This is a non-biggie.

Ron's Sim Essay wrote: Layering may be employed to establish and identify the character's plausibility in terms of the game-world itself. For a look at the historical differences among games, compare the methods for establishing player-character skill competence in early RuneQuest (Simulationist) with those of Hero Wars (Narrativist). In Hero Wars, the system limits how many of the thirty or so starting abilities are assigned high values (two really good ones and one great one), but not which ones. Whereas in RuneQuest, every skill has a starting-character value based on its commonality and difficulty to learn, and every skill is rated in money regarding learning higher values of competence, based both on difficulty to learn and who teaches the skill. Hero Wars character creation, which is minimally layered, isn't concerned with the implausibility of having a mastery-level in Greatsword be just as "likely" as having it in Farming; RuneQuest character creation, which is maximally layered, emphatically is.

To repeat, the above point is historical. Whether the distinction I've drawn holds for any and all Simulationist play potential, I don't know.

Hi Vincent,

I wish folks would recognize that the term "may," in my prose, is not a wishy-washy qualifier but rather a real and meaningful word. It means that what follows is one way the issues at hand can play out, as opposed to the way it must play out.

In other words, yes - some Sim play/design, not all of it. It most especially shows up in the sort that includes a significant randomized factor in character design, which is why I chose RuneQuest for my example. To a lesser extent, extensive prereq-layering has the same effect in canonical GURPS play, which as Vincent points out is commonly Drifted from.

Best,
Ron

Hey, Ron.

Actually it was the "I don't know" that I was taking seriously and responding to. I was confirming what seemed to be a conjecture or suspicion on your part.

-Vincent

Got it, Vincent!

I seem to be a little spikey today; I'll try to settle down.

Best,
Ron

This is a "biggie" in my opinion.

That is, for players dedicated to very Sim play, points are a bad thing.

Let me back up a bit. It's explained in GURPS that the designers are aware that the points do not "balance". They say that the point of the point system is to give players an idea of approximately how many points a character should have spent on him to be of a reasonable type for a particular genre. Fanasy heroes have x, "normals" have y, "Supers" have z, etc, etc. Thus, a player is prevented from taking a character that is way off kilter in terms of what he has for abilities by the point limit.

Which seems to make some sense. I'll even sorta buy it for beginners. By which I mean to say, a player who starts out, may not realize that an 18 in a stat is very high for some genres.

But.

That would mean that the player is more in tune with math than he is with reading. A rare state. I say this because on the same page (facing page?) of GURPS that has the charts for points there is a chart that offers descriptions of what each level of stat means. And elsewhere, there's another chart that tells you what level of skill translates to what. So, obviously, a player reading that can make a character from just those descriptions. Assuming he can describe a reasonable human being, or superhero, or whatever is being simulated. Which I have great faith in. If a player can't describe how powerful a superhero is ("he can lift a...locomotive"), I'm not sure he'll like supers play.

Further, there's another problem. In actual use, players are always scrambling to find points to make a decent protagonist. Since there are ways to make a character more powerful than others using the same pool of points, this informs players that they are looking for the most efficient way to spend points. Again, the text admits that this phenomenon exists (this analysis may be in one of the compendiums), and even tries to pass it off as a feature of the game. Anyhow, the text is saying that players should be looking for these efficiencies.

So what's really going on here? The problem is historical. GURPS developed from TFT and Champions and, perhaps, as Ron mentions BRP. All of these, in fact all games at the time (and in fact most games to date), assume a vertain level of Gamism in players. Gamism? In GURPS? Well, of course. It's easy to sit here with all our theory and say, gee, that'd a case of incoherent design. But most designers don't have the advantage of that theory. From their POV, and as Ron points out in his essay, they needed to prevent "creeping gamism". Let's face it, no matter what face they put on it, Point based chargen is an attempt to balance by limiting character effectiveness.

The problem is that creating a group of characters that are all the same "effectiveness" simulates nothing in particular. In fact, it artificially limits players who know better how to create a character that fits a genre. than to just cut him off at a certain number of points. And this is almost all players, or at least any with a true Sim bent.

As such, it's no surprise that players like Vincent and myself see no need for point systems. They are not informative in a useful manner (at least none I've ever seen), and they almost always make creation of the character envisioned difficult.

