I was thinking while grocery shopping this morning...

A working definition for simulationism as I understand it might be written like this:

A simulationist wants a game where:
a) Everything conforms to a set of pre-existing understandings about character and setting, and/or
b) A game where events expand upon those understandings logically, with maximum continuity and little or no back-justification.

For example: a Gamist, a Narrativist, and a Simulationist sit down to play a game (gods, sounds like the begining of a joke, doesn't it). Each faces the same situations in play. Aside from any elements of the rules or other considerations, decisions about how to respond come down to a single, defining question for each.

Situation #1:
The games resoultion mechanic is based around "spending" dice from a finite and non-renewable die pool. Our heroes find themselves in a situation where they'll each have to spend a lot of dice to succeed.

The gamist thinks, "Will spending this many dice here put me at an unacceptable disadvantage later in the game?"

The narativist thinks, "Do I really need to succeed here to make the story go in the direction I want to go?"

The simulationist thinks, "Would it be in-character to go all-out in this situation?"

Situation #2:
An NPC is being threatened by a Bad Guy. Do the PCs risk themselves to rescue the NPC?

Gamist: "What are my chances of taking this Bad Guy out without endangering the hostage?"

Narrativist: "Which would be a more entertaining addition to my character's story: the friendship of the NPC's family for attempting the rescue, or their emnity for ignoring the NPC's plight?"

Simulationist: "Does the relationship my character has had until now with this NPC and /or the NPC's family warrant risking my character?"

Situation #3:
The game allows for leaving "ability slots" vacant at character creation so that the character can be fleshed out in play. An opportunity to add a new ability that would allow the characters to succeed comes up...

Gamist: "Can I define and justify this new ability for maximum advantage now and in future games?"

Narrativist: "Would introducing this ability open up new backstory and subplots?"

Simulationist: "Does my character's existing backstory justify this new ability now?"

Actually, the thought experiment questions came first and the definition second, but it presents better this way.

One thing I like aobut this definition is that it avoids arguments about realism, which I have always thought is of limitied relevance to stories of fantasy, anyway.

What do you all think?

Lon

What I have said repeatedly - and NO ONE listens, NO ONE - is that all three of the GNS goals contain a wide range of subsets.

Gamism happens to be the least-understood of the bunch, in my opinion. HISTORICALLY, many Gamists have been oriented toward disproportionate personal advantage in character design. That is a historical observation - it says nothing to say about other Gamist priorities or expression, and it says nothing about the relative numbers of Gamists of this sort. I have no doubt that there is a huge and varied range of past and potential Gamism in role-playing that we have not begun to discuss.

As for Simulationism, please refer to my discussion with Jack (pblock), Fang, and some others. It precisely situates Simulationism and Exploration as I currently conceive them. It received positive feedback from some folks who were very upset with the previous attempt. This new discussion is, to my mind, the necessary starting point for any further debate about "what Simulationism is."

And again - obviously not for the last time, because no one listens to this either - the existing FAQ is a rough draft. A rough draft. If anyone refers to it as "what GNS is all about" as a foundation text, he or she is dead wrong.

Best,
Ron

I can see that perhaps I portrayed Gamists a bit too narrowly... it's a blidness of mine, as that's the GNS axis I least identify with personally.

Still, is the positied definition of simulationism useful on its own, or as a corrolary or subset to another, or with expansion?

I'll go back and re-read the other discussion, Ron. I think perhaps I wasn't clearly understanding the debate. I was certainly trying to listen.

Lon

Brian,

You are certainly correct in that any definition which marginalizes you is not acceptable. I have always held that Gamists have been unfairly treated as the whipping boy in role-playing culture. Changing that is becoming one of my main goals, now that Narrativism is becoming better and more widely understood.

The FAQ was posted as a subject for development and clarification. It remains for that purpose, and everyone at the Forge is responsible for understanding the difference between a rough draft and a finished conclusion.

When it gets rewritten into a (slightly) less labile or provisional form, then that version will replace it. There is no schedule for these events, and I'm under no obligation to hurry up about it.

Best,
Ron

Well. I will say that any document labeled as a FAQ is going to be taken as a definitive declaration by the casual reader. In truth no matter how many times you post here that the FAQ is a work in progress and not the final world etc. etc. that doesn't make it true. A FAQ is a FAQ. If this document isn't ready to be called a FAQ yet then it shouldn't be called one.

Label it a "work in progress discussion on the current direction of the GNS model"