I'm trying to catch up with all the posts over on the Front-loaded relationship-driven Nar/Sim overlap thread, and I'm getting boggled with all the "this is what sim means to me" stuff.

Well, I don't think that it's helpful for everyone to have his (or her) own notion of what the word means unless it leads to a consensus; and having played simulationist in several different ways, I'd like to try to get that consensus started.

There is something almost clinical about simulationist play. Simulationism is in a sense about modelling a reality to see what happens.

I'm going to go out on a limb and bring in the computer Whopper from Wargames. The kid wanted to play the game because he wanted to beat the game; he was playing gamist. But can it be said that the computer wanted to win? The computer is programmed to play that game, global thermonuclear war, over and over and over again and again, modelling every possible outcome, to see who wins and who loses each time. It doesn't care whether the U. S. or the Soviet Union wins; it cares whether it can find out who wins.

Now, what Whopper is doing looks gamist; but it can't really be gamist from Whopper's perspective. The computer can't want to earn the respect of meeting the challenge. It knows nothing of challenge; it only knows outcomes. It has been programmed to optimize whatever side or sides it is playing for a winning outcome, but it's still not playing gamist--it is playing simulationist, asking what would happen if every participant played as well as he could, and which choices actually are "as well as he could".

It is possible that simulationist play can inadvertently result in challenge or in theme; the point is, the player doesn't care. He's not there for the challenge or the theme, and if that emerges, fine, and if it doesn't, fine.

This means that simulationists can get along with narrativists and gamists reasonably well, as long as the simulationists don't feel like the others are tinkering with the model to get some desired outcome (whether theme or challenge). The gamists and narrativists might find the simulationist play irksome, though, if the simulationist is choosing what the character probably would do which is actually boring and doesn't promote challenge/theme when there was another plausible action (deemed by the player less probable) which was not chosen.

One of the earliest Multiverser playtesters was apparently simulationist. His "theory of the verse" (an explanation each player character invents to explain what is happening to him) was that he had been knocked out of the real world into the realm of human fantasy, and that he had the opportunity to watch the stories unfold around him. He wasn't interested in creating stories or meeting challenges. He just wanted to see what each world was like, what was happening in it, and where it was going. Now, if other characters (player or non-player) asked for his help, he would usually become involved to the degree necessary to help them--but he still looked at it as part of the experiment, the exploration of what is happening in this world, whether his involvement made any measurable difference, and what that difference was. He wasn't trying to win. He wasn't addressing themes. He was playing with worlds as petri dishes, in which his actions were part of an experiment to see what would happen.

Haven't you ever been in a game situation in which you just wanted to do something to see what effect it had on the world? You come to the balancing rock and decide to see what happens if you tip it? You travel to the Grand Canyon just to see what it looks like now? You enter the caves or ruins because you're curious about what's inside?

I had a girl decide that she was going to go see the elves because she had always wanted to meet elves and see what elves were like. Were she in Middle Earth, she'd have gone to Lothlorien or Mirkwood just to meet the elves and see what they were like--she didn't need a theme or a challenge to get her there, as it was pure discovery that drove her that direction.

I create worlds that people like to explore for the sheer strangeness of them, for the experience of being in a world that is so unlike the real world that it is worth taking the time just to look, to be a tourist or sightseer in an alien landscape in the imagination.

It has nothing to do with detailed rules or crunchy bits. I could run simulationism entirely freeform, if you like, as long as I've got a clear image in my mind of what it is that you're likely to discover, and you take the time to move through it and ask good questions. Rules are more necessary for gamist play, in my experience, where some measure of challenge is needed to create that feeling of overcoming.

Simulationist play is right there--it's the scientist discovering what happens if you do this, the tourist seeing the world no one else has seen, the stranger in a strange land. There might be theme and there might be challenge, but these are not relevant to the experience--they're peripheral, the things that happen as we're exploring. We don't particularly want them, or avoid them. They're data points, information about the world, things we learned. We discover what it takes to defeat a dragon not because we want to be able to say we beat a dragon, but because it's interesting to know what it takes to do that. We fall in love not because we have some desire to create a theme about unrequited love but because love is one of the things that happen in this world and it's interesting to know what that's like here. We're involved in an experiment, and exploration, a discovery. That's why we're here. That's simulationism.