The bleeding doesn't stop here, however. The reward system gives rewards for play, which is fine. But the rewards are used to make more powerful characters, which again informs that the game is somehow about being powerful. The only use of which that I can see is for the player to be able to use the character to compete more effectively.

Now, some of you may be seeing a big problem comng down the road. And that is that, given what I've delineated, nearly all Sim games suffer from the "problem" of a hybrid Sim/Gamist design. The question is, when is this actually a problem, and when is it a feature? Can one design a Sim game that is not a hybrid? Are there any at all?

And a worse question. What is the reward system in a Sim game? If you give a player a metagame reward, well, that promotes Gamism or Narrativism according to the essay. If you give a character an in-game character improvement, then that must simulate some action that the character takes. If not, then the reward violates causality. If it does simulate some action, then it's just the outcome of the system in application, and no more rewarding particularly than the GM announcing that a character has successfully entered a bar after a player announced his intent that said character was trying to enter.

So is play itself the only reward possible for a player who prefers Sim? Or are all "Sim" selecting players also posessed of secondary metagame goals (which might make those hybrid designs less "problematic" after all)?

Mike

Mike,

Brilliant analysis! Thanks.

Can I inject a metaphor? This one is pretty literal, and I don't mean it to be taken much farther than the obvious.

If you think about the hobby of building model ships, there are a series of progressive stages. Not that everyone has to go through them all, but there is certainly an elitism of "we've gotten to the top, you haven't." This elitism is based on two factors: kit-building vs. scratch-building, and historical research. The beginner buys a kit, usually a plastic one, and puts it together according to instructions. Then he tries a kit where you actually have to rig the sails, but only a basic version --- you don't have to do all the lines and blocks. And so on, until you have the guy who mills all his own parts out of raw wood, studies every possible detail about one ship, and builds it from soup to nuts with his own hands, every knot, block, tackle, line, halliard, and everything; he even hand-models his cannon, building a wooden mockup on a tiny lathe, then making a plaster mold, and then pouring molten lead.

The point here is this. To the hard-core scratch-builder who's into heavy research (the ultimate Sim guy, just in a different medium), using a kit amounts to getting someone else to do all the interesting work --- it's missing the point. Similarly, building a "fantasy" ship is stupid, because unless you actually know a hell of a lot about real ship-building (as opposed to models), you don't know if it will float.

This structure extends into actual sailing ship life. If you've read Patrick O'Brian's novels, you may remember when Jack was assigned to the Polychrest, which was designed according to "scientific principles" by someone who knew nothing about sailing. Naturally, it sank at the first really heavy cross-swell.

So I think the Sim guy here allies himself to the "real thing," the sailor (or soldier, or knight, or whatever). His ideal is a transparent mechanism, as Ron points out, because his ideal is really to live the game in the "dream." Kits and instructions translate into mechanics: ideally, you don't need them if you're "the real thing." (This I think is Mike's point about pure Sim.)

The problem is that, and I think this is my essential point for the metaphor, he doesn't trust the other guy. He "knows" he could do it all without mechanics, but the guy next to him is going to "cheat," meaning he'll build a fantasy ship from a kit, knowing nothing about real sailing. For the Sim guy, this is anathema, a sin against the hobby. But at the same time, he's so in love with the hobby that he wants everyone else to come to see it the way he does, to "get it right," because he genuinely believes that if they do, they will love it and get more out of it.

So he designs kits, to get people into it.

Or, to get back to RPGs, he designs systems.

And along the way, of course, he gets so entranced by the excitement of building the perfect kit, the one kit that will really get people to see the real thing without blinders, he forgets that the mechanics were a means to an end.

What I like about the metaphor is that it recognizes the hard Simulationist's confusion, his narrow-mindedness, and also at the same time his really genuine desire to draw others into sharing this wonderful dream with him.

Hey,

I wanna hug everyone. We're discussing Simulationism and no one's getting mad.

Mike and I have batted the issue about points around for a while. Another factor to consider is the sheer beauty of a Purist for System design, in terms of points, math, and structure. I've been reading Pocket Universe again and just marvelling at its perfect refinement of The Fantasy Trip and GURPS into a speedboat of play, solving at least six problems inherent to the previous games in interlocking ways.

