Hi all

I was reading the Is S out of balance with G/N thread started by J Mendes and it gave rise to a thought, specifically with regards to the rewarding of Exploration of Setting.

In regards to exploration of Setting, we came upon a fundamental difference about my game and his question of rewarding Exploration of Setting. After careful analysis, It occured to me that my system rewards and provides for the exploration of Setting, but only Setting as portrayed by System elements. So it is essentially Exploration of System. (The Setting is portrayed by designing through detailed systems. so what you get is exploration of System, where in essence you get to chose the Systems that interest you, by defining the parameters of setting.)

While he and some others mentioned Exploration of Setting, where essentially, the knowledge of System in essence reduced the quality of the Exploration of Setting. Knowing the System, or rather the Setting as represnted by the System, deprived them of any mystique and wonder in discovering the setting. Such that they found, Monolithic Setting, either pre-genned or original, channeled through a single individual as most rewarding, as it maintained the sense of wonder, mystery, and discovery. From which followed the idea of rewarding that play by allowing more of that type of play. Which essentially required screen-time.

In my EofSys setup, designing the elements via system and getting to "play" with them provided the best reward.

Now, what makes this interesting to me, is that this "Division" to me, seems to mirror some of the nature of the Dramatism/Narrativism divide.

Essentially, in Dramatism, the priority is creating an Engaging story via elements of good storytelling, but having that story channeled through a single player, such that the other players act in more of an Audience position. While in Narrativism, the priority is the same, creating an Engaging Story via elements of good storytelling. However, in this case it is accomplished by all the players sharing power to create this.

So we have two different modes, one we could call "Product Based", where the delivery of the product is the key, and the delivery of that product works best by centralized Power. On the other hand we have "Process based", where the process of creating the "product" is the key, and is best accomodated by sharing in the power to engage in this process.

Anyway, I thought it was an interesting insight. Something that I think I will probably address by adding to my SGR model. To reference that, one could say that certain shared Priorities within a mode are best served by a particular division of power. And a game that best serves that priority/preference (SGR) will make the means to engage in that mode of play Paramount, while making the other priorities/preference secondary, and incidental.

So I guess this would leave me to say that GNS & GDS are essentially two views of RPG theory where a fair amount of the the schisms between are caught-up in the Power sharing used. That is to say, Dramatism and Narrativism to me, for example, represent two different Configurations of Story based Priority Play that are being forced into representing ALL of "Story" prioritized play.

Hi Rob,

I agree with you that TMW, as you've presented it so far, is emphatically prioritizing Exploration of System, with a real "slant" toward Setting being the next step. That places it firmly with GURPS and perhaps with EABA and Pocket Universe, perhaps with JAGS (which can also go "character next" I think; gotta mull more).

Anyway, a lot of your basic inquiry is getting hammered out in my next essay about Simulationist play and design, but for now, I'll say that Simulationist play has its "vanilla" side and "pervy" extremes just like the other two modes. It strikes me that Vanilla Sim is in part defined by the elements of Exploration being very clear and non-problematic. I have yet to see any successful Simulationist play in which all five elements are free to be cranked up to the max at any time. When people have tried it in my presence, a lot of "dammit quit wasting time" gets going.

However, I'm seeing a bit of a weird shift during your post. On the one hand, you're asking about the compatibility of the different elements of Exploration. On the other, you go into this whole Dramatism/Narrativism comparison. Can you help me nail down just what it is you're asking?

Best,
Ron

Ron Edwards wrote: Hi Rob,

Anyway, a lot of your basic inquiry is getting hammered out in my next essay about Simulationist play and design, but for now, I'll say that Simulationist play has its "vanilla" side and "pervy" extremes just like the other two modes. It strikes me that Vanilla Sim is in part defined by the elements of Exploration being very clear and non-problematic. I have yet to see any successful Simulationist play in which all five elements are free to be cranked up to the max at any time. When people have tried it in my presence, a lot of "dammit quit wasting time" gets going.

However, I'm seeing a bit of a weird shift during your post. On the one hand, you're asking about the compatibility of the different elements of Exploration. On the other, you go into this whole Dramatism/Narrativism comparison. Can you help me nail down just what it is you're asking?

Hi Rob,

I think you're still answering your own question, there. Let's take a Simulationist approach to play with a very strong Character and Situation component. You have spent lots of time working up your character, with perhaps a lot of freedom or at least a lot of cool choices to pick from. The character is well-suited to coping with specific spheres of conflict (kung fu, vampire mind powers, etc). It's time to get down to it.

Now, it turns out that everyone at the table is very hyped about Setting. Setting, setting, setting. Which NPC did what to whom, where is that barn located, why your character's origin seems so strongly linked to that one's, and how that relates to the mysterious events (of which you guys know 10%) that have occurred since the disappearance of the Marie Celeste. All those choices you made during character creation turn out to be linked to specific metaphysical frameworks for this setting, which you get to learn about through play. Isn't that cool?

I think you can see what's going to happen here. The player with the Character + Situation emphasis is probably going to get frustrated ("God damn it, get to it, already"). The others will also be frustrated ("He keeps picking fights with the important NPCs").

So now let's turn it to game design. None of the five elements are incompatible; far from it, all five are absolutely required. What we have to consider are the features of game design that reinforce an emphasis on one or two of them, and similarly, features that say, "OK, no deeper, close enough for jazz" for the others.

For this example (or pseudo-example, I haven't even named a game), the character creation system seems like the key. When people made up characters, what choices did they have? That range of choices is more than a laundry list; it informs players of the range of activity and the group-wide parameters of (a) what characters might be like and (b) what they might have to cope with. A character is made not only as a set of cherry-picked "things" from a basket, but in the context of perceiving (and wanting to play in a world constructed from) the whole basket.

In many ways, this issue is not specific to Simulationist play. However, it is the hub of Simulationist play and therefore, to my way of thinking, the hub of successful Simulationist game design.

Best,
Ron