Topic: TMW:COTEC - Where Does He Get Those Wonderful Toys?
Started by: RobMuadib
Started on: 2/14/2003
Board: Indie Game Design
On 2/14/2003 at 3:25am, RobMuadib wrote:
TMW:COTEC - Where Does He Get Those Wonderful Toys?
"Where does he get those wonderful toys?"
-- The Joker, Batman (The Movie)
Hey all, I am still procrastinating over the Game Concepts: Shared Play
chapter. I have finished outlining the basics of the Nomenar economy that
exists between the players. Upon reviewing what I had come up with, in
light of reading Ron's
simulationist essay , I was reminded of the earliest urges I had for
this particular play style and emphasis, and the type of game it entails.
I remember game instances where I collaborated with other players in
designing engaging, enthralling, imaginative entities and game elements.
I remember when me and Bob tried brainstorming an interesting alien
invasion super-hero setup with Champions, in which we first conceived of
bio-tech alien menace with a creepy brood-hive structure and such. A
concept that both of us latched onto and ran with, energizing our play
both by it's built-up Kewl factor, and the resulting tone and style it gave to
the campaign. Play in each case was focused on our getting to muck
about with the Game Entities we created, focusing on confronting their
strange alien natures and understanding how they lived and such.
I was also reminded of a particular fantasy campaign that Jeff and I
ran, with Dangerous Journies of all things. We had setup a particularly
involving backstory around my character Kalor Ilkalan, with his evil
Noble family, which riffed upon the classic tyrannical wicked carpathian
warlord in the mountains concept, added onto with some heavy
Demonology and Faustian pacts, built around a host of Machivelian family
politics ala Vampire Hunter D's House of Lee. Once set in place we
engaged in much enjoyable scene chewing and bloody battle, enjoying
the particulars of the Demonic magic, the Machiavellian politics, and
trapsing about the dark, forbidding mountains.
In short, we followed a process of first creating and designing some
entites, systems, and situations, our cool toys, you know like Mcfarlane
action figures or Mobile Suit Gundam models. Stuff that was kewl and
grabbed our imagination, with lots of neat articulated bits and finely
crafted detail.
Next, we set about playing with them in the way that most engaged us,
putting them in the coolest poses. Thorougly enjoying ourselves by
putting them through their paces within the game reality, taking
advantage of their kung fu grips, realistic mix-and-match weapons and
accessories, and fully poseable armatures with footpegs all set against a
3D rendered photorealistic world with astonishing special effects,
awesome backdrops, and detailed physics models. We cut endless money
shots against great panaromic landscapes, and choreographed killer
stylized kung fu action scenes, with state of the art gore shots,
accompanied by triple flash-back x-ray wound models, and bad close-up
one-liners.
So what is all this fanboy gushing and back-in-the-day reminscing have to
do with The Million Worlds: Chronicles Of The Eternal Cycle? Well, it made
me realize what the exact thrust of nature of the game is, as reflected in
the Nomenar reward system. TMW is actually a hybrid, a Gamist game
supported by an underlying "Purist for System" Sim/Roleist
resolution/design system.
It is gamist, not in the player's striving to overcome challenges in the
game, but in the player's both collaborating and competeing to come up
with the coolest scenes and designing the most engaging toys using the
Design Architecture, within the guidelines of the Design Tenets established
by the players. I mean, come on, the game is all about making your bad-ass hero as tough as he needs to be, and you can spend Hero Points to
make sure the dice love him as he jumps, flips, shoots, ducks, dives, and
wisecracks his way through the action of the Narrative. That is, the
challenge is not based on in-game ass kicking by the character.
It's expected and provided for that your guy will kick ass. What we want
is that he looks cool, and feels right as he rocket-jumps his way across
the amazingly rendered gameworld with and dynamic vertex bump-
mapped lighting, volumetric fog, lense flare, 3D dynamic particle effect
systems for smoke, explosions, and special effects, and fully deformable
terrain, that you and the rest of the group have created. Facing the
awesome and impressive enemies and challenges you all have come up
with, via an engaging vicarious action simulation.