Now, I also play gamist and narrativist, and I have been known to move from one to another in game; I don't always (or perhaps even often) play this way. But I know it; it can be a fascinating way to play, like reading or watching travelogues but of places that exist only in the mind; like reading science texts but of the physics of other worlds.

Verisimilitude is not simulationism. Verisimilitude--the idea that the world has an internal consistency on which the players and characters can rely--is an essential component of most play, and is not more essential to simulationism than to the others. That is, you can as easily explore an unreal world in which consistency is absent for the interest such a dimension offers as you can find challenge or theme in such a world. It's not a matter of how much sim do you want in your nar or gam; it's a matter of whether you really want sim, or whether you really want nar or gam instead.

I hope this helps someone.

--M. J. Young

M.,

As one of the 'here's what Sim is to me!' posters from that previous thread, I'm sorry for muddying the waters. Here's an attempt at a more focussed statement.

There is something almost clinical about simulationist play. Simulationism is in a sense about modelling a reality to see what happens.

It has been programmed to optimize whatever side or sides it is playing for a winning outcome, but it's still not playing gamist--it is playing simulationist, asking what would happen if every participant played as well as he could, and which choices actually are "as well as he could".

It is possible that simulationist play can inadvertently result in challenge or in theme; the point is, the player doesn't care. He's not there for the challenge or the theme, and if that emerges, fine, and if it doesn't, fine.

I don't know about the Wargames example, but the rest of it jives with how I've always seen Sim and most of my motives in playing.

A while back, we had a thread called Revised does S really exist. Or It's everywhere!. I gave a response that seemed to clarify the issue for some of the people involved, and which fits MJ's analysis very well:

When I sit down to role-play, my primary source of excitement is in being able to take on the role of another person. I want to find out how he thinks, what his life is like, and what life is like in general for someone in a fantasy or sci-fi world. I want to get outside of my head and get to know an imaginary person in a way that makes him real.

Do I want some challenge in that? Yeah - after all, I don't want to role-play a blacksmith making his hundredth horseshoe. But I'm not going to seek out challenge for itself - I'm much more committed to having this imaginary person act true to himself. I do like to have a character who shapes major events in his world, but not for the challenge. It's only through changing things that you can really experiment with what makes them work.

I don't even think about the implications of moral choices or themes. When a choice comes up, I consider it from character's sense of morality and decide as he would. I can't even envision why or how I would promote a theme in what he does. Sometimes I can look back over play and pull a theme out of it, but it's purely a retroactive process.

But at the end of the day, I'm happy just to learn about this person and his world, and that's my priority.

Justin, your quote pretty much matches my understanding of RGFA simulationism. However, as I understand it, under GNS it isn't important whether you consciously think about your play as just being your character. What matters is patterns in the result of your play.

AnyaTheBlue wrote: My current Apprehension of the GNS Cosmic All leads me to think that Sim play is an outgrowth of a love of some element or elements of the imagined world that are not involved with anybody being Challenged and don't necessarily result in Narrative Consequence. They are elements added to the game or the game world purely because the Sim-oriented player or GM likes them and likes to think about the fiddly little details of whatever this thing is.

AnyaTheBlue wrote: I see heavy Sim play most in grognard Traveller players. They desperately care about vehicle design sequences. They sometimes spend more time Simulating starship engineers than actually face-to-face gaming. Worldbuilding in most games can fall into this category, too (although there is, at least for me, a question of boundary -- does 'prep time' count as Gaming?).

What is this, international everyone get nostalgic about Traveller Sim Day?

And for Dana's points about out of game activities such as world design and vehicle design feeding the sim hunger... I get this knee jerk that with much vehicle design I've seen, Gamist advantage is at least as important as simulation, abusing the mechanics for character gain. And world design can be as Nar or Gam as sim, depending on the priorities of the deisgner (is this town a fascinating, living, breathing representation of societies in this world, a heap of moral dillemas, or a source of equipment and political challenges?)

And what about character design? In Gurps or hero, it can be as involved as vehicle design (ahh... no, nothing's as involved as Gurps vehicle design). Yet, despire the biases in the systems, individual characters can be built with any of GNS prioritised. So why do we (and I include myself) have an initial reaction that character creation is GNS depending on the player, but vehicle creation tends to be Sim regardless?

