Topic: Guess who's finally read the FAQ
Started by: Jack Spencer Jr
Started on: 7/24/2001
Board: GNS Model Discussion
On 7/24/2001 at 4:58pm, Jack Spencer Jr wrote:
Guess who's finally read the FAQ
I'll probably have to read it a few times before I post anything actually worthwhile, but anyway....
Part of the problems I've always had with any of the three-fold models has been confusion over what was being talked about. Players' goals game designers' goals. In quite a few of the 3-fold discussions I've participated in or seen have boiled down to a misunderstanding on this level: "What exactly are we talking about?"
The fact of the matter is that these goals can be applied to many situations, correctly or no.
The simulationism secontion needs work, but it seems to be an ongoing debate right now. I'm going to suggest something radical, take it as you will.
There is no such thing.
Well, not exactly.
I've always said I was simulationist. I'm starting to believe what I've always been is a narrativist trying to tell stories using gamist means.
Not to deny the existence of any real simulationists out there, but to my way of thinking, most sims merely *think* they're sims.
It seems to me that simulationism is an outgrowth of Gamist, dropping most of the pretense of "winning" as it were (while clinging fiercely to some of the gamist concepts, like character advancement) and replacing it with a pretense of "what would really happen" sort of feel. "Really" being highly subjective (e.g. Toon). This sort of game is open-ended in what can happen. Challenges can abound as in the most gamist of games or tales can be woven with the best of the narrativists.
I suppose in one sense simulationist are greedy, wishing for the best of both worlds, or just both worlds anyway. I know I am.
The problem can arise when the various members of the group wish for something different. Compare this to a pure gamist or narrativist group where all the players focus on one goal or the other. The game moves along smoothly and everyone is, for the most part on the same page. In a simulationist game, it works on a "take it as it comes" sort of mentality. This make the cinematic action a character executes a little more special since it is appropriately difficult to do, but since it is so difficult all but the most gung-ho players will use more conservative tactics. And most of the time, said players will fail.
I guess I'm suggesting that Simulationist is actually a combination, to an extent, of Gamist and Narrativist goals.
But even I have problems with this. A model with three branches is simplistic to my way of thinking. And here I am suggesting that it's actually only two, simpler still. How ludicuos!
ANd there may indeed be real honest to God simulationists out there. I'm just willing to bet that many who think they are are like me. They merely think they are.
On 7/24/2001 at 9:37pm, Le Joueur wrote:
RE: Guess who's finally read the FAQ
Did you notice the can said "worms" on it before you opened it? Neither did I.
We just gotta talk. I came to a different conclusion, but for many of the same reasons.
pblock wrote:
The simulationism section needs work, but it seems to be an ongoing debate right now. I'm going to suggest something radical, take it as you will.
There is no such thing.
Well, not exactly.
Heh. My idea, in your terms, would contrarily be that everything is simulation. I have been pouring over the FAQ for about a week now and no matter how I slice it, everything is comes out simulation. (Though it might be because the FAQ has such a hard time defining simulationism outside of exclusively.)
It seems to me that simulationism is an outgrowth of Gamist, dropping most of the pretense of "winning" as it were (while clinging fiercely to some of the gamist concepts, like character advancement) and replacing it with a pretense of "what would really happen" sort of feel. "Really" being highly subjective (e.g. Toon). This sort of game is open-ended in what can happen. Challenges can abound as in the most gamist of games or tales can be woven with the best of the narrativists.
I can see this point of view in the historical context, but constructively, I believe it is more of a problem than a starting point. It is true, modern role-playing games seem to come from a wargame root, but I have noticed a few other things that most people never consider the potential of being role-playing games.
My classic example is civil war re-enactment. Many of the re-enactors themselves on many occasions clearly say that what they do is not theatre (some actually dislike being watched by the public) or wargame (the end result is far from in doubt). This says to me that what they practice is actually a naïve form of role-playing game. While some are amateur history experts trying to replay the events of the lives of specific people, many others are simply there to be in the civil war (period). On that level much of it turns into a live-action role-playing game with very non-traditional rules. (I am not going to go on at length here, I am just citing an example to suggest that there are other historical roots to role-playing than just wargames.)
Primarily, my point is that, as far as I can tell from the FAQ, there are no situations where you play gamist or narrativist at the expense of simulation entirely. Certainly you can shift simulation to the back seat, but you can’t leave it on the curb. To me that makes gamist and narrativism subsets of simulationism. (It is true that, by mechanics, you can bring gamism and narrativism together, by making story goals into victory conditions, but they are not necessarily overlapping in all cases.)
For discussion’s sake, if you want to help me understand something I might be missing, it should take an example of a game that has no simulationist side whatsoever and is yet clearly a role-playing game.
The problem can arise when the various members of the group wish for something different. Compare this to a pure gamist or narrativist group where all the players focus on one goal or the other. The game moves along smoothly and everyone is, for the most part on the same page. In a simulationist game, it works on a "take it as it comes" sort of mentality.
I believe this is a mischaracterization. I see no reason that a player could not adopt an ‘aggressive’ tourist mode and really put the simulation to the test. ("See 15 fictitious countries in just under a half an hour with Impswitch Chronairlines.")
On the other hand, how can a narrativist have a compelling game without a consistent background? Certainly things in the background can be ‘moved about’ or ‘discovered’ during play, but a can-opener is still a can-opener and be used for that purpose regardless. There don’t even need to be rules to support this kind of simulation, it just is.
Likewise, how could a gamist pursue their agenda if not in a simulated world? While the rules provide an excellent framework around which to build a ‘victory,’ without the world they describe, it could only be an abstract one.
I am sure many can suggest that I am implying that gamism and gamism-simulationism are the same thing and then go on to point out that conventionally gamism-simulationism is known as wargaming, but I say that would only hold if ‘pure’ gamism included boardgames. (Since we are talking singularly about role-playing games here, I think that is not possible.)
Let me take a moment and explain how I separate role-playing games from all others. I call it the ‘behind the bar’ effect. Let’s say you’re playing in a game set in a bar, the referee has described the patrons, the tables and their contents (the tables or the patrons?), and let’s also say a fight has broken out. At this point, I ask people what the difference is between this as a role-playing game and as, say, a boardless wargame.
It all happens in that instant when a character goes behind the bar to get a specific item. (Say you decide that, because your character has a staff-fighting technique, not unthinkable in a personal combat wargame, you will go behind the bar and find the broom.)
The assumption that the bar will have a broom behind it says a few things; 1) you are going outside the description of the ‘playing field’ and improvising, and 2) you are making basic (and very reasonable) assumptions about the setting. At the wargame level, you have violated the clear limitations set on the playing field (the description already given). At the role-playing game level, you have thought specifically within the context of the game.
Even if a different one of the participants has to ‘make up’ this detail, it takes the play into ‘role-playing game only’ territory. Acting within the context of incompletely described setting is what makes it role-playing gaming. The reason everything is simulation is exactly because you don’t need rules for every contingency. When rules fail, the conventions of the diegetic world take over. (Diegetic: Having to do with the actual world of the game being played; as opposed to the formal elements which are part of the game, but not of the world depicted by it.)