Anyway, that is the major spirit and thrust that I am working on injecting
into the rules and designing towards with the Nomenar/rewards system.
Something which I had somewhat lost sight of in my writing lately. So I
thought I would reiterate it here.
The game is gamist on a meta-game level, in that the better the
knowledge you have of the underlying resolution system and Design
Architecture, the "better" you will do when coming up with stuff to add to
the Narrative. Which rewards you by letting show-off with your character
and pull off the set-pieces that you want to happen. What will make it
work, I believe is the Design Tenets that provide that sets the goals and
scoring system you will work against each time.
So anyway, anyone have any comments or questions that might help me
clarify and communicate this better? One idea I am going to integrate into the shared play stuff is the consideration of "Epic", "Panoramic", "Mythic", and "Speculative" elements when setting the Design Tenets. Again, pitching a particular slick and cool style for the game worlds Companies create. Anime style themes of grand, huge clashes and visuals is certainly an influence here.
Thanks for your interest,
Forge Reference Links:
On 2/14/2003 at 4:17pm, Mike Holmes wrote:
RE: TMW:COTEC - Where Does He Get Those Wonderful Toys?
Hmmm. If a game uses a Gamist drive to produce Sim or Nar play, is it actually Gamist?
This is an issue that we've been struggling with a bit lately around here. In any social situation there is pressure to perform well (I'd even argue that solo play against an adventure written by someone else counts). As such, you'll never get past that minimal definition of competition. But as long as that pressure causes Sim decision making (or Narrativist decisions, for that matter), it can't be said that the mechanic supports Gamism. It's a post facto litmus test, and kind of a tautology. If the play produced is Sim, then it's a mechanic that supports Sim decision making.
The only real question is whether or not it does so. Or, rather, does the mechanic at times promote actual competition between the players such that players will make decisions in a Gamist fashion? If so, then, yes it's hybrid. But if it merely causes Sim decisions made to satisfy the group, then it's not Gamist at all. Gamist has to be more rigorous than simple social pressure to conform to an idea. It must also cause the players to make the sort of metagame decisions that result in some indication that one participant (active or not, so the scenario is included) has succeeded over another. Not characters, but players.
Do you see my point? Competing to tell the best story is Narrativism. Competing to create the most realistic or cool simulation is Simulationist. Only competing to show that you have strived successfully with regards to the "Game" is Gamist.
This is important, because it's only with this definition that we can see the actual behavioral differences. Otherwise we'd always have to assume Gamism in everything that was remotely social.
So do you see the game actually causing player vs. player competition to see who is better in some out of game context? Or are they just being induced by the rules to provide satisfactory Sim play?
Mike
On 2/14/2003 at 5:21pm, Le Joueur wrote:
Is Gamism Only About Competition?
Hey Mike, Rob,
Although we can't really know until we see the soon-to-be-released Gamism essay, I'm pretty sure Gamism isn't 'just about competing.' As I remember it, it was about taking the choices that put the player to the test, about challenge.
So how does that work here?
Rob's description is a little too vague for me, but I do think you could make a game that is a hybrid of Gamism and Simulationism. Let's take the posterchild for hybrids and compare. In The Riddle of Steel, a primarily Simulationist 'engine' drives, no forces, players into Narrativist decisions; playing it means your highest priority is on those decisions. What will a hybrid Gamist/Simulationist game be? A Gamist 'engine' forcing play to prioritize Simulationist decisions, right?
Now I'm going to speculate here (largely because I'm too lazy to hunt around), but isn't The Million Worlds about Exploration of Setting? Okay, that means ultimately the Gamist 'engine' has to make you Explore the Setting. As I remember, like Universalis, The Million Worlds has an 'engine' that affords group Setting generation. If you make this a venue for player-challenge then you'd have your Gamist element right there.
What about Simulationism (Exploration of Setting)? Well, once you've created it, you might as well Explore it, right? Makes the game a little like Bridge; first you bid up a situation and then you play it out, right? 'Course it might include rules that allow some Setting challenge 'on the fly' (maybe like 'raising' in Poker).