And how many Nar vehicle designs are there (oh, Octane, right...)

On another thread that was diverted over here:

AnyaTheBlue wrote: First, I think Valamir is right, that Simulation is Exploration + Something Else. I think the 'Something Else' is something I'd call 'Simulation', though, and if I do that, how do I seperate 'Simulation' from Simulation?

Sigh ...

First of all, let's get clear that people who are just now discovering the terms of GNS tend to use slightly-disparaging terms toward modes of play they've found dissatisfying in the past. Dana, when you describe the processes of Simulationist play as "being distracted by the fiddly bits," can you see that your phrasing is biased? A few more such phrases on more than one person's part, and we're setting ourselves up for an aesthetic backlash that sabotages any actual point being discussed.

Second, remember: Exploration is, in and of itself, not role-playing. You can replace the term with "delighted imagination" in your head, if you like. No one is having a character do anything yet. No one is telling anyone else what their character is doing or seeing yet. Think of Exploration, in isolation, as trembling on the threshold of play.

Now play. Exploration now becomes communicative. It does so only in the context of some creative agenda.

1. Gamist play - Step On Up, with reference to what's being Explored.

2. Narrativist play - Story Now, with reference to what's being Explored.

3. Simulationist play - Dream what's being Explored.

In the past, someone once referred to Simulationist play as "Exploration squared." That works for me, because I interpret the "squared" as meaning: brought into action through people talking to one another, and recursively reinforced by everyone being further inspired to do it some more.

Best,
Ron

Second, remember: Exploration is, in and of itself, not role-playing. You can replace the term with "delighted imagination" in your head, if you like. No one is having a character do anything yet. No one is telling anyone else what their character is doing or seeing yet. Think of Exploration, in isolation, as trembling on the threshold of play.

Ron,

Hang on, don't sigh at me just yet!

Ron Edwards wrote: when you describe the processes of Simulationist play as "being distracted by the fiddly bits," can you see that your phrasing is biased?

Hi there,

Ralph, you wrote,

I'm not sure that Exploration =/ roleplaying is true. In fact, I think alot of the very passive "lets go around and see the world" play that has been categorized as Simulation in the past really is just Exploration that never HAD any additional creative agenda attached to it. They really are just day dreaming, only with a group. But I think it would still be recognized as role play.

Lxndr wrote: Perhaps, instead of "invention" or "simulation", it could be called "Discovery"? Discovery of what's going to happen next, discovery of what's around the corner, discovery of what's over the horizon. Isn't that the point of Sim-prioritized play? Peeling away the onion?

Ian Charvill wrote: I think if we define simulationism as the enjoyment of the shared imaginative space for it's own sake then simulationism is fine as a term. This enjoyment can be happening using actor stance - a kind of subjective simulationism - or at an author/director stance level - a kind of objective simulationism. I definitely fall into the latter camp, a lot of people seem to fall into the former.

I suppose one could even use pawn stance - if I do this with my guy, what will happen? - without any particular attachment to the character. Kind of a scientic observation kind of a kick.

Ron wrote: P.S. Hey Dana, you're cool

Hi Dana,

I think you might be mis-reading Ian ... he's offering that "scientific simulation" as a possible application within Sim play, not as a defining feature.

Ian, I think you're on it. You're stating that any Stance can be taken during Simulationist play, which is consistent with my (often ignored) point that GNS mode does not dictate which Stances may be employed.

More generally, what exactly is the purpose of this hunt for some new term? A new term for what, exactly? Note that in my Simulationism essay, I concede that "Emulation" would probably be the best term if there were any reason to have a new one, for [Exploration extended to creative agenda].

Best,
Ron

Ron (and Ian)

Yeah, you're right -- Sorry Ian. I agree that it can work that way, but that it doesn't have to.

As for the definition hunting, I personally have a (minor) quibble with Exploration and Simulation for two reasons. First, because I think the terms are getting overloaded, and second, because I think Exploration specifically has certain connotations for most people that don't map well onto what I think we're all talking about when we discuss Exploration in the GNS/Forge Terminology sense.