This is why gamism-simulationism isn’t a wargame. Its because role-playing games aren’t wargames by definition.
I guess I'm suggesting that Simulationist is actually a combination, to an extent, of Gamist and Narrativist goals.
To me, this is about as far from the truth as I can imagine. I see a narrativist game including a fair amount of the conscious use of literary tools in a non-diegetic fashion in a simulationist game. I feel that gamists (per the FAQ) seek competition (and frequently measure victory by the non-diegetic structures offered by the game) also within the simulationist game.
The mistake I see being made is that a so-called ‘simulationist’ is merely a gamer who chooses not to put accent on literary elements or competition. A ‘general practitioner’ of gaming as opposed to a ‘specialist.’ (In the band metaphor, one who plays because they like music, not to make a statement or ‘be the best.’ But they all still play music.)
And there may indeed be real honest to God simulationists out there. I'm just willing to bet that many who think they are like me. They merely think they are.
The reason I see so many of these discussions turn into arguments is because some people just don’t want to be a gamist or a narrativist. For some reason they fall into the trap of believing they need to have their own ‘-ism’ when I don’t think that could be farther from the truth.
I see the reason you don’t see simulation existing is because it is always present in every form, stance, or what have you. You don’t think about air getting in your way until it’s either really windy or gone entirely.
Before I go, I had better turn this into something other than a GNS model argument. (I have no problem with GNS as a model, and see no reason to attempt to change it; it got me this far after all.) Let me propose the CLS or "Impswitch Model."
First of all, this model is not a triangle, if you’ll permit, I will use set theory to describe. First a diagram (and I hope this comes through for everyone):
Gratification Gratification
,,ggddY""""Ybbgg,,
,agd""' `""bg,
,gdP" Contextual "Ybg,
,dP" "Yb,
,dP" _,,ddP"""Ybb,,_,,ddP"""Ybb,,_ "Yb,
,8" ,dP"' "d8b" `"Yb, "8,
,8' ,d" ,d" "b, "b, `8,
,8' d" d" "b "b `8,
d' d' d' `b ‘b `b
8 8 8 8 8 8
8 8 Literary 8 Fusion 8 Structural 8 8
8 8 8 8 8 8
8 Y, Y, ,P ,P 8
Y, Ya Ya aP aP ,P
`8, "Ya "Ya aP" aP" ,8'
`8, "Yb,_ "Y8P" _,dP" ,8'
`8a `""YbbgggddP""'""YbbgggddP""' a8'
`Yba adP'
"Yba Contextual adY"
`"Yba, ,adP"'
`"Y8ba, ,ad8P"'
``""YYbaaadPP""''
Gratification Gratification
Then some terminology:
Gratification – Hey! It’s the reason we all play (and it is more
than just about fun).
Contextual – Gamers and games in general, where contextual
elements work with or beyond any explicit
structural elements.
Structural – Gamers whose gratification gets measured with the
structural elements of the game whether diegetic
or otherwise.
Literary - Gamers whose gratification comes in attending
the potential literary elements of the game.
Fusion - That nether realm where Literary elements become
the Structure of the game. (Or, when stories are
scored.)
Structural and Literary devices are twin towers (like Gamism and
Narrativism), that can sometimes overlap. They rest upon a firm,
consistent bed of Contextual gaming (as Gamism and Narrativism appear
to depend upon Simulation) that exists upon the sea of Gratification
(like GNS is for fun or social reasons).
I hope you like it (though I may change the names if I find better).
Fang Langford
[ This Message was edited by: Le Joueur on 2001-07-24 17:57 ]
On 7/24/2001 at 10:39pm, Ron Edwards wrote:
RE: Guess who's finally read the FAQ
Well, it's time I went and revealed something that's been on a back burner for a while.
It arises from my observation that I cannot think of any act of role-playing which is NOT "Explorative" in the sense of the Scarlet Jester's term.
A little background for the newcomers - a very incisive and well-known contributor to the Gaming Outpost and other sites calls himself the Scarlet Jester. He has proposed that the term "Simulationist" be replaced with "Explorative," as well as a slight re-arrangement of priorities in the entire purpose of the model. He calls his construction, humorously, the GENder model (G = Gamist, E = Exploratory, N = Narrativist).
His ideas are extremely well-articulated, but I have been reluctant to agree ... because "Explorative," based on his definition and examples (as well as Seth Ben-Ezra's, who is more or less an advocate of the Jester's model), seems all-inclusive to me.
So for some time I have been thinking much along the lines of what Jack and Fang have been saying recently. Here is my conclusion.
It's all about boxes again. The biggest category is "role-playing," and it may as well be synonymized with "Exploration," which I define as "imaginative commitment" of any kind. So if you imagine the setting, the situation, a character, an action, or whatever, with any degree of commitment at all, you are "exploring."
Then within that, we see three boxes. Two of them are easy to understand - they put real-life player/group goals out for all to see. They are Gamism (competing to win) and Narrativism (create a tangible capital-S Story). But one of them is pretty odd-looking - it has no added goal! The resulting goal is to "increase the volume" of the imaginative commitment. I call this Simulationism.
Of course, this means that Simulationism is much, much broader than the original GDS definition. It also splits up according to what aspect of role-playing is getting the commitment:
- setting = degree of detail and consistency of the setting
- situation = justification of the immediate problem; at its most extreme, we see metaplot
- actions = resolution system step-by-step methods, based purely on causality within-game
- character = several sorts, ranging from highly quantified characters with lots of nature/nurture combinations, to more "lite" characters with a lot of emotional identification going on (Turku/Elayjitist)
- and more, but by now you get the idea
(Now I also claim that Narrativism and Gamism are incredibly broad as well, and that their possible diversity remains largely untapped by role-players thus far. So no, I do not think we have two li'l tiny boxes and one big trash-box. Think in terms of priorities and decisions and you'll see that we have three very distinct alternatives, behaviorally speaking, each with many sub-sets.)
So my thinking is as follows: Gamism and Narrativism are Exploration (pretty much "role-playing" in the broadest sense) with group goals, Simulationism is "uncolored" Exploration, but intensified according to the specific aspect receiving the commitment.
And now we'll go into hideous debate frenzy, I am sure.
Best,
Ron
On 7/24/2001 at 11:31pm, Epoch wrote:
RE: Guess who's finally read the FAQ
I pretty much agree with Ron on this matter. You can (and some have) phrase Simulationism as a negative desire -- to reduce meta-world influences (ie, gamism and narrativism/dramatism (on a goals level, dramatism and narrativism are the same, I think. On a technique level, they're different, insofar as dramatism talks about techniques)).
However, I think that the negative-definition of Simulationism is a subset or a more extreme edge of the general just not having a meta-world goal.
On 7/25/2001 at 2:26am, Supplanter wrote:
RE: Guess who's finally read the FAQ
It arises from my observation that I cannot think of any act of role-playing which is NOT "Explorative" in the sense of the Scarlet Jester's term.
I see the point. There's a lot about Jester's model that I like, but it does seem like "explorative" can apply to any of them, even gamism. If one is the sort to read chess journalism one encounters quite serious talk of a player "exploring" a particular variation in a tournament game, frex.