But what puts Simulationism 'at the top?' That's the tough question. Rob, can you help me out here? How will all the challenge or all the competition 'force' Simulationist play? In The Riddle of Steel, if you don't use the Spiritual Attributes (the Narrativist 'piece'), you're hosed in the Simulationist 'parts.' How does The Million Worlds make it so the Gamism is impeded without making use of the Simulationist aspect? See, if it's about 'solving' the Setting, I think it comes out to being Gamism in the end.
The way I always looked at late-series Star Trek: the Next Generation, arriving in the 'story space' could just as easily been a 'bidding round' where the players put in parts of the Setting and set up the challenge or competed to be the 'message carrier' of the story. To me, that was always a Gamist 'engine' like in the game show, Name that Tune ("I can name that tune in five notes." "Well, I can name it in four." "Okay, name that tune!"), that set up Narrativist play. ("I can answer that Edwardian Premise with these complications." "Oh yeah? I can answer that Premise with this added complication." "Answer that Premise!" That's how we solve the 'who is the second banana' problem.)
So how does The Million Worlds use Gamism to force Simulationism, Rob?
Fang Langford
p. s. I'm really curious about how you'll do this because it'll inform my work on 'snail-paced' Transition.
On 2/15/2003 at 1:11am, RobMuadib wrote:
RE: TMW:COTEC - Where Does He Get Those Wonderful Toys?
Mike Holmes wrote: So do you see the game actually causing player vs. player competition to see who is better in some out of game context? Or are they just being induced by the rules to provide satisfactory Sim play?
Mike
Mike
Hmm, that's tough to say. I think within the basic game focus of collaborative setting design, you can have both approaches. On the one hand, players could focus on knowledge and use of the game system/design architecture to make the coolest bits. The most wonderful toys, as it were. Fostering a very meta-game heavy gear-head approach to the game, where they are just focused on showing off their cool toys and ideas, and their skill in using the system, as represented by their Designer Entities. This would certainly approach a gamist competitive atmosphere.
Or they could have a more cohesive world-based collaborative sim, where the focus is on the in-game simulation/storyline, closer to the Aria end of things. This would be much more focused on the cooperative satisfactory sim end of things.
At least this is what I can see, being that the game rewards Design skills among the players via Royalties. On the extreme end, the players "could" do nothing but set-pieces among their cool warring factions, battles and shiat, working to develop the coolest "action figures", vehicles, equipment, environments, and special fx. Using a meta-Narrative style of warring houses or some such, focusing on designing and playing with the gearhead bits. So you could have a My Saduakar are badder than your fremen kind of vibe going on. A very sophisticated power-gamer/munchkin contest between players?
At the other end, you have the rich, detailed sim story based stuff, where the focus is on more in-game immersion and Narratives, creating the underlying cultures, and exploring the setting created and the stories that arise out of it. More towards the Aria/Runequest end of things
I guess I have come up against the fact that, since the game is essentially a toolset, you can have a variety of approaches even within the express goal of collaborative world design and sim focused Narrative play. And that your approaches to this goal can vary. Does that make sense?
So what would you call the above two uses Drift, Transition. I mean, essentially I consider both valid, and I can see myself using both in a game.
HTH
On 2/15/2003 at 2:35am, RobMuadib wrote:
Re: Is Gamism Only About Competition?
Le Joueur wrote: Hey Mike, Rob,
Although we can't really know until we see the soon-to-be-released Gamism essay, I'm pretty sure Gamism isn't 'just about competing.' As I remember it, it was about taking the choices that put the player to the test, about challenge.
So how does that work here?
Fang
As I mentioned in my response to Mike, I see the opportunity among the player's approach to the game to set the stage for a more competition based play style. One of the foundations of that challenge is that the game requires you to be proficient in the use of the resolution system and the Design Frameworks, which are heavily simulationist in design. So you have a basic skill element to even playing the game. Next, the players set the particular arena of the challenge when setting the Design Tenets of the world they are going to play in. So you could set the stage for a more gear-head focused competition in seeing who comes up with the coolest designs for Vehicles/weapons/races/cultures/specialeffects/meta-ability systems etc.