Although I agree in full with Mike's and Chris' comments above, in fact am greatly appreciative of them, this aesthetic-engineering value can be recognized as a possible goal as well, such that aggressively point-based Sim design might not necessarily be a "poor second" to the pure-transparency unreachable ideal.

Best,
Ron

Ron,

What's to fight about? Nonono -- don't tell me. :)

Although I agree in full with Mike's and Chris' comments above, in fact am greatly appreciative of them, this aesthetic-engineering value can be recognized as a possible goal as well, such that aggressively point-based Sim design might not necessarily be a "poor second" to the pure-transparency unreachable ideal.

Mike Holmes wrote: Now, some of you may be seeing a big problem comng down the road. And that is that, given what I've delineated, nearly all Sim games suffer from the "problem" of a hybrid Sim/Gamist design. The question is, when is this actually a problem, and when is it a feature? Can one design a Sim game that is not a hybrid? Are there any at all?

Mike Holmes wrote: And a worse question. What is the reward system in a Sim game? ... If it does simulate some action, then it's just the outcome of the system in application, and no more rewarding particularly than the GM announcing that a character has successfully entered a bar after a player announced his intent that said character was trying to enter.

Hey, :)

After some considerations about the inherent gamism of existing sim designs, Mike Holmes wrote: And a worse question. What is the reward system in a Sim game?

JMendes wrote:
Mike, in your opinion, do the final points in that thread address this question and your considerations?

Mike Holmes wrote: As such, it's no surprise that players like Vincent and myself see no need for point systems. They are not informative in a useful manner (at least none I've ever seen), and they almost always make creation of the character envisioned difficult.

Mike I think your touching in a different way on my own thoughts on the matter. I don't see the Metagame question as a smoke screen, rather perhaps mistaking a symptom for the cause.

In otherwords I do think that by and large there is a pretty widespread resistance to metagame in sims...but I don't think that's because the sim players have an issue with the metagame mechanic itself. Rather the issue is their fear of what the metagame mechanic might be used for. You as a sim player have no trouble with accepting metagame in your sims because you are fully capable of using metagame to support the sim rather than tear it down...in much the same way we've suggested the same about Author and Director stance being possible in a Sim.

I've suggested before that truly devoted sim player who are all in tune with other can play full bore sim without any "mechanics" at all. The entire game can be played on a metagame level because there is no fear of gamist creep (I've seen historical minis gamers play out an entire battle with no mechanics other than their mutual judgement of how a unit could move and the number of expected casualties at a given range...there was debate to be sure, and citations to relevant texts, but not a single chart, table, or die roll).

So I don't think that "no metagame" is part of a definition of Sim, I think it is a common way Sim games defend against non sim creep.

Valamir wrote: So I don't think that "no metagame" is part of a definition of Sim, I think it is a common way Sim games defend against non sim creep.

Hi there,

Mike, I agree with you. It's clear to me that there is a Sim metagame - any behaviors, actions, dialogues, etc, which preserve the integrity of "the dream" and its internal workings. What makes it difficult to discuss is, since Gamist and Narrativist metagames are so recognizable, and so clearly intrusive (even at their subtlest) by comparison, that giving them the "metagame" tag is way too easy to do in dialogue.

My prose hobbles around this issue without managing to pin it. But for the record, I agree with you completely. I also think that discussing the range of "acceptable" Sim metagame activity, rules and otherwise, would help us grasp the issue of acceptable/enjoyable reward systems as well.

For instance, I've been thinking that both (1) the improve-skill through-usage and (2) add-points veeeeery-slowly methods are, in many ways, barely reward systems at all. The former (in the games I'm thinking of) is honed down to an in-game model on a par with damage systems and perception rolls; and the latter is, essentially non-existent except over very large increments (multiple sessions) of play.

So what might be a reward system that really rewards the player? Let's get away, or mostly away, from "character gets better at to-hit." Director power? Feh. Only in a game which has that as an important mechanic, which remains mainly terra incognita for Sim game design at this point. I'm thinking we should turn our attention to the already-existing Metagame component of characters in the first place - their "situated-ness" in the game-world. Contacts, DNPCs (to use Champs talk), Hunters/Enemies, social status, relationships with the law ...