This is mostly just a semantic argument on my part, though, not a big difference of opinion. It's a semantic quibble hoping to make the descriptive terms clearer.

Shrug.

To be (pedantically) clear:

I'm going to use X for Exploration, and Y for part of Simulation

I see a tree:

[code]
__X___
|_X + Step On Up == Gamism
|_X + Story Now == Narrativism
|_X + Y == Simulationism
[/code]

For X, I would like a term that describes doing something socially -- A social interaction, METAGAME term, I think. I almost want to suggest "Hanging Out", but I don't think it's general enough -- it's what *I* do at that level, but I definitely don't think my experience in gaming is representative.

For Y, I would suggest (or reaffirm -- Dang, have to go reread Ron's essays! =) Emulation.

Does that make sense to anybody other than me?

The X state, for me, is the basic social activity that's at the underlying root of all table-top, face-to-face, roleplaying. Exploration isn't a wrong term for it, but I think the word exploration has a lot of additional connotations that I think are misleading in this particular context.

Actually, I'm not sure the tree structure is quite right, either, because I think solo play and prep time are part of Role Playing Games, too, and they don't have X much or at all, I don't think. So I think there's a Z involved somewhere, too, but I really don't have a good grasp of what Z is, and it's definitely beyond the scope of this thread.

Like I said before, this is a purely semantic quibble, not any sort of disagreement with the underlying ideas or structures.

(Edit: Actually, one slight addition -- While I can see Simulation as being Exploration-Squared, I definitely think there's a difference in kind as well as quantity between what I think of as Simulation and what I think of as X. So X^2 doesn't map well onto what I think of as "X + Y"/"X + Emulation" I see X & Y/Emulation as being distinct things. I may not be right, though.)

Hi Dana,

The term you're looking for is Social Contract, and it actually encompasses everything we're discussing - given that we're talking about role-playing, and not "thinking about role-playing."

Social Contract [Exploration [G, N, or S]]

Where the brackets surrounding GNS are called the "creative agenda."

Social Contract: "let's create together"
Exploration: "let's create this"
creative agenda: "this" in action

But it's not a linear progression like the above little bit might suggest. Exploration is a *type and piece of* Social Contract. Creative agenda categories (GNS) are *applications* of Exploration.

Best,
Ron

Hi Ron,

Social Contract: "let's create together"
Exploration: "let's create this"
creative agenda: "this" in action

No-Myth Play
The effective difference between players participationally playing through a pre-planned scenario (evolution of situation), and playing "no-myth" style in a traditional GM-driven way, has been the point of much debate. It’s obvious that the two styles of play are very different, but the difference seems to come in entirely underneath GNS’s radar. Once it’s established that the GM retains control over the Story in both cases, and that neither play style is Narrativist (at least, as far as the non-GM players are concerned), GNS mostly just shrugs. Looking at it from the Exploration point of view, one sees as usual plenty of Exploration going on in both cases. No help there.

The difference in terms of CCI, however, is enormous and obvious. Module play is (primarily) Imagining of Situation. No-myth play is (primarily) Creative Imagining of Situation. In no-myth play, players’ actions affect the evolution of Situation in a sufficiently direct way (despite the possible intermediation of system and GM decisions) that Situation is legitimately a creatively imagined element.

Fortune in the Middle
The benefits of Fortune in the Middle are normally described in terms of character protagonism. This makes perfect sense when discussing Narrativist play, but it’s less clear what Protagonism means in the context of Simulationist play, where creation of formal Story (from which the meaning of "Protagonism" derives) is not prioriized. Usually it’s interpreted as the player’s opportunity to make the character look good, by avoiding the "whiff" phenomenon in which an outcome dictated by the resolution system is interpreted as a character blunder or shortcoming. But whether and why a character should look good in Simulationist play is not clear-cut; it’s one of the many trade-offs between different varieties of Fidelity. (Fidelity to genre expectations in which main characters usually look good tends to conflict with fidelity to in-game-world causality or plausibility that would create the expectation that sometimes the characters should look bad.)