Jester has his Explorative subtriad of Setting, Situation and Character, which hives off a particular territory from the Narrative part of his model, which might otherwise be stated as "Exploration of Premise" or "Exploration of Plot." His model can work for me on the sublevels pretty well: I can say that my play style is exploration of character and my current campaign is built around exploration of situation in the initial phase and feel comfortable describing myself. But I'm sometimes inclined to think that underneath his Narrativist/Explorative distinction is the familiar drama/simulation one. (I'm sometimes not inclined to think that too. Frex, a popular style can be described as either "exploration of character" OR "simulationist, but with script immunity." A hardcore simulationist will argue that "simulationist, but with script immunity" really means "not simulationist.")
Then within that, we see three boxes. Two of them are easy to understand - they put real-life player/group goals out for all to see. They are Gamism (competing to win) and Narrativism (create a tangible capital-S Story). But one of them is pretty odd-looking - it has no added goal! The resulting goal is to "increase the volume" of the imaginative commitment. I call this Simulationism.
I think I can put a name to what simulationists are after - what the "imaginative commitment" is for: Flavor. Or, as someone put it in more heated times, the fundamental simulationist question is "What's it like?"
This says to me that what they practice is actually a naïve form of role-playing game. While some are amateur history experts trying to replay the events of the lives of specific people, many others are simply there to be in the civil war (period). On that level much of it turns into a live-action role-playing game with very non-traditional rules.
I wouldn't call it "naive" at all. A buddy of mine has been bitten by the reenactment bug this year - they seem to understand just what they are doing, which is answering the "What's it like?" question. My friend, who is a legitimate intellectual and articulate about what he is doing, averred that he was seriously thinking of ditching his three-rivet bayonet in favor of a single-rivet bayonet for an upcoming event because they didn't have the three-rivet bayonets early in the war.
There can be gamist elements to reenactment too - one of the events he was describing was one where the outcome would be determined on the field - a LAWG as it were. (Live Action Wargame.) Since he lives in Virginia and has taken up arms with a northern unit, his side can have trouble "representing." His commander's e-mail about the event pleaded for "all Northern boys" to show up and give the rebs a fight.
But reenactment strikes me as, when you get down to it, a prop-heavy simulationist LARP. The appeal is to people who need more sensory data than RPG enthusiasts require to answer the "What's it like?" question. (Around here they do Revolutionary War too, and I hear they do All The Wars over in Europe. Oddly enough one never hears of Rwandan Civil War reenactors, though.)
Best,
Jim
On 7/25/2001 at 2:36am, GreatWolf wrote:
RE: Guess who's finally read the FAQ
I think I can put a name to what simulationists are after - what the "imaginative commitment" is for: Flavor. Or, as someone put it in more heated times, the fundamental simulationist question is "What's it like?"
Or to quote Jester, "Exploration isn't rooted in wargaming. It's rooted in daydreaming."
The Explorative player is looking for "What's it like?" That's the common root between Rolemaster and Amber, for example. On the surface they seem at the extreme opposites but underneath I'd maintain that (at least as normally played) they are two attempts to get at "What's it like?"
Remember, Exploratives have group goals, just like Gamists and Narrativists. They just happen to look different. In fact, it has been noted that many forms of LARP are mostly Explorative.
On 7/25/2001 at 7:18am, Epoch wrote:
RE: Guess who's finally read the FAQ
Seth,
I think that you're right that many/most forms of LARP are mostly Explorative (or whatever -- call it what you will). Most forms of MU*ing are, as well. That's because in a large group like that, it's difficult to find a meta-world goal that everyone agrees with, and even more difficult to herd everyone for it.
Which is why I think that Ron's got the right idea that Exploration (/imaginative commitment) is "underneath" narrativism and gamism. We've actually seen this argument before -- quite a bit. How many times in the last few weeks have you read someone suggest that while you might have an RPG with literally no gamist elements or literally no narrativist elements, you'll never see one without simulationist elements?
That, I think, is what Ron's talking about when he suggests that he keeps seeing Exploration everywhere -- because it is everywhere. You can't roleplay without engaging in it.
So, getting back to my first paragraph, I think that not only is Explorative gaming the predominant form of MU*ing and LARPing, I think it's, to a lesser extent, the predominant form of all RPGing. While there certainly are some people who are predominantly Narrativist or Gamist, I think that most people don't clearly see those meta-world goals well enough to be anything other than predominantly Explorationist.
This whole "layering" thing really clicks for me, particularly in a sense that I'm not sure made it into Ron's post in this thread. I think it really works to regard Exploration as an intensity that's higher or lower for some people (and also that's higher and lower in the particular areas that Scarlet Jester and others have described), which Narrativism or Gamism overlays. Particularly, I think it makes a lot more sense of my own gaming style to suggest that I've got a rather high intensity Explorative style overlain with a medium-level commitment to Narrativism or Gamism, depending on the game and my mood (usually the former).
Now, if we took this refinement to the GNS and added some of Scarlet Jester's concept of a seperation between goals and techniques, I think that the end result might be a model that I would be comfortable using for classifying people -- which would be a first, for me.
Up past my bedtime posting this. Gotta drop back into the real world of buggy upload processes in the morning. Night, all.
On 7/25/2001 at 1:30pm, Le Joueur wrote:
RE: Guess who's finally read the FAQ
Ron Edwards wrote:
It arises from my observation that I cannot think of any act of role-playing which is NOT "Explorative" in the sense of the Scarlet Jester's term.
His ideas are extremely well-articulated, but I have been reluctant to agree ... because "Explorative," based on his definition and examples (as well as Seth Ben-Ezra's, who is more or less an advocate of the Jester's model), seems all-inclusive to me.
So for some time I have been thinking much along the lines of what Jack and Fang have been saying recently. Here is my conclusion.
It's all about boxes again. The biggest category is "role-playing," and it may as well be synonymized with "Exploration," which I define as "imaginative commitment" of any kind. So if you imagine the setting, the situation, a character, an action, or whatever, with any degree of commitment at all, you are "exploring."
Then within that, we see three boxes. Two of them are easy to understand - they put real-life player/group goals out for all to see. They are Gamism (competing to win) and Narrativism (create a tangible capital-S Story). But one of them is pretty odd-looking - it has no added goal! The resulting goal is to "increase the volume" of the imaginative commitment. I call this Simulationism.
(Just for clarity then, what is outside all three boxes, yet inside "exploring?")
Okay, I guess I am just not getting it. How are the ‘volume levels’ of imaginative commitment related, in any way constructively, destructively, exclusively or otherwise, to Narrativism or Gamism? I can’t see how any variation of volume would impact on Gamism (from what I read in the FAQ). I don’t see how ‘loud’ imaginative commitment could ‘drowned out’ Narrativism.
I can’t really see it as a separate box at all. It looks more like a variable level that can happen independent of the presence of the Gamism box or the Narrativism box (or in their absence). Can you help me understand this point? I seem to just not be ‘getting it.’