They are judged the coolest by the group deciding which design gets used within the Narrative Environment, as voted/decided upon by the players. The designing player would then get then royalties for that design, as well as get to see his cool toy in action. Since once it's in the environment it will work under the detailed simulationist resolution system, where Fiat outcomes are only allowed via the expensive Storyboard Script deal.
Sorry if this is hard to follow, I am kind of thinking out loud here, as I consider the implications of what I have put together so far, which is available in a PDF.
So anyway, the above would seem to be a more gamist approach to the simulationist aspect.
Le Joueur wrote:
What about Simulationism (Exploration of Setting)? Well, once you've created it, you might as well Explore it, right? Makes the game a little like Bridge; first you bid up a situation and then you play it out, right? 'Course it might include rules that allow some Setting challenge 'on the fly' (maybe like 'raising' in Poker).
But what puts Simulationism 'at the top?' That's the tough question. Rob, can you help me out here? How will all the challenge or all the competition 'force' Simulationist play? In The Riddle of Steel, if you don't use the Spiritual Attributes (the Narrativist 'piece'), you're hosed in the Simulationist 'parts.' How does The Million Worlds make it so the Gamism is impeded without making use of the Simulationist aspect? See, if it's about 'solving' the Setting, I think it comes out to being Gamism in the end.
So how does The Million Worlds use Gamism to force Simulationism, Rob?
Fang
So let me think. The game is focused on a shared creation kind of simulationism, where designing game entities and elements of the Narrative Environment via the Design Architectue, in collaboration with the other players, following the Design Tenets established by the group, is a major focus. So what does that amount to, high-level Director/Designer stance play focused on the defining of game entities in mechanically rigorous detail as provided by the DA. A very simulationist play focus.
Now, the gamism comes in that players compete to contribute game entities to the Narrative Environment, earning a reward in the form of Nomenar. The Nomenar then give the player the ability to introduce additional Entities, and Events and Expositions to the Narrative, as well as being able to introduce Narrative Expectations that work as opt-in Railroading which the other players can participate in, thus giving control over the direction of the Narrative. Finally, the give you the means to challenge and potentially veto other player's scripts and contributions, thus allowing you to safeguard the sim that is important to you.
Ok, so a player is induced to take part in the this creation in order to have control over the Narrative, as well as being able to contribute his own neat bits to the Narrative Environment.
The important thing to remember is that the Nomenar director stance mechanics are primarily geared toward set-piece simulationism. They let you put the pieces that are interesting to you into the Narrative/Narrative Environment. However, actually Narrating outcomes via fiat is prohibitively expensive, and easily subject to challenges. The game mechanics are the cheapest way to achieve outcomes, via the actions of In-game Entities. The in-game reality is controlled by a Purist for system casual heavy sim resolution system. Which can be tweaked in favor of entities via an investment of Nomenar to that Entity. That is, the action of the game is expected to occur in scenes via the action of the Resolution system. Further, because of the shared Guide roles and challenge mechanic, no one player has the power to short circuit any sim action in a scene, without the tacit consent of the other players. Hence, in-game simulated action is king.
Anyway, so the gamist Design challenge is rewared when it contributes Entities/elements which the other players wish to "explore" to the Narrative/Narrative Environment. These are Royalties. In a similar way, the Payoffs for Narrative Expectations represent a gamist challenge to come up with "Plot Sequences" the other players are interested in exploring. Payoffs for Personae Expectations represent a more immersive simulationist play in which the player must demonstrate the effect of those "Disadvantages" in play, i.e. demonstrably explore them, for him to get Nomenar, i.e. achieve a gamist reward. Play awards vary of course, but depending on the Play Tenets, can be geared towards awarding good sim play.
Now, the major gamist/my guy reward of these Sim hoops is to be able invest Nomenar in your Proprietary personaes to get hero points, to load the dice in favor your Personae when acting in the game. You can also use them to invest in the Personae's abilities, but their investment is expensive and subject to an exchange rate based on an in-game mediated training/studying system. The other elements, Casting Scripts,
Narration Scripts, Director Scripts, Storyboard scripts, aren't as directly appealing for gamist in-game rewards. Also, they are subject to challenge by the other players.