On the other hand, the benenfits of FitM in facilitating CCI are very clear and obvious. The process of narrating FiTM outcomes is itself a venue for Creative Imagining. Equally important, Fortune in the Middle turns what’s normally an ex post facto editing process (the player proposes a course of events, and the system determines whether it happens or not) into a process of inventing with prior constraints (the roll determines the constraints – specifically, whether the outcome is an overall success or failure, with possible additional constraints such as concessions – and then the player invents an outcome within those constraints). Prior constraints and subsequent editing can both be spurs to creativity (some authors give their editors a lot of positive credit for their influence over the work), but prior constraints are much more so in a "right now" way. Knowledge that a proposal is subject to editing or rejection by other agents (such as the system) can induce hestancy or even indifference while a prior constraint offers a clear opportunity to build on or within the pre-established framework.

Ron,

Ron Edwards wrote:
Social Contract [Exploration [G, N, or S]]

Where the brackets surrounding GNS are called the "creative agenda."

Social Contract: "let's create together"
Exploration: "let's create this"
creative agenda: "this" in action

But it's not a linear progression like the above little bit might suggest. Exploration is a *type and piece of* Social Contract. Creative agenda categories (GNS) are *applications* of Exploration.

Hi, Walt!

Walt wrote:
Module play is (primarily) Imagining of Situation. No-myth play is (primarily) Creative Imagining of Situation. In no-myth play, players’ actions affect the evolution of Situation in a sufficiently direct way (despite the possible intermediation of system and GM decisions) that Situation is legitimately a creatively imagined element.

That's good stuff Walt, though I find myself stumbling over CCI as a term. Perhaps Creative Invention is a better choice (its at least as accurate a term as any of the other isms).

In GNS as it exists today there are two very clearly different animals being housed under the Sim umbrella...a fact which regularly brings up "Simulationism is just the dumping ground for stuff that isn't G or N" arguments. All of the 3 have different flavors, but I've grown to think that these are much more fundamentally different than being just different flavors of S.

It seems to me we have the following Situation:

All Roleplaying Starts with Exploration:

Add Step on Up and get Gamism.
Add Story Now and get Narrativism.

but for Simulation currently now you simply have:

Add nothing but greater focus on Exploration and get Simulation.


What I think we really have, however, that's not being captured currently is two distinct animals:

Add nothing but greater focus on Exploration and get Simulation1
Add Creative Invention and get Simulation2

Sim1 is the "I want to experience the world as if I was really there, I the player, am mostly along for the ride" type of voyeuristic play.

Sim2 is the "I will take an active hand as a player in forging this world and making in my own, not for any step on up purposes or story now purposes, but because I'm into the world building of it"


Now what I had suggested earlier is that Sim2 is Simulation. Its the third Creative Agenda of the 3. Sim1 by definition lacks its own Creative Agenda. IMO "the Right to Dream" as its defined currently is NOT a Creative Agenda...its the absence of a Creative Agenda and is why we have the "which one of these things is not the same -- which one doesn't belong" discussions.

Sim1 is nothing more than Exploration. Its Exploration plus nothing. By definition, since there is not additional Creative Agenda to emphasize, the emphasis is exclusively on Exploration. If Sim2 is Simulation, than Sim1 is simply Exploration itself...its located back at the "root" so to speak.

I think Ralph's points are good.

I don't like the "being along for the ride" phrase since it seems to me that a player who's engaged will be forging ahead to see what there is to see and do what there is to do--while neither directly seeking challenge or story nor "world building."

An additional case would seem to be where what's being exploried is something like color or situation at a very deep level (some very nunaced Call of Cthulhu-world-style play comes to mind) so that the play is story like in structure, the characters are fairly free to do what they want, but the basic premise-style-question has been answered by the world/genre. In that case the particiapnts may really want and develop a story-like structure as a high-priority--but it won't really be Narrativist play (or at least it'll be one of those boarderline cases).

In neither of these cases is the play exactly vouyeristic nor is it constructive in the sense that I usually think of as world-building (although you could see covering the entire map on a cartographic expidition as world building--it's just not the term I'd pick for it).

-Marco

Marco wrote: I think Ralph's points are good.

I don't like the "being along for the ride" phrase since it seems to me that a player who's engaged will be forging ahead to see what there is to see and do what there is to do--while neither directly seeking challenge or story nor "world building."