(To reiterate, in your ‘box’ terminology, I think that the Gamism box and the Narrativism box are both inside the Simulationism box and nothing that is gaming is outside the Simulationism box. Can you describe anything substantive that does not fit this model? That would be anything Gamist or Narrativist that are not Simulationist or anything that is gaming that is not Simulationist.)
Of course, this means that Simulationism is much, much broader than the original GDS definition. It also splits up according to what aspect of role-playing is getting the commitment:
- setting = degree of detail and consistency of the setting
- situation = justification of the immediate problem; at its most extreme, we see metaplot
- actions = resolution system step-by-step methods, based purely on causality within-game
- character = several sorts, ranging from highly quantified characters with lots of nature/nurture combinations, to more "lite" characters with a lot of emotional identification going on (Turku/Elayjitist)
- and more, but by now you get the idea
These still don’t seem like they exclude or necessarily include either Gamism or Narrativism in any way. It looks like apples and tubs of water from here.
(Now I also claim that Narrativism and Gamism are incredibly broad as well, and that their possible diversity remains largely untapped by role-players thus far. So no, I do not think we have two li'l tiny boxes and one big trash-box. Think in terms of priorities and decisions and you'll see that we have three very distinct alternatives, behaviorally speaking, each with many sub-sets.)
I still believe that choosing Simulationism is Hobson’s choice. You’re either doing it or walking. (I guess that would put the two "incredibly broad" boxes inside the "big trash-box," wouldn’t it?)
And all this talk about boxes reminds me of the story of the tailor and the giant.
So my thinking is as follows: Gamism and Narrativism are Exploration (pretty much "role-playing" in the broadest sense) with group goals, Simulationism is "uncolored" Exploration, but intensified according to the specific aspect receiving the commitment.
This sounds pretty much like what I was saying before. Is it?
(One last thing, as an aside (and because I like the "imaginative commitment" idea so much), from my experience when there is "imaginative commitment" and ‘emotional commitment’ (one of the things using literary techniques is exceptionally good at), the games are even better.)
Fang Langford
p.s. Where in the Forge should I go to discuss the Impswitch model?
On 7/25/2001 at 1:38pm, Le Joueur wrote:
RE: Guess who's finally read the FAQ
Supplanter wrote:Fang Langford wrote:
This says to me that what they practice is actually a naïve form of role-playing game. While some are amateur history experts trying to replay the events of the lives of specific people, many others are simply there to be in the civil war (period). On that level much of it turns into a live-action role-playing game with very non-traditional rules.
I wouldn't call it "naive" at all. A buddy of mine has been bitten by the reenactment bug this year - they seem to understand just what they are doing, which is answering the "What's it like?" question.
But reenactment strikes me as, when you get down to it, a prop-heavy simulationist LARP.
The reason I said it was naïve, is because they did not come to it from role-playing games, (as far as I know) they don’t think of it in role-playing game terms, and many of them don’t equate it with role-playing games. Basically it seems like a completely separate (yet parallel) evolution.
My likening it to role-playing games is so that I can steal ideas from it. I guess that means it’s not so much ‘naïve’ as it is ‘innocent.’
Fang Langford
On 7/26/2001 at 9:07pm, Ron Edwards wrote:
RE: Guess who's finally read the FAQ
Hello,
Let's lay some serious ground rules.
1) GNS is about OBSERVABLE BEHAVIORS. Yes, behaviors. It applies to game design only in terms of facilitating certain behaviors, and it applies to people only in terms of individuals' tendency to produce them. At one point, I believe it was Peter Seckler who described GNS as being about decisions, and I agree with that.
2) "Exploration" is not about observable behaviors but about an internal experience. Therefore it cannot "replace" any aspect of GNS. It is foundational.
3) Given a group of people experiencing any degree of exploration (Jester's use, meaning during role-playing), now we look to see patterns of observable behaviors. Here's where GNS comes in.
My point: "Simulationism" does exist. It means, actual behaviors that maximize the exploration specifically to the exclusion of other metagame goals.
This is important. It means that the Exploration underlying Gamism and Narrativism is not a goal, but a given. It means that Simulationism is not "just" Exploration, but observable behaviors that are distinctive and recognizable, above and beyond the necessary foundation of Exploration that we call role-playing.
I therefore see three boxes in the big Exploration box. If we were to look at the space in the Exploration box, but outside any of the three boxes, we see individual daydreaming, and not role-playing at all (no group social activity). By taking Exploration into the realm of role-playing, you must enter a box, which means DOING something (behaving) with others.
Turn it toward authorship, you get Narrativism.
Turn it toward competition, you get Gamism.
Emphasize the Exploration alone (which DOES require specific, group behaviors) and you get Simulationism.
Again, and I repeat, any of these three goals/behavior sets are divisible into tons of different subsets.
I hope this post answers some of the questions above about my categories and also about what Simulation "is" (as opposed to what it isn't).
Best,
Ron
On 7/27/2001 at 1:33pm, Le Joueur wrote:
RE: Guess who's finally read the FAQ
I hope you don’t mind, but some of what I am hearing in this is self-contradictory. I would appreciate a little clarification, please.
Ron Edwards wrote:
1) GNS is about OBSERVABLE BEHAVIORS.
2) "Exploration" is not about observable behaviors but about an internal experience. Therefore it cannot "replace" any aspect of GNS. It is foundational.
And I am trying to say that Simulationism is not about observable behaviors or internal experiences. I am saying it is omnipresent. I am saying that (as far as the FAQ describes it) I think all gaming is Simulation to some degree.
My point: "Simulationism" does exist.[Emphasis mine.]
You are missing my point if you think I am saying simulation does not exist, quite the opposite.
What I am trying to say is that all the modes, techniques, practices, and et cetera that have been sited to ‘make Simulationism a goal’ (by the FAQ) can be practiced to the fullest extent without impeding making Narrativism or Gamism the ultimate goal.
Like the practice or avoidance of ‘script immunity,’ heightening Simulation, in this way, cannot take anything away Narrativist goal seeking, it simply does not appear to compete. (id est, script immunity is frequently considered ‘anti-Simulationist,’ but it isn’t pro-Narrativist either. For example, it can be used to get Gamist characters to the final challenge.)
It means, actual behaviors that maximize the exploration specifically to the exclusion of other metagame goals.
But you said, "‘Exploration’...cannot ‘replace’ any aspect of GNS," doesn’t that make ‘exclusion’ impossible? This is primarily what sounds contradictory.
This is important. It means that the Exploration underlying Gamism and Narrativism is not a goal, but a given.
That is what I have been saying about the whole field of Simulationism.
It means that Simulationism is not "just" Exploration, but observable behaviors that are distinctive and recognizable, above and beyond the necessary foundation of Exploration that we call role-playing.
I therefore see three boxes in the big Exploration box. If we were to look at the space in the Exploration box, but outside any of the three boxes, we see individual daydreaming, and not role-playing at all (no group social activity).
Now this does not fit the argument at all. Weren’t we discussing a model that only applies to gaming? And now you extend the model outside of this? Please let’s keep the discussion within the bounds of gaming. (and I think you mean "all of the three boxes" not "any of the three boxes," right?)