Anyway, that is how I see the rewards system subverting gamist play to support simulationist goals. Hope that answers your question, as I said, I am still in the "What have I wrought" stage in considering the rewards system.
Thanks for your interest,
On 2/17/2003 at 2:21am, Le Joueur wrote:
Okaayyy....
Seems clear enough. One question:
How is any of that Simulationism?
It seems mostly like a chance to 'Explore System,' certainly, but under the priority of competition. As a matter of fact, so much of it seems geared to metagame concerns ('what it coolest?'), I'm not sure how it fits into Ron's new article about Simulationism much at all. (Id est, the Exploration of System seems so far down the list of priorities, it doesn't really seem prioritized at all, merely a feature.)
I'm waiting for the Gamism Article, to be honest; it's hard to tell these apart without a program.
Fang Langford
Forge Reference Links:
On 2/17/2003 at 3:52am, RobMuadib wrote:
Re: Okaayyy... or What about "objective" sim play
Le Joueur wrote: Seems clear enough. One question:
How is any of that Simulationism?
It seems mostly like a chance to 'Explore System,' certainly, but under the priority of competition. As a matter of fact, so much of it seems geared to metagame concerns ('what it coolest?'), I'm not sure how it fits into Ron's new article about Simulationism much at all. (Id est, the Exploration of System seems so far down the list of priorities, it doesn't really seem prioritized at all, merely a feature.)
I'm waiting for the Gamism Article, to be honest; it's hard to tell these apart without a program.
Fang
Well, as I mentioned, I can see people taking different approaches within the games goal, of collaborative world design and setting exploration. The heavy element of gamist sim here is something I call Star Fleet Battles simulationism. SFB is a very detailed complex capital ship space combat simulation "battle-game", with complex rules and tactics. However, those complex rules and tactics provide a detailed, exhuastive simulation of that combat. It depends on your approach how much competition is fostered among the players. It seemed to me that among our group, we would have high periods of cut-throat competition that focused upon the mastery of the game system, using a particular races ships.
Later, we had times were we each created our own mini-races and designed ships, thus paying great attention to the simulationist aspect of the ship designs. Thus when playing with our own ships, winning wasn't as important as getting to see our pet creations in action, filling the minds eye with our imagined space battles.
I can see a similar phenomenon in approaches to my game. This would be a rather gamist driven cool action figures sim focus. Not only do we want our paying pieces to be cool and capture our imagination. But we want to be able to prod, measure, tinker and evaluate them in action. In this approach I would say exploration of system is subordinate to the meta-game element of Kewl stuff set-pieceing. Lots of emphasis on Objective appreciation of sim, driven by a gamist brownie pointing/one-upsmanship agenda.
Again, the groups approach to the game can vary. At the heavy sim end, the players can use it to collaborate on say a unique fantasy world, with lots of prep work at the front end. Then focus on more subjective appreciation of sim, taking time to stop and smell the roses of the world that has been created, letting the meta-game element fade into the background except as appreciation of the players who facillitating their subjective appreciation by handling more objective duties. This would be an approach valueing more in-game sim action.
It just occured to me that, one thing that has been underplayed is meta-game creation as simulationist play. This can include creating castles, and cultures and items just for the sheer joy of it, detailed character creation is the most common form of this, while more gm centric versions of it can be NPC, encounter design, drawing maps, prep work stuff that many gm's engage in, the proverbial folder of campaign stuff that you never to got to run anybody through. I consider meta-game simulation design "play" I guess.
It is very much emphasizing the exploration, in this case through design and realization, of an in-game imagined reality, to me. Which is pretty damn simulationist. What makes more than just day-dreaming, is that it is made "exportable" and understable to other players via it's expression in system terms. Exploration of system, but in an objective, not subjective, approach. That is, given these tools, what can I create to share with other people.