And Pocket Universe hits me between the eyes with its few short paragraphs about its Contacts rules. H'm. I'd like to play this game and never (or hardly ever) use the experience system to bulk up the characters' effectiveness - just pump it all into the Contacts system and watch the social/placement aspects of the characters expand and intertwine ...

Best,
Ron

xiombarg wrote: But if that's the case, does that mean a metagame component in a Narrativist game can be used to cause a game to creep in a Simulationist direction? Or is the possibility of "creep through metagame" unique to Simulationist play?

Interesting discussion here, which ties into some concerns I've had for a while with existing sim designs.

Mike gets it spot on with his Gurps analysis. Continued play is rewarded via a mechanic which increases character power, which has nothing to do with sim play. How is my exploration of Thirteenth century France improved by the characters all getting steadily better at fighting? It's a gamist reward, an artefact of gaming history.

For me, a sim reward mechanic would be one which codified in-game benefits in a manner which was not merely reflective of ever increasing power.

Some of you may recall my ongoing interest in codifying relationship mechanics, in advancement through contacts and reputation rather than skill and ability.

That, for me, is a truly sim reward mechanic. Your character does not necessarily become more powerful but they do become more connected to the setting, more a part of the sim itself. Reward here would actually reinforce the sim aspects of the game, an ongoing game would be a fuller and richer sim than a one-shot.

As an aside, for me the games which most clearly have a sim advancement mechanic as presently done are Traveller and Castle Falkenstein. In each there is no metagame advancement, characters improve only if they do things in game which would lead to such improvement. Purist and very sim. Sits a little oddly with the rest of CF actually, but that's another debate.

Mike Holmes wrote:

xiombarg wrote: But if that's the case, does that mean a metagame component in a Narrativist game can be used to cause a game to creep in a Simulationist direction? Or is the possibility of "creep through metagame" unique to Simulationist play?

Sure, theoretically. But it all depends on the particular design. If a metagme mechanic is designed correctly, it can be made such that it requires a lot of effort (if not quite making it impossible), to ignore the Narrativist questions that it posits.

Hey, :)

Ron Edwards wrote: So what might be a reward system that really rewards the player? Let's get away, or mostly away, from "character gets better at to-hit." Director power? Feh. Only in a game which has that as an important mechanic, which remains mainly terra incognita for Sim game design at this point. I'm thinking we should turn our attention to the already-existing Metagame component of characters in the first place - their "situated-ness" in the game-world. Contacts, DNPCs (to use Champs talk), Hunters/Enemies, social status, relationships with the law ...

xiombarg wrote: But if that's the case, does that mean a metagame component in a Narrativist game can be used to cause a game to creep in a Simulationist direction? Or is the possibility of "creep through metagame" unique to Simulationist play?

Hi J.,

Couple things ...

1) Nothing in any of my theorizing, anyway, relies on a distinction between "conscious" and "unconscious" elements.

2) In the section you quoted, when I'm talking about Effectiveness, I'm talking about something very specific, as outlined in the GNS essay. I'm talking about values or capabilities on the character's sheet which are used for resolution.

Therefore:

- Sword +4 is an Effectiveness value
- Social rank: nobleman is a Metagame element
- Contact +1 (princess) is a combination of the two

I think you're applying the term "effectiveness" too broadly, using it in the common sense of "important" or "useful." I'm using it in the technical sense that I defined, such that I think your friend exemplifies and corroborates my point rather than refutes it.

Best,
Ron

These comments about standing and contacts remind me of the AD&D idea of Guilds. In effect, you had a Guild of each class, and I always had the sense that the level mechanics were supposed to imply some sort of parallel organization actually out there in the game world. This was made explicit with the Monk class, where there could only be one of each of the highest levels, if I remember correctly (Grand Master of Flowers seems to be caught in the "hooks-and-eyes" of my memory).

So to give Gygax and the gang their due, I wonder if this wasn't part of the idea of levels in the beginning. You got more powerful in direct combat terms, of course, but your power was "graded" by a more or less shadowy organization of people of your profession. So when some dude came along to the local Adventurers' Tavern and said, "Hey, I've got this dungeon needs sweeping; big treasure, but some seriously ugly caterpillars," you pass this on to the low-level guys. When a similar dude says, "Hey, my castle has been taken over by this wicked powerful [sorry, I'm from Boston] lich-lord," you refer the "case" to the big guns.