An additional case would seem to be where what's being exploried is something like color or situation at a very deep level [snip]

In neither of these cases is the play exactly vouyeristic nor is it constructive in the sense that I usually think of as world-building (although you could see covering the entire map on a cartographic expidition as world building--it's just not the term I'd pick for it).

Ralph, I see what you're saying, but I think you're putting too much into an important distinction. Aren't you just distinguishing simulationism with director stance from simulationism with actor stance?

You could as easily argue that front-loaded narrativism (narrativism with actor stance) is completely different from mainline narrativism (narrativism with director stance); I suspect you could make the same arguments for gamism, although director stance in gamist play has to be more tightly controlled--but isn't Donjun (is that the spelling?) gamist with director stance?

No one argues that there aren't differences between subcategories. Obviously, in simulationist play, someone is creating the world which is being explored. Does it cease to be simulationist if those creative abilities are shared? I don't see it.

--M. J. Young

What I think is this:

As usual, people are confusing Techniques with Modes.

"Creative invention" is a Technique. It can be found in all of the Modes, or rather, each of the Modes contains a potential subset which includes "inventing stuff into play."

Walt, your use of Create vs. Explore is opaque to me. "Imagine," to me, may or may not include the creation-thing; it's still imagining, either way.

Best,
Ron

I wasn't really understanding the "splitting Sim" concern until now, but it's starting to grow on me...

Ron Edwards wrote: "Creative invention" is a Technique. It can be found in all of the Modes, or rather, each of the Modes contains a potential subset which includes "inventing stuff into play."

Jonathan,

Jonathan Walton wrote: ...invention can be a part of all Modes, but so can Gamism and Narrativism.
[Snip]
The main motivation for several beginning players seems to be a kind of "Wouldn't That Be Cool?" perspective. At first, it starts out as pure Exploration. I would be GMing Nobilis and describe mountains made of glass or a rollercoaster covered in climbing roses. Inevitably, one of the new players would mutter something like "Wow, that's so fucking cool." But after a while, when they begin to realize what they can make "happen" in the shared imaginative space, they start asking questions about what they can do. "Can I poke him in the eye?" "Can I make him turn into a frog?" "Can I make it catch on fire?" "That would be SO cool!" Eventually, as they gain confidence, their questions simply become declarations.

In a sense, this is a kind of Sim that could be called "Exploration Now!" which maybe, I guess, what you meant by Sim being a kind of extreme Exploration. If so, then I guess I really am just dense for not understanding that before.

Valamir wrote: If the "just happens" was simply an initial stage before the players fully developed into Exploration Now, than perhaps there would be no distinction...but for many, it seems to not just be a stage, but to be the desired final destination.

I think that the extra thing for the 'passive' sim players is the subjective experience of the exploration - and I think this is what people are getting at when they talk about immersion.

And yes, what I described as Inventionism is different from the subjective sim - to the extent that I wouldn't play the other way. But then, I'm perfectly happy with team co-operative gamism, but despise player vs player with a passion (probably due to bad past experiences). Too, as far as Narrativism goes, yay to front-loaded, nay to conscious overt tackling of theme (I think that subtexts ought to be, well, subtexts).

These divisions don't split modes in my mind, they just acknowledge that even within a mode different play styles exist.

As an aside, I tend to agree with Ron that pure exploration with no creative agenda would not be roleplaying. That's mainly because I'm having difficulty imagining what such play would look like. If someone could post an actual play example of what Exploration without G, N or S would look like, I'd be interested to see it.

--edited to add: I know I initially raised the possibility of Inventionism being a new mode. I've backed off following thought along the lines of paragraph two

Hello,

I've come to the point where I can't tell whether people think they're agreeing with me or not. Jonathan started by saying "they have something," meaning people perceived to be disagreeing with me, then ends by perfectly paraphrasing my point, and then Ralph (who's supposed to be disagreeing with me) agrees specifically with that point.

Jonathan and Ralph, everything you posted in the above two posts is consistent with what I've been saying all along. I can't imagine what's different, unless it's wrapped up with some kind of terminological glitch (like "create" vs. "imagine," which I'm using synonymously for role-playing purposes).

I've come to the conclusion that this thread represents the "working it out for oneself" process for most of the participants, with a couple of exceptions, and that it's raised the point that Invention (which I consider relatively low-stress, as a concept) is a hard nut to chew when people consider modes of play.