To wit, I still do not understand what you see inside the ‘role-playing gaming box’ (or perhaps the role-playing gaming ‘exploratory box’) that does not fall inside of the ‘Simulationist box’ (just for the moment overlooking the contents of the ‘Narrativist box’ or the ‘Gamist box’).
And to counter my suggestion, can you suggest any aspects of ‘making Simulation the goal’ (and that means only the aspects and not the overall concept of ‘goal’) that must be sacrificed in any part of the ‘Narrative box’ or in any part of the ‘Gamist box?’ (This should be relatively easy, simply cite one concrete example of either and I renounce my premise.)
By taking Exploration into the realm of role-playing, you must enter a box, which means DOING something (behaving) with others.
Turn it toward authorship, you get Narrativism.
Turn it toward competition, you get Gamism.
Emphasize the Exploration alone (which DOES require specific, group behaviors) and you get Simulationism.
Again, let me reiterate, under what conditions do you see it as impossible to "Emphasize the Exploration" while ‘facing’ authorship or while ‘facing’ competition, meaning "get[ting] Simulationism" while ‘facing’ towards those other vertices?
I no longer really have a point of my own any more (see an upcoming thread I am planning), but I do want a little clarification of your core beliefs Ron. If you can resolve the apparent contradiction and suggest a counter example to my point above, then I think you will have exactly what you need to improve the FAQ when it comes to Simulationism.
Ultimately, my only problem is the FAQ and not the model. While employing Aristotelian dialogue, I never once failed to like the GNS model. All I am attempting is to ‘put you on the spot’ for the nugget of information lacking in the FAQ (this is largely because ‘on the spot’ is where I feel I think the best).
(You may not realize it, but I am a Senior Field Director on the Devil’s Advocacy Staff, Generation X Division.)
Fang Langford
On 7/27/2001 at 4:32pm, Jack Spencer Jr wrote:
RE: Guess who's finally read the FAQ
Gee, this has grown into an interesting discussion. Go fig.
Anyway, I still have my doubts that Simulationism exists, per se. Fang & I seem to agree & disagree on this.
The way I see it is it's like Bruce Lee's martial art. I don't know what it's called or how good it is but I remember the line from the Dragon bio pic:
"Like water it is formless and as such can assume all forms."
So it is with simulationism. I have my doubts that anyone actually plays this way, and even if there is such a person, I doubt their whole group does.
I suspect that most are like me, *thinking* they're simulationist but actually lean heavily toward either gamist of narrativist.
Even now I still think of myself as simulationist. My current narrativist bend I look at as simulating stories.
I'm actually reminded of the thread over in Actual Play and the problem Jesse had with one of his players.
The guy said something to the effect that all the player can have different goals and it's the GM's challenge to satisfy all of those needs.
This is sort of what simulationism does IMO. Not necessarily bringing any goal to the table aside from simulating a world or setting, etc. so that the players can bring their own, possibly conflicting goals and try to have them all satisfied at the same time.
This sort of thing has been happening for years and many people seem to be able to make it work, but we're currently trying to create games with a specific goal built in and, as such, are not for all people and may lead to new groups with common goals to be formed.
This can be problematic but the resulting capaigns should be suitable "better" so as to be worth the effort and tears.
On 7/27/2001 at 4:35pm, GreatWolf wrote:
RE: Guess who's finally read the FAQ
1) GNS is about OBSERVABLE BEHAVIORS. Yes, behaviors. It applies to game design
only in terms of facilitating certain behaviors, and it applies to people only in terms of
individuals' tendency to produce them. At one point, I believe it was Peter Seckler who
described GNS as being about decisions, and I agree with that.
2) "Exploration" is not about observable behaviors but about an internal experience. Therefore
it cannot "replace" any aspect of GNS. It is foundational.
3) Given a group of people experiencing any degree of exploration (Jester's use, meaning
during role-playing), now we look to see patterns of observable behaviors. Here's where
GNS comes in.
Let us test this, then. Below are a few roleplaying situations. None of these are hypothetical,
BTW. All are drawn directly from actual gaming sessions. I would like to see identified the
behavior at hand.
The Game: Mage
The Situation: The characters have just struggled through the Labyrinth, where each has faced
his deepest fear. Some have succeeded, some have failed. The successful characters are
standing at the top of an "arena". Below them the Big Evil Bad Guy is performing his dark
ritual. Tied to the altar are the PCs that failed in the Labyrinth. The Big Evil Bad Guy sends
his acolytes against the PCs. The acolytes begin striding up the stairs. I ask the players,
"What do you do?" Some stammer one thing. Others scratch their head. Then my wife pipes
up. "I scream at the top of my lungs and charge."
Was my wife's decision based on
1) Gamism
2) Simulationism/Exploration
3) Narrativism
The Game: Alyria
The Situation: Greg is playing Magog, a mentally-retarded man with the strength of an ox has
been tricked by Mephisto, a dragon cultist. Magog has been promised a new doll to replace
his old torn doll if he will climb to a small hut atop the Web, take the little girl in the hut, and
throw her away "like an old doll". Magog is too dumb to know better, and he wants the new
pretty doll, so he climbs up to the hut. He then picks up the young, beautiful girl, who
awakens and starts screaming. Magog looks at her. He looks at his old doll, which he
carried with him. He hears Mephisto's voice in his head. "Throw her away like an old doll."
He looks from one to the other and then....he throws away his old doll. "New doll", he
proclaims, and makes off with the child back to his lair.
Was Greg's decision based on
1) Gamism
2) Simulationism/Exploration
3) Narrativism
The Game: Puppetland
The Situation: The characters are huddled in a tunnel under Puppet Town, just around the
corner from where the last bubble in Puppetland is being kept. The puppets are supposed to
retrieve it and bring it back to Judy. However, a nasty clockwork monster is guarding the
bubble. The puppets are quietly whispering to each other, making plans, when my wife's
character decides that she has a plan. She thinks that if she sings, she will be able to put the
clockwork to sleep. However, her character actually cannot sing to save her life. This does
not deter her. She steps around the corner, bellowing her song as loudly as possible. Of
course, the clockwork strikes.
Was my wife's decision based on
1) Gamism
2) Simulationism/Exploration
3) Narrativism
I'm not trying to create trick questions here. I am honestly trying to provide all of the relevant information necessary. If you feel that more information is needed, I will try to provide it. However, I am curious as to what people think.
(BTW, I have personal commentary from the players on either their overall philosophy of play or actual commentary on these specific decisions on which I will judge the "correct" answer.)
Seth
On 7/27/2001 at 5:53pm, Ron Edwards wrote:
RE: Guess who's finally read the FAQ
Fang,
I will open by saying that I generally dislike the form of internet interaction expressed by line-by-line picking apart of others' threads. This post is built on the essay letter model instead.
My opening point is that the FAQ is a rough draft. It is not the reference; there is, unfortunately, no central reference beyond "System Does Matter" which is pretty archaic. At this time, GNS is a lot like the English constitution in that a lot of it is spread across multiple documents (threads). Even worse, some of that spread-out material is not valid whereas others is crucial, and much of it is in pure dialogue form so that no one post is really "it."