Now if you think about it, this structure would imply that every profession has mid-level "agents" in any big town, and a whole civil service of such agents in Greyhawk or something. And now that I think of it, wasn't there some suggestion that precisely this was going on? So in the straight AD&D Greyhawk world, didn't actual people go around town saying, "Wow, that guy over there looks like a seriously powerful Lawful Evil Fighter, better steer clear of him"?

Of course, it's a weird way to imagine a world in the first place, but I really think they were trying to Sim that very strange world. In fact, I'm getting all warm and fuzzy about that bizarre world.... <please, this is a cry for help!>

Hey, :)

Ron Edwards wrote: 1) Nothing in any of my theorizing, anyway, relies on a distinction between "conscious" and "unconscious" elements.

2) In the section you quoted, when I'm talking about Effectiveness, I'm talking about something very specific, as outlined in the GNS essay. I'm talking about values or capabilities on the character's sheet which are used for resolution.
<snip>
I think you're applying the term "effectiveness" too broadly, using it in the common sense of "important" or "useful." I'm using it in the technical sense that I defined, such that I think your friend exemplifies and corroborates my point rather than refutes it.

- Social rank: nobleman is a Metagame element

clehrich wrote: So in the straight AD&D Greyhawk world, didn't actual people go around town saying, "Wow, that guy over there looks like a seriously powerful Lawful Evil Fighter, better steer clear of him"?
Of course, it's a weird way to imagine a world in the first place, but I really think they were trying to Sim that very strange world. In fact, I'm getting all warm and fuzzy about that bizarre world.... <please, this is a cry for help!>

(As a quick aside, in 1st ed AD&D there was such a thing as "Alignment Languages". I dunno if they existed in 2nd Ed, and they're very much gone in 3rd Ed. Every sentient being that was, say, Lawful Good, knew the Lawful Good language, and changing alignment was hard because you had to be "initiated" into your new alignment and learn the new language. So it was very possible for someone to know, say, if someone was Lawful Good -- if they spoke the language. So someone could honestly say, "I'm Lawful Good," tho perhaps only in the LG language -- it was never clear if the alignments called themselves in Common what they were in-game.)

This is an interesting artefact of the nature of the writing of D&D texts. Basically, they assume that people will "get" that the statistics underly the simulation and are not an explicit part of it. As such, many people's early readings of the game were in fact that these things were available to the characters (and, yes, alignment languages are partly to blame).

If you don't believe me, you don't watch enough Japanimation. This effect happened in a strong way in the translation of D&D to Japanese. Such that in anime based on RPGs today you will occasionally hear a charactr say, "We don't want to mess with him, he's a twentieth level Wizard."

This is not to say that this is even common in Japanese play. But just that it does happen. In fact, I think (and some expert should correct me if I'm wrong) that this is seen as a sort of self-depricating humor in the games, and as such only used in some games.

Hard to say, really, as I'm sure the play in Japan is at least as widely varied as anywhere else. But it's an interesting phenomenon.


On the subject of Social Status, and whether or not it's Metagame or not, I sorta agree that it tends to actually be an effectiveness. Consider in Traveller where it soley exists to add to appropriate dice rolls to get in to see upper-class people and the like. I think this is a problem that had long been waiting to discuss.

Take, for example, the bonus dice in Sorcerer. These are a reward to effectiveness, plain and simple. But they are rewarded for metagame reasons. One doesn't get Sorcerer bonus dice for having armor piercing rounds, unless the GM feels that they've been added to the description to give thematic weight to the action. So the idea is not to avoid effectiveness as the reward, but to only reward Narrativist play.

The question becomes: if I am a Narrativist player, why do I want a Gamist reward? Presumably, if I prefer Narrativism, I'm as happy with a negative outcome a positive one, as long as the result keeps the story progressing in an interesting fashion. I've long wondered why Narrativist games bother with any simulation of resolution at all. The resolutions aren't really particularly important themselves. Ron says that they're springboards for creativity, and that's certainly possible.