We've seen this before with Director Stance, especially when people get some kind of wild hair up their asses that this Stance "is" Narrativism. It takes a long time to settle people down from the flip-out of this mistaken perception. In this case, there's no such direct error, just a lot of ... I don't know ... stress, over Invention.

So some Simulationist play really grips (Explores) certain things, up to and including character motivations or thematic elements. So some of it doesn't. So what? The GNS modes are modes, not "ways to play" or (unlike the Threefold) "styles." Within a mode, there are dozens if not hundreds of identifiable combinations of Techniques and approaches.

Best,
Ron

Ron Edwards wrote:
Jonathan and Ralph, everything you posted in the above two posts is consistent with what I've been saying all along. I can't imagine what's different, unless it's wrapped up with some kind of terminological glitch (like "create" vs. "imagine," which I'm using synonymously for role-playing purposes).

In discussions, when I phrase things to be more like the former, I get hastily "reminded" that people care enough about Exploration per se to reinforce it socially and to put some attention toward maintaining it as a "thing," not just an absence.

Then, in other discussions (like recent ones), when I phrase things to be more like the latter, people start gesticulating at the Beeg Horseshoe and saying, "But that's 'just Exploration'!"

I'm still having problems making my brain divide "exploring stuff that's already come out of someone's head," and "exploring stuff that's still coming out of people's heads" into fundamentally different agenda.

There's an implication in this thread that exploration of a pre-mythed (can't find the right term, arrggh) system isn't a creative agenda. Which sounds odd to me, so I'm probably misunderstanding. Especially since there are also implications that a no-myth game must, at some stage, tilt towards gam or nar. Which I'll acccept is certainly a strong possibility where the gam or nar factions have a strong motivation to "do something" with the system, while the sim faction is happily exploring / extending the system...

Am I really odd in thinking that exploration can be an agenda on it's own? Isn't curiousity enough? Isn't it creative enough?

Because I'm beginning to think that's the big creative impulse behind sim, and, crucially, the one that is de-emphasised in Gam and Nar. A gamists curiosity only extends as far as tactical or strategic gain; a narrativists curiosity only extends as far as "does this help me address premise?"

For both, a rabid curiosity will only get in the way of their agenda, unless it is subsumed into it.

Maybe my problem is because I used to get very hung up on doing settings right, and got hung up on "am I doing this world wrong?" Having chanegd my attitude to treating systems as toyboxes, full of cool stuff to either play with or ignore according to my whim, I'm much happier, but tend to scratch my head about folks who treat creative inputs into the creative process differently.

Maybe I'm the only one marching in time...

Pete,

I think the big difference between inventive and immersive Sim is seen in play. In inventive sim the room to create is prioritized, choices are made to maximize creative input and options, this is necessarilly tempered by the social elements of the group, so cooperative behaviors involve leaving room for someone else to fill in some portion of your creation, etc. In immersive sim, definition is key, players need to all be on the same page as frequently as possible to eliminate disparate views of that being explored. Structurally, the former is more like brainstorming, the later like consensus building.

Now, whether these belong both under Sim, or should be separated is a harder question, certainly the theory doesn't fail because they are combined, no more than keeping Step on Up and Challenge both under Gamism does. Also there needs to be some structure in Sim (at least in the basic theory), and I think that this serves that purpose admirably. One thing I seriously disagree on is that immersive Sim is supposedly not a creative agenda, yet it serves as a socially developed constraint on the exploration being performed, and a clearly observable one at that. How does this fail to be a creative agenda? Prioritizing fidelity or immersion is still a priority, and it is one that can be easily diagnosed as such.

Also, it seems that when ever GNS is challenged it becomes construed as a claim that the theory is wrong or flawed. GNS is far to useful to be wrong, however it may be incomplete, especially as it does not claim to be complete. Hence the purpose of this discussion is not to invalidate GNS, but to extend it. If we are serious about study and advancement of RPGs, then we must develop more theoretical tools for this purpose, theory extensions are a key way to do this, especially because there is a level of agreement maintained, the theory and its extension remain compatible, no contradictions occur between them, only a mapping of concepts and terms. I cannot stress this enough, theory extensions are very good things.