Perhaps ron could elaborate on this idea in his essay, or add a foot-note or some such. I guess my contention is that simulationist "play" doesn't necessarily have to be subjective, that "hard design" type play is objective sim play, IMO. Certainly a good topic for debate or clarification I guess.
best
Forge Reference Links:
On 2/17/2003 at 3:20pm, Le Joueur wrote:
What "Objective" Simulationism?
That's all really clear, but...
Simulation isn't Simulationism.
Creating anything can be all very simulative, but not really Simulationist. (Star Fleet Battles might be high simulation in terms of ship performance, but I can't think of a more Gamist design.)
Many people also make the mistake that Gamism is only about competition, it isn't; as I understand it, it has more to do with meeting challenges with player skill. Competition is a fine and familiar challenge, but so is creature and ship design. To "prod, measure, tinker and evaluate [characters] in action," may be good simulation, but it is almost positively Gamist.
You also seem to be confusing Ron's Exploration ("imagining...made-up characters in made-up situations") with the common definition ("...for the purpose of discovery") and then equating what is described as 'in all gaming' to Simulationism specifically. The most (over-) simplest way of looking at Ron's Simulationism article is Simulationism =/= Meta-game and I'm pretty sure that you can put emphasis upon any of Ron's Elements (Setting, Situation, System, Character, and Color) in any of the GNS modes. Only when you begin to discuss "subjective appreciation" do you near Simulationism's priorities, but how can you really focus on that, if the only rewards are Gamist? In that case it isn't a hybrid because the Gamism isn't supporting the Simulationism, the Gamism is subverting it.
Every time you talk about "objective approach" you hobble Simulationism in your game. As far as you have described, everything is about the creation of play via, and valued with, meta-game. At every turn you undercut Simulationism only to reward Gamism. No game is exclusively G, N, or S; all you've done, apparently, is give Simulationism a lot of credit but no priority.
That still doesn't sound like Simulationism.
Fang Langford
On 2/17/2003 at 3:26pm, Ron Edwards wrote:
RE: TMW:COTEC - Where Does He Get Those Wonderful Toys?
Hello,
With so many excellent points being made by everyone so far, it's hard to know where to start. I guess I'll start by saying that the following is not supposed to put a gospel-style period on the end of the topic. It's just my thoughts so far.
1. Wanting to do cool stuff with the Currency available in the game is not, in and of itself, Gamist. Nor, for that matter, is simply wanting one's character to survive (e.g.) a fight, and taking as many steps to achieve that as possible.
2. Reward systems are not, themselves, inherently Gamist items. Given recent GNS forum threads, it's clear that this topic needs a thorough stick-beating in the upcoming weeks.
3. Competing with or at least evaluating one another as the first priority of play is Gamist. I'll be clarifying this hugely in the essay, especially as it pertains to in-game vs. out-of-game interactions.
With these in mind, Rob, I think that you might be mistaking "social enthusiasm" for Gamist play. If what you're providing is a great framework and a great system for Build this World and Play in It, then people getting pumped about reward systems in that framework is not, itself, a Gamist thing.
On the other hand, can Gamist play be a hybrid-undercurrent of Simulationist play? Theoretically yes, but history has some lessons for us in this department. I really ought to be taking this to the GNS forum, but ...
... historically, Gamist play has a memetic advantage over Simulationist play. Or to put it differently, a little bit of Gamism as an undercurrent or hybrid "helper" quite consistently transforms, Pokemon-like, into full-blown Gamist play in which the Simulationism suddenly becomes the helper or is utterly broken.
Or to put it even a little more differently (and remember, I am emphatically speaking historically), a solid Gamist player can make an unprepared Simulationist GM cry in about 80 minutes of play.
Rob, I guess what I'm saying is that I think - so far, very conditionally - that your reward system for TMW makes a lot of sense and provides a grabby creative challenge without needing the Gamist tag to do it. Now, maybe I'm way wrong and it deserves that tag; I dunno yet. And if it does, maybe it's a rare instance of Gamist play really facilitating Sim goals. If so, then that's cool too.