But the problem remains that the player shouldn't be interested in success, particularly. Only in continuing the story (or perhaps ending it) well.

So, just as much as it seems odd to me to reward the Simulationist player with Gamist rewards, the same goes for Narrativists.

The theory goes, if I'm not mistaken, that one can pander to the closet Gamist in each of us, as long as what's rewarded is the sort of play that the game is supposed to support. If that's true, two questions arise.

First, does this incidentally promote Gamism? Are players informed that the goal of resolution is to "win" if the rewards given help do that in resolution?

Second, does this actually satisfy a Gamist urge? I have to say that I've found it to be cathartic in play to an extent.

Can Gamism be "chanelled" to promote other modes?

If so, this is good news for several reasons, not the least of which is that we don't have to worry about what makes a good "Simulationist" reward. If this is not true, then we have a lot of designs to fix, and I think finding a Sim reward is going to be problematic...

Mike

Hi J.,

Oh, first, I need to ask everyone to be very careful about topic-drift in this forum. I've seen a fair amount of it lately and I know all of you know the standards. If something makes you go "spoo!" and wanna talk about it, take a minute to think about whether a new thread would be appropriate - and when in doubt, the answer is Yes, it is.

Back to J. OK, let's see ...

1) "Creep" isn't a formal term. So far, I haven't seen people use it rigorously; sometimes they mean gradual Drift such that the rules come to correspond to the existing GNS consensus, sometimes they mean one or some members of the group subtly breaking the Social Contract away from GNS preferences of the other members, and sometimes they mean God knows what. I have never used the term, as far as I remember. Until it's clear to me that a term is necessary, and until I get some idea of what it's supposed to mean for everyone, then I'm not going to concern myself with Drift vs. Creep.

2) I don't presume to be able to classify your friend's behavior in GNS terms; I don't know the guy. I can only go on the text you provided, which is consistent with the idea that Metagame-components of a character may be a valid realm for reward systems in Simulationist-facilitating games. Whether he personally takes this kind of character-expansion as an indicator of his own "winning-ness" is beside the point.

As a related point, until the Gamism essay gets up and the resulting debates begin, I think people ought to be wary of pegging things as Gamist-type rewards and whatnot. As I've said before, I'm not sympathetic to definitions that rely on "I know it when I see it," and people do that regarding Gamism all the time. My upcoming essay may not nail down all the pegs for everyone, or it might even be all wrong in all sorts of ways, but I'm pretty sure we won't get anywhere about the topic until at least some of the issues have been brought to light in relation to one another.

3) I laid out three options for the Effectiveness/Metagame concept specifically to show that they (like all the components of Currency) are not exclusive of one another but exist in all sorts of combinations. Therefore if "nobleman" were to be accounted for in the resolution tables in some way, then yes, that feature now contributes to Effectiveness as well as (presumably) to the character's Metagame stuff.

Mike, you're making it harder than it is by confounding Effectiveness with "important." Identifying a character-component as Metagame (alone or in combination with Effectiveness, Resource, or both) does not mean that it lacks utility in play. Effectiveness refers to designations of competence for purposes of system-driven resolution.

Best,
Ron

All right, before anyone throws it in my face, I found the "creeping Gamism" phrase in the Simulationist essay. Yeah, I used it. Right there! When I just said I didn't. So there, to me.

Anyway, it refers specifically to

one or some members of the group subtly breaking the Social Contract away from GNS preferences of the other members

Ron Edwards wrote: Mike, you're making it harder than it is by confounding Effectiveness with "important." Identifying a character-component as Metagame (alone or in combination with Effectiveness, Resource, or both) does not mean that it lacks utility in play. Effectiveness refers to designations of competence for purposes of system-driven resolution.

Let me try to bring this discussion back to a simpler plane.

Coherent Gamist rewards, generally speaking, reward achievement of Gamist goals (victory, success) with more of the werewithal to achieve future Gamist goals. That being e.g. character effectiveness scores, new skills, etc.

Coherent Narrativist rewards, generally speaking, reward achievement of Narrativist goals (addressing Premise) with more of the werewithal to achieve future Narrativist goals. That being e.g. units of narration rights or the ability to garner narration rights, packaged as story points, pool dice, bidding tokens, etc.

