the players just makes sense, and I agree that it is basically letting everybody in on the "cool" stuff.

It seems as though you can do all of the usual things one does with and rpg using your system but it would facilitate a high level of interactivity between players and world. When everybody gets to flesh it out, more of the world has a chance to exist.

How do you handle GMing? Do you retain the traditional GM/players split? Co-gming would be a natural step. Since everyone could be involved in the world creation, different players could run plots. This could be simultaneous or sequentially.

I'll go check out your website now.

Emily Care

On 2001-08-23 11:11, Emily Care wrote:
Next step for Simulationism?

Yup, fer sure.

What you're describing is exactly my preferred mode of play, and I'd recommend it to most anybody. Good for you for systemitizing it and taking the time to find terms to describe it to others.

Friends of mine use the term "toy" to describe how they use their rpg world. This gets at the enjoyment of the experience of play with the world itself, and although they have plots and story arcs etc as usual, it shows their lack of emphasis on achieving goal or "winning".

Opening up the mechanics to all of the players just makes sense, and I agree that it is basically letting everybody in on the "cool" stuff.

It seems as though you can do all of the usual things one does with and rpg using your system but it would facilitate a high level of interactivity between players and world. When everybody gets to flesh it out, more of the world has a chance to exist.

How do you handle GMing? Do you retain the traditional GM/players split? Co-gming would be a natural step. Since everyone could be involved in the world creation, different players could run plots. This could be simultaneous or sequentially.

I'll go check out your website now.

Emily Care