This state of affairs is atrocious - but the first FAQ is a start, and the slow and painful working-out of the new FAQ is going on now. My comments on this thread represent some of it. You'll appreciate, I'm sure, that the responsibilities of work and family, of attempting to publish an RPG of my own, and of GenCon next week are not helping.
A minor issue: Yes, we are addressing only the field of role-playing. In my construction, if one leaves all of the three boxes but continue to Explore, one ceases to role-play. I agree that my previous post could be read otherwise.
Another minor issue: my comment about Simulationism existing rather than not existing was directed to Jack's initial post, not to any part of Fang's.
The biggest issue between us at present is whether Simulation(ism) is a foundation or a focused behavior on a common foundation. I am suggesting the latter, such that Exploration, as I understand it, is a foundation and Simulationism would be the focused behavior. To paraphrase, so that I can be checked on this, Fang is saying that Simulationism is the foundation, period.
There are two parts of this issue, terminological and conceptual. I'll focus on the latter, because the former is not a big deal to me.
I'll quote Fang for clarity:
"What I am trying to say is that all the modes, techniques, practices, and et cetera that
have been sited to 'make Simulationism a goal' (by the FAQ) can be practiced to the
fullest extent without impeding making Narrativism or Gamism the ultimate goal."
And further passages reinforce this, suggesting that Simulationist activity to whatever extent does not impede Narrativist or Gamist activities. He calls for an example of Simulationist behaviors that so impede the other goals. If such exists, then my Three-in-One stands; if it doesn't, then his Two-in-One stands. (More on this later.)
I quote again, not to pick apart, but because it's a direct question.
"But you said, "'Exploration'...cannot 'replace' any aspect of GNS," doesn't that make
'exclusion' impossible? This is primarily what sounds contradictory."
I understand your reading of my post, and that means I was unclear. The following is meant to be EXACTLY what I am saying. I am drawing attention between (1) the necessary minimum of imaginative commitment necessary to role-play at all, and (2) behaviors that focus that commitment to the exclusion of other metagame goals. So this issue returns us to the problem - do such behaviors exist?
The following examples are often couched in terms of game design, but I am really describing the preference for, accordance with, and enforcement of such rules. Therefore I am still talking about behaviors.
Also, these are historical examples and are not intended to cover the full range of any of the goals' potential. E.g. some of the Gamist behaviors mentioned do NOT DEFINE Gamism but are rather associated with that goal, historically.
CONCRETE EXAMPLES #1: SIMULATIONISM OVER-RIDING GAMISM.
Any text which states that role-playing is not about winning; correspondingly, chastising a player who advocates a PC action perceived as "just trying to win." [This example assumes that the text/game does not state story-creation as an alternative goal.]
Using probability tables in character creation to determine appearance, profession/class, or race, based on demographics of the community of the character's origin. (See the original Stormbringer.)
CONVERSE: GAMISM OVER-RIDING SIMULATIONISM.
Characters teaming up for a common goal with no disputes or even attention regarding differences in race, religion, ethics, or anything else.
Improving character traits (e.g. damage that may be taken) based on the amount of treasure amassed.
CONCRETE EXAMPLES #2: SIMULATIONISM OVER-RIDING NARRATIVISM.
A weapon does precisely the same damage range regardless of the emotional relationship between wielder and target. (True for RuneQuest, not true for Hero Wars)
A player is chastised for taking the potential intensity of a future confrontation into account when deciding what the PC is doing in a current scene, such as revealing an important secret when the PC is unaware of its importance.
The time to traverse town with super-running is deemed insufficient to arrive at the scene, with reference to distance and actions at the scene, such that the villain's bomb does blow up the city. (The rules for DC Heroes specifically dictate that this be the appropriate way to GM such a scene).
CONVERSE: NARRATIVISM OVER-RIDING SIMULATIONISM
Using metagame mechanics to increase the probability of task resolution, with NO corresponding in-game justification. "Apply my bonus die to increase my Charm roll," in which the bonus die is not "will" or "endurance" or anything but an abstract pool unit.
A player is chastised for claiming a PC motive that "stalls out" story elements (conflict, resolution etc). Example: player A is pissed off at player B, who has announced "I say nothing," in certain interactive scenes, when player A is aware that the PC's knowledge would be pivotal in the scene.
Using OOC dialogue and knowledge to determine character action, then retroactively justifying the action in terms of character knowledge and motive. "You hit him high and I'll hit him low," between PLAYERS whose characters do not have the opportunity to plan the attack. [could also apply to Gamism over-riding Simulationism; the two are quite similar]
I would appreciate any other members of the Forge chiming in regarding these or other examples, on either side of the current debate.
Best,
Ron
On 7/27/2001 at 7:09pm, Ron Edwards wrote:
RE: Guess who's finally read the FAQ
Gee, Seth, I bet they're all "Explorative."
That is not actually my answer. I am providing no answer, and here is why.
The question is not to the point of the thread. The point is being addressed by Fang and myself, and anyone else who wants to comment on Jack's original post.
To review, I am presenting a way to reconcile GNS with the proposed term "Exploration" (as I understand it). My argument curiously agrees both with Jack's proposition that "Simulationism doesn't exist" and Mike's (epoch's) that it exists everywhere. I'm pretty sure that Fang and I are angling toward an accord.
Seth's post derails that discussion and I would appreciate its removal to its own thread. For the record, I don't think it's a valid test, but I'll deal with it on its terms elsewhere.
Best,
Ron
On 7/27/2001 at 9:50pm, Le Joueur wrote:
RE: Guess who's finally read the FAQ
Ron Edwards wrote:
I will open by saying that I generally dislike the form of internet interaction expressed by line-by-line picking apart of others' threads.
My apologies. My use of such is based on my idea that I do not usually get someone’s point very clearly (losing it somewhere in their text). Since I have been seriously dressed down for restating the points of other people in altogether too colored a fashion, I instead attempt to glean their meaning in a line-by-line manner.
I take your distaste and will attempt to refrain from doing so in regards to your missives, provided I am not seeking specific linear clarification in the future. [Whoops, did it again anyway, didn’t I?]
I did not understand that the FAQ was still a ‘rough’ draft. While it says it is an evolving document, it does not give the ‘feel’ of roughness in its drafting. I truly only wish to aid in the upcoming drafts with this commentary.
One thing I must say is that my own meaning was not terribly clear. The premise I am working from is not that Simulationism is only a foundation. What I have been offering is that Simulationism is a foundation and that as a foundation it is not a ‘level’ one, it can have peaks and valleys of intensity. What I have also been proposing is that there are two realms that exist on top of this foundation, Gamism and Narrativism.
What seems to be being missed is that I am also saying that they do not ‘cover’ the whole foundation; there are still many exposed parts. Further, what I tried to explain is that the two realms (which only cover part of the foundation even taken together) are virtually immune to the aforementioned peaks and valleys of intensity according to the FAQ.
I take your examples with some pleasure, because I was confident you had some way of elucidating what you meant (compared to the FAQ). However your first example fails because by making certain things out-of-bounds in the rules it only enforces Gamism, not contradicts it; it also has very little (that I can see) to do with simulation. (Likewise random creation of starting point is no more ‘ungamist’ than the deal in poker. You play what you get; that’s the challenge.)