Coherent Simulationist rewards, generally speaking, should reward achievement of Simulationist goals (prioritized exploration) with more of the werewithal to achieve future Simulationist goals. That being... what?

Character contacts and relationships? Sure.
Character social status? Sure.
New information about the world, situation, or characters? Sure.

And what about character effectiveness? It's sometimes a Simulationist reward too. Consider:

- Magic spells (or tech upgrades, or whatever) that give player-characters access to heretofore inaccessible places or allow survival in hereto fatal environments.
- Experience points in Champions, which have minimal incremental effects on overall character effectiveness but enormous impact on the exploration of system, being the fuel needed to drive the system mechanics for creating bases, vehicles, power modifications, gadgets, etc.
- Combat effectiveness increases, to the extent that the increases represent the ability to explore previously unsurvivable environments or situations.

What might tie all these various reward types together is the concept of adaptation. Exploration and adaptation are closely associated enough that whenever I think of one I think of the other. One adapts in order to explore; one explores in order to adapt. However, in the aesthetics of actual play, adapatation appears to be most prominent in Simulationism. In Gamist play, one typically strives to master or overcome or "beat" the environment, situation, system, etc. rather than adapt to it. In Narrativist play, changes to the character are generally driven by authoring based on Premise rather than by the explored elements themselves.

Example Gamist character effectiveness reward: "If I learn to fight better, I can kick more ass and get more respect."

Example Simulationist (adaptive) character effectiveness reward: "My people are facing a time of tribulation and war. To be worthy to lead them I must become a better warrior."

Too subtle? Are we better off sticking to "character effectiveness rewards are always Gamist"? Not, I believe, if we want to understand practical Simulationist system design in GNS theoretical terms.

But all that might still be missing the elephant. I believe that the most typically Simulationist rewards are plot developments occurring by causal happenstance or authored by the GM. They present new characters and/or new situations and/or new places and/or new color, and/or sometimes new system elements to explore. That, to me, most unambiguously represents "the werewithal to achieve future Simulationist goals." And it agrees with my experiences regarding what I and my players find most rewarding in predominantly Simulationist play.

- Walt

That's sweet, Walt. Can I start a fan club in your honor?

Your elephant comment is well taken. That is, in proposing all these methods for adding areas to explore, we miss the fact that, in theory, the universe of play in most games is presented as infinite already. All the player has to do is to say, "I go around the corner. What do I see?" and presumably the GM has to reward him with a description of a new street to explore. Thus, in such a game, these do not seem to be very potent rewards.

OTOH, if one were to make a game where there were no "corners" to turn with regard to the main area of exploration, then such a reward would be crucial. I can't envision such a game at the moment, so it's highly theoretical. But I think it could be done.

The last part does suggest another Simulatioist reward albeit one with the same limitations. If the player is rewarded by:

plot developments occurring by causal happenstance or authored by the GM

Mike Holmes wrote:
It occurs to me that these sorts of mechanics might be especially useful in very metaphysical settings such as Dreamspire (are ya listening, Matt?), where characters might just exist in a sort of semi-vaccum with only the limited elements that have been created in existence.

Yeah, Walt got there first. I guess skipping a day (I was pretty sick yesterday) means I miss a lot of discussion and have to catch up.

Mike Holmes wrote: OTOH, if one were to make a game where there were no "corners" to turn with regard to the main area of exploration, then such a reward would be crucial. I can't envision such a game at the moment, so it's highly theoretical. But I think it could be done.

Mike also wrote: On another topic, how does a GM identify when a player has "prioritized exploration"?....In Sim, well, you're always exploring or your not playing an RPG....How do I positively reward prioritizing exploration, when, if done correctly, it's being done constantly?

several random thoughts

Mike Holmes wrote:
How do I positively reward prioritizing exploration, when, if done correctly, it's being done constantly?

Your elephant comment is well taken. That is, in proposing all these methods for adding areas to explore, we miss the fact that, in theory, the universe of play in most games is presented as infinite already. All the player has to do is to say, "I go around the corner. What do I see?" and presumably the GM has to reward him with a description of a new street to explore. Thus, in such a game, these do not seem to be very potent rewards.