My real point is that all this GNS-tagging isn't really an issue until we can see (and play) the game's parts in interaction with one another. So far, I'm really liking what you've done and look forward to it coming together.
Best,
Ron
On 2/17/2003 at 3:54pm, Mike Holmes wrote:
RE: TMW:COTEC - Where Does He Get Those Wonderful Toys?
I agree with Ron, and disagree with Fang. Though Simulation is not the definition of Simulationism, that does not mean that the act of simulating is not Simulationism. In fact, Simulation is one activity you find in Simulationism. It's just not everything.
And, yes, yes, I apollogise for my sue of the term competition. I use that as shorthand for "challenging player skills." To say that competition does not mean this is to bow to Gleichman's personal politically correct definition. For purposes of the discussion we're talking about the same things. What is required for Gamism, however, is some sort of objective measure of success. Otheriwise the player is not informed as to what the direction of the challenge is. If I can't compare my success against something, how do I know that I as a player am doing well. Now, one can claim that the rewards given in this game represent that sort of measuring stick. And they would be in another game. But in this game, what do they reward? They reward simulationist play. Even if the players do, say, compete amongst each other to create the neatest stuff, the result is completely in-game, and completely about creating versimilitude, etc. Completely Sim.
As I've said (and Ron just reiterated), the proof is in the pudding. If the play produced is Sim, then all the claims about it being a player challenge just don't matter. Gamism is not all player challenge. It's all challenge that does not relate to creating good simulations, or good story. To say otherwise relegates all play to the realm of Gamism. All play is "player challenge" to an extent.
In fact, I'd like to put that up with the "Exploration" box. Or perhaps it represents the Social box, I'm not sure. But there must be some force in a Sim game that makes players play Sim. And that challenge cannot be called Gamist.
I'd also like to speak to the idea of Gamism creep vs. Sim. I'd agree with Ron's statement above. A Gamist can make a simulationist cry in short order. And to that extent I agree with the idea that Gamism can overpower Sim. But that assumes a Gamist audience. Which seems strange coming from Ron who tells us not to make games to satisfy the entire range of players, but to make a good game that you find playable as the designer. My point is that Sim games may be justified in including Gamist elements if the designer doesn't care that the game will not work with Gamist players.
This is no different from Ron saying that Sorcerer is not for everyone, but that the players must be mentally ready for Narrativist play. Dedicated Gamists can make a Narrativist GM cry as fast or faster than the Sim GM.
Are some hybrid designs more resistant to this than others? Sure. Does it mean that such hybrids as Rob's game should not be attempted? I don't think so (nor do I think Ron does, he's just promoting caution).
I might put caveats in the text of such a game, however.
Mike
On 2/17/2003 at 5:14pm, Le Joueur wrote:
Not So Much to Disagree On
Hey Mike and Ron,
As far as the Gamism =/= challenge and Gamism == measurables, yeah, it's been a while, I forgot which went into canon.
Either way, I took Rob's statement, "The game is Gamist on a meta-game level," at face value (assuming is was a design goal). Add to that statements like, "to come up with the coolest scenes and designing," "focus on...[making] the coolest bits...the most wonderful toys," and "they are judged the coolest by the group," ring perfectly Gamist either way. (I mean "judged" simply means that the standards are relative, but still measured.) Rob's mention of "taking different approaches within the game's goal," provides the best avenue I can think of for Gamist 'creep,' plenty enough to make any Simulationist cry.
My basic point was that because of 'Gamism creep' and little apparently in the way of Transitional 'ratchet stops' I couldn't see the above doing anything but 'creeping' all the way over to Gamism (id est 'not being Simulationism). Anti-drift seemed the only preventative measure offered. In the other thread Rob's got a lot of great ideas about cooperative Simulationism gamemastering (even just the 'up front' stuff), but coupled with this Gamist bent stated over here, it still 'creeps' over to nothing more than Gamism, doesn't it?
And if I had to make any point at all, it would be 'why are you pigeonholing this by the GNS anyway?' It only seems to be obscuring the concept. (Or 'why make it Gamist at all?')
Fang Langford