Conversely (that’s a play on words), you have provided the counter-example I requested (the common goals thing) and therefore I gratefully withdraw my premise.
One thing does become clear, the Simulationism as described in the FAQ can definitely use some work as you clearly have an idea of what you mean by it now. (I might suggest tying some of your thoughts on immersion and subjectivity into it, instead of having it suggest examples where it more resembles the other two goals then voids them.)
And yes, I believe we have reached accord. See you at Gen Con.
Fang Langford
On 7/27/2001 at 10:16pm, Ron Edwards wrote:
RE: Guess who's finally read the FAQ
Hi Fang,
Whew. In accord after all. I won't address the Gamism example here, mainly because that branch of GNS has been sadly neglected both historically and theoretically. I do agree with you that random starting-point vs. perfectly-balanced starting-point may both be found within the venue of Gamism. I think that my basis for that example would be a huge essay and evolving topic of its own, to rival (say) the role of Premise in Narrativism in terms of importance and scope. Definitely later.
Yes indeed, see you at GenCon. I believe a beer or other beverage of your choice is in order, after this exchange.
Best,
Ron
P.S. I didn't tell you how to compose YOUR posts, by the way. If you want to use line-by-line, go ahead (free speech and all that), although I think it tends to dilute arguments and cause a lot of trouble. I appreciate the essay style in the latest post.
P.P.S. Jack - what do you think, so far? Have we effectively explained by Simulationism appears to be nowhere to some and everywhere to others?
On 7/27/2001 at 10:28pm, Valamir wrote:
RE: Guess who's finally read the FAQ
Hmmm. Out of action for a couple of days and look what pops up...
Let me see if I understand whats going on here...there's been an awful lot of text to digest.
The idea that's currently being bandied about is that Exploration exists on a level above the three fold?
Essentially, Exploration = all manner of imaginative endeavors seeking to answer the "what would it be like question"
G / N / S are then boxes floating on a sea of Exploration, and it is the act of climbing out of the "water" and into one of these boxes that differentiates "Role playing" from "day dreaming and make believe".
Am I summarizing the hypothesis correctly as far as this is concerned?
What isn't so clear to me is how the definition of Simulation has been / is potentially being modified to account for this new layer to the model. What is the defining feature now that differentiates Simulative play from the others? Note that is in no way a challenge, just me having difficulty keeping up with the iterations. At one time Fortune at the end and cause and effect game mechanics were the defining feature, at another time "zero metagame concerns" was put forward as a suggested definition. I'm a little behind. What is now the current differentiator for Simulation.
It almost seems to me that at one point the implication was that Gamist was Exploration with Gamist concerns tacked on, Narrativist was Exploration with Narrativist concerns tacked on and Simulationist was Exploration purely for Exploration sake without tacking on Gamist or Narrativist issues. But I'm a little hazy on that.
On 7/28/2001 at 6:15am, Jack Spencer Jr wrote:
RE: Guess who's finally read the FAQ
On 2001-07-27 18:16, Ron Edwards wrote:
P.P.S. Jack - what do you think, so far? Have we effectively explained by Simulationism appears to be nowhere to some and everywhere to others?
Hmm... I'm still trying to get a handle on it. Mostly I'm wrestling with your "increase the volume of the imaginative activity" or whatever it was you've said. "Increase the volume" was part of it. That I'm sure of.
I think what I'm still on about is I sincerely doubt that anything truely pure as far as simulationism actually exists.
That is, true simulationism does not resort to metagame appliances, either GM fudging dice rolls to Karma points or whatever. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that most games (meaning game groups) do indeed utilize these tools to one degree or another. I'm almost willing to step a little further out on that limb and say *all* groups do this, but I don't believe that's really safe.
I believe that simulationism is, in fact, an illusion that the mechanics accurately represent the reality of the situation, that the character is accurately represented by the numbers on the sheet, that the proceedings are what would really happen.
hmmm... maybe that is simulationism. You did say it was behavior-based, and this is the behavior. I have a problem with it since I've since decided that most RPGs, especially traditional RPGs do not accurately any form of reality. At best they are a decent approximation. At worst they get in your way.
I also keep thinking some of the stuff found in 4th ed Champions (I think it's fourth) The section of "Things to do to ruin your campaign" (that sucker's buried in my scary room. I'm not digging it out at the moment)
One of them was something to the effect of "the players all came together and worked on a plan and got it to work and it all boiled down to a single dice roll....and they blow it.
They suggest (I believe. It's been a while) fudging the dice or some similar tactic to make the outcome more satisfying.
The main thing is it seems to be all connected. The simulationist players may not care if the GM fudges dice rolls or contrives actions so long as they don't know about it. Or maybe they do care, so the GM never tells them he does.
So a great deal of burden seems to be placed on the GM in this view of simulationism. It may be an even greater burden than the Gamist GM who must merely keep things "fair" and watch for cheating. The simulationist GM must keep the suspension of disbelief up. Must keep track of reality. A tall order.
This is something I need to dwell on some more, it seems.
On 7/29/2001 at 1:56am, Supplanter wrote:
RE: Guess who's finally read the FAQ
That is, true simulationism does not resort to metagame appliances, either GM fudging dice rolls to Karma points or whatever. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that most games (meaning game groups) do indeed utilize these tools to one degree or another. I'm almost willing to step a little further out on that limb and say *all* groups do this, but I don't believe that's really safe.
One of the things that bedevils an understanding of simulationism, particularly in this forum, is non-simulationists simply refusing to believe that simulationists mean what they say. The message from which the quote appears is simply more of that.
I understand the impulse as I used to suffer it myself: the evidence is still there on google of my folly. But it is folly.
Why is it so hard to credit that there exist people who really do not want to game the way you do, or the way the authors of Champions 4 advise?
Best,
Jim
On 7/29/2001 at 3:44am, Logan wrote:
RE: Guess who's finally read the FAQ
Jim,
I have no problem accepting that people game differently. I do have a problem with the claim that Simulationism is still the misunderstood bastard stepchild of GNS. We've beat the daylights out of this topic over the last couple months, and I believe we've made some progress. So let's put all that to the test.
I accept as fact that Simulationism abhors plot or story as a goal of play, though the GM may use pre-plotted encounters to set up situations which give the characters the opportunity to do something (even if that something is to do nothing). Furthermore, the player makes decisions based on what the character would do in that situation given the information available to the character in the game world at that point in time. The GM has full responsibility to present the game world and maintain suspension of disbelief. He also has full control over everything that happens in the gameworld, though the outcome of any actions are subject to the game's rules. Historically, metagame is rejected by both GM and players because it harms suspension of disbelief and reduces verisimilitude of the game world. Hopefully, this is all fine and dandy.
The trouble with Simulationism as I've come to know it through these discussions is that the style of play with respect to treatment of character and role of the GM changes radically as one traverses the World-Character axis.
The bulk of published Simulationist games have been centered at the World pole of the axis with heavy rules for determining outcomes as realistically as possible. Of course, in such games, the weight of the rules and the intrusive nature of the mechanics make it very difficult for the player to treat his character as much more than a pawn. Those rules also reduce the role of the GM. You could say (and I think you and/or John Morrow already did) that in such games, balance of power is actually given to the game's rules. Ergo, the players need not place as much trust in the GM because the rules will tell anyone what's supposed to happen in any given situation.