As I believe I indicated on the previously cited Balance thread, you can achieve the same result by having reasonable limitations on the character's movement which are gradually eliminated by advancement.

Gareth has some good points. I'd not be surprised to learn that the only true reward available to a player who prefers Simulationism is the simulation itself. In which case searching is pointless (made all the more likely by the possibilty that there is no "superior" sim play to reward.

Hmmm..

Mike

So, if we let go of the idea of external rewards being useful in sim play, what else would we look to to encourage this kind of play? What structures in the mechanics, what social atmosphere in the gaming group? My approach to sim play was formed by hours of out of game discussion of in-game-world characters, culture and concepts.

Also, are we talking about sim as though it is monolithic? There's a pretty broad range of play that falls under the category. Each might benefit from a different approach.

Vincent started this thread talking about point purchase systems and how they tend to get thrown out for sim play. Are we saying now that metagame rewards are at odds with sim play? Drift it to gamist in uncomfortable ways? Sounds like we're talking about what doesn't work to encourage simulationism.

--Emily Care

edited in: if this conversation has gone elsewhere and this thread is dead, I'll play nice and go home.

Actually, Emily, I'm glad you continued this because I for one haven't reached any kind of conclusion here. I'm just being slow to put my thoughts together on this.

My current question is, if all the rewards are "internal"... so what? I'm not convinced that that precludes systematic rewards.

Mike Holmes wrote: All the player has to do is to say, "I go around the corner. What do I see?" and presumably the GM has to reward him with a description of a new street to explore. Thus, in such a game, these do not seem to be very potent rewards.

wfreitag wrote: Actually, Emily, I'm glad you continued this because I for one haven't reached any kind of conclusion here. I'm just being slow to put my thoughts together on this.

wfreitag wrote: The question remains whether a system, a setting, or a GM can control these rewards in any "systematic" way so as to preferentially reward Simulationist decision-making. I believe -- to say in one sentence what should probably be a whole chapter -- that a system could but most don't, a setting can't but most claim they do, and a GM can and usually does but most claim they don't.

First, I don't think your advocating it, but obviously the "Blorg" method of enforcement is nagative reinforcement, and not what we're looking for.

But then, the method where you only give out salient stuff for rewards seems sorta negative, too. That is, it's only possible by lowering the bar some for what normally happens. So I turn the corner and see miles of corn. Well, OK, what about the next corner? More corn? Well, the standard assumption in Sim GMing is that the GMwill throw something at you if you look hard enough. Or even if you don't.

So, are we advocating that the GM only give out boring information about what the player's find? Until they spend some reward point or something? What about logical extension? The PC is in front of the armorer's shop. He has his character enter, but does not spend a reward point. So, there's...nothing in the shop? Or the GM glosses it over? I could maybe see the latter. Basically, the use of the points would be to break into a scene where the GM would be forced to give scene-level details. Until then, all he's required to do is to give "strategic" level detail.

That might work. Still, it means that the GM can do no pre-planning for scenes, as he can never be sure which scenes are going to be at what level. Unless, perhaps he has the ability to say that certain scenes are automatically detailed? But it we're talking Illusionist play, won't the players end up disapointed with their scenes as they aren't integral to the plot? So can this only be used in completely Open Sim (no GM control of plot)?

Sounds exhausting for the GM, potentially.

Or are we talking about something else, and I'm just missing it?

Mike

I see Blorg as being a fix for a broken player-gm dynamic, so I wouldn't really advocate it. It may have quite been off from what Walt was talking about. Or represent a far end of the continuum.

The whole question of rewards seems kind of Pavlovian to me. If it's just about getting a cookie, that undercuts what we're trying to encourage in players.

What kind of behaviour are we trying to promote? "In character" behaviour? Interaction with world as a more complex system? Letting go of metagame issues such as character level or "winning"? What worked really well to bring me to this point was indoctrination and ongoing discussion. I was involved in world elements, and helped flesh out the world by my questions. Not everybody has that kind of time to invest, but I guess if I was writing a system that would try to encourage more complex sim playing, I'd start by investing all participants in the world and it's workings.

Have we talked about the many different types of sim gaming and how needs would vary?

--Emily