As players realized their desire to be their characters, the need for Simulationist games with lighter rulesets surely increased, but such games still haven't really made it to the store shelves. Amber may be the glowing exception, but for the most part, the way for immersive play has been paved with LARPs and the occasional borrowed ruleset such as Fudge or maybe (MAYBE) Theatrix. At the Character pole, the rules are very light to allow the player maximum freedom to immerse himself in his character. Of course, balance of power is strongly centered on the GM. The player is absorbed in Actor Stance using only IC info (immersive play). That's a voluntary choice and part of being the character. As Mytholder and I have already noted, in such a game, the GM determines what constitutes verisimilitude in the game world, and the player must implicitly trust the GM.
As far as I'm concerned, this is not an easy way to play. Being the character takes a tremendous amount of energy for the player and providing the requisite verisimilitude in presenting the game world takes a lot of effort from the GM. That said, I think it can be a very rewarding way to play, and I certainly include such a playstyle in my repertoire for use as needed. The trouble in describing all this comes with using one term to describe what might well be 2 different styles of play.
Just to clarify, I see both sides of the issue. On the one hand, this radical difference that I've described is just the naturally-occurring difference in approach from moving from pole to pole along the World-Character axis in Simulationist play. On the other hand, the relationships between [player and character] and [player and GM] are different. The balance of power is different. The very style of play is different - and the perceived difference is apparently greater than differences in approach to Gamist or Narrativist games.
This is the Simulationist dilemma as I see it. I don't have a resolution for it. I'm hoping further discussion will make the answer clear. I've laid all this out in the latest version of the faq. I know it's been in the shop for a while, but Ron has had his hands full, and my revisions were quite extensive. Anyway, I hope you'll agree that we're making progress.
Logan
[ This Message was edited by: Logan on 2001-07-29 09:56 ]
On 7/29/2001 at 4:54am, Supplanter wrote:
RE: Guess who's finally read the FAQ
This is the Simulationist dilemma as I see it. I don't have a resolution for it. I'm hoping further discussion will make the answer clear. I've laid all this out in the latest version of the faq. I know it's been in the shop for a while, but Ron has had his hands full, and my revisions were quite extensive. Anyway, I hope you'll agree that we're making progress.
Indeed, it sounds like that is the case. I want to avow that I was absolutely not including you in my complaint. I know that the FAQ is a work in progress and that the very length of time between editions is a hallmark of how extensive the changes are. Since the biggest disagreements with the first edition were precisely the simulationism sections, it seems likely that one can make a good guess as to the nature of those extensive changes.
I have seen several people who are not writing the model do just what I complained about, though, including in the very post I responded to. And I really did do it myself back in the day. "You can't really mean that," I more or less said. But of course they did.
I'm very interested in your point about the dual nature of simulationism and its relation to the world character axis. I started to pursue it, then realized I was too sleepy to either make my own points effectively or be sure I understood yours. So I'll beg off that part for now. But it's nice to see you posting again. You've been quiet lately.
Best,
Jim
On 7/29/2001 at 2:41pm, Logan wrote:
RE: Guess who's finally read the FAQ
Thanks, Jim. I'm interested in your take on that duality, too. Your point about people saying "You can't really mean that" is well taken.
Logan
On 7/30/2001 at 4:15am, Jack Spencer Jr wrote:
RE: Guess who's finally read the FAQ
On 2001-07-28 21:56, Supplanter wrote:
Why is it so hard to credit that there exist people who really do not want to game the way you do, or the way the authors of Champions 4 advise?
Well, I need to dwell on the whole thing more but it's not so much that I don't believe people don't game differently from myself so much as the style of gaming being described here may ideed only exist in theory. The old "good on paper" deal.
I was going to describe possible simulationism again, but I'd just be digging my hole a little deeper.
We need a little more focus, I think.
According to the FAQ, the "Edwards model" as it's called there is about game design where as the rgfa model is about player behavior.
The terms may be applicable in either instance to either model but we should probably focus on one or the other or keep the two applications separate as it can confuse the issue.
Now a game as written can probably indeed be simulationist but I have my doubts if most games are ever played as written.
I need to dwell some more...
On 7/30/2001 at 4:22am, Ron Edwards wrote:
RE: Guess who's finally read the FAQ
Jack wrote,
"According to the FAQ, the "Edwards model" as it's called there is about game design where as the rgfa model is about player behavior."
For the record, this is a misconception and any text in the FAQ that leads us to it shall be expunged. GNS is about player/GM behavior; my observation that game design has an influence on such behavior is a secondary issue.
But all this is getting away from the point. Jack brought up a crucial, central issue in the development of the ideas here on the Forge. As I know myself, this issue draws fire - often of a very savage, tremble-voiced sort - in a way that discussing Narrativism and Gamism does not.
I hope - really - that the current construction as defined by my and Fang's exchange above, and as commented upon by others, can be taken as a new starting point.
Best,
Ron
On 7/30/2001 at 6:29am, Jack Spencer Jr wrote:
RE: Guess who's finally read the FAQ
OK, let me see if I've go this...
Simulation is something in common with all RPGs. On one level or another, any RPG is a simulation.
How the simulation works and what is being simulated varies. Most traditional RPGs tended to simulate "gameworld physics."
This sort of explains why I've often heard complaints on GURPS Supers. The most common reason is that the superheroics found in comic books doesn't work in the "realistic" GURPS system. Whatever anyone else may think, this prompted SJG to add the tagline "Super heroics meets the real world" or something to that effect to the product.
Some newer games attempt to simulate story with mechanics like situational modifiers. Bonuses to a task not based on character ability but on the importance of the task at hand to the story.
At least that's how I've been looking at it, anyway.
Of course, these concepts do all bleed together and it's hard to find a good example of any of the branches since traditionally games have mixed these goals together and I suspect that most games still do, although some are more focused than others.
Look at D&D. Pure Gamist, right? Then how do you account for the aging rules? Simulationist?
I suppose it could be used in a gamist way if it's treated as a time limit. Try to get as much stuff before you die of old age. (Hey, Jared! That'd make a great game, don't ya think?)
It does depend on your perspective on such things.
Personally, we never used the aging rules in D&D. Our characters never lived that long.
On 7/30/2001 at 1:41pm, Ron Edwards wrote:
RE: Guess who's finally read the FAQ
Jack,
I think it's valid to use "Exploration" for the underlying imaginative commitment for ALL role-playing.
Then Simulationism, like Gamism and Narrativism, represents one sphere of applications for the imagination.
So no - Simulationism is not everywhere. Exploration is everywhere. Simulationism is one thing you can do with Exploration. Do not mistake any desire for plausibility or consistency for Simulationism.
Final point: D&D is not "pure Gamist." If we are talking about those first three hardbacks c. 1979, it is incoherent, with most of its elements being Simulationist and Gamist. The aging rules you're talking about are a good minor example, and your point about not using them illustrates my entire thesis.
Best,
Ron