I hope that helps,

-Mendel S.

Ralph, I think that your Sim1 requires just as much "creative invention" as your Sim2. Therefore, I disagree with the need to make a distinction. Oh, and what Pete said: G and N both deprioritize pure curiosity (The Dream). So really, G is the absence of N/S, and N is the absence of G/S. Just as S is the absence of G/N. I dig.

Edit: Cross-posted with Mendel. I'm getting the difference better now. But I stand by my statement that they're both the same sort of creativity - a consensual shared imaginitive space. Maybe they're just dials - Invention and Immersion - for Sim play. You can have them both on high, or one high and one low. ?

ethan_greer wrote: Ralph, I think that your Sim1 requires just as much "creative invention" as your Sim2. Therefore, I disagree with the need to make a distinction.

Oh, and what Pete said: G and N both deprioritize pure curiosity (The Dream). So really, G is the absence of N/S, and N is the absence of G/S. Just as S is the absence of G/N. I dig.

Edit: Cross-posted with Mendel. I'm getting the difference better now. But I stand by my statement that they're both the same sort of creativity - a consensual shared imaginitive space. Maybe they're just dials - Invention and Immersion - for Sim play. You can have them both on high, or one high and one low. ?

Ralph wrote: Only S is currently described as Exploration without the presence of anything else.

To build on Ralph's point, he's basically saying that Exploration isn't a Creative Agenda. It's passive, like watching theater. Sure, there are some creative processes going on, the player has to engage the material and steer their avatar through the shared imaginative space, but like Alice in Wonderland, they are not a pro-active participant in the imagined space. But eventually, Alice crosses the last river and changes from a Pawn to a Queen, ready to actively work on her environment. This isn't just Exploration any more, it's "Exploration Now!" or maybe "Dreaming," active creation and stretching the boundaries of the imagined space.

What me and Ralph are objecting to, then, is your description of Simulationism as just "Exploration++," when it's something else that's really going on. Sure, you might argue that Simulationism is the first obvious Mode to move into after just passive Exploration, but that doesn't make it the same thing as Exploration. If you define "the Right to Dream" as actively creating within the shared imaginative space (which I don't think you've done), I imagine we'd be happy.

I agree with Ralph that pure, passive Exploration (being along for the ride), doesn't fit into GNS anywhere. It's not a Mode. Whether it is "roleplaying" or not depends on your definition, so I won't touch that one. I'm willing to accept that this is just us wrestling with Simulationism and that you've already come to this conclusion, but, if so, I don't think its been communicated effectively.

Hi Ralph,

That's a very clear statement of your position. My concern is as follows.

1. I think we may be dealing with two different mental images of "Exploration only." In yours, people are indeed role-playing. In mine, they're not. In mine, when they start really playing (and this can include dedicated prep; I'm not getting into that issue now), it's "Exploration-plus" already.

2. I agree that the "plus" is more than an absence. This is the essence of my "Does Simulationism really exist" section in my big GNS essay, and it's the essence of my Simulationism essay - that "The Dream" is an active phenomenon, not a lacuna. I was under the impression that I was solving the "absence" issue at the time - but now, it appears that I'm facing a backlash in that people want to look at what I'd think of as minimal "action" within the Dream and say it's "only" Exploration, and not "the Dream."

So to me, that "action" is the key. I think there's always some, even if it's limited simply to the fact that people are speaking to one another instead of locked into individual imaginative hazes. What constitutes this extra action that's got everyone so het up? Based on the posts so far, Invention (a good term) seems to be involved. So does the presence of an embedded theme, such that play is thematic in the sense of celebrating something known. And I imagine there are others.

3. Yes, there's a profound distinction between Simulationist play without Invention (let's stick with this one) and Simulationist play with it. The same distinction exists, using (as far as I can tell) the same main variables, within Narrativist and Gamist play.

For a visual, imagine a circle whose center (the paper label) is Exploration, and pie-wedges of GNS composing the outer portions. Surrounding the inner circle is a section (about the size of a 45rpm, say), that we'll call "little or no Invention." So each pie-wedge has its section of no Invention. Then the outer, wider portion of each pie-wedge is its "lots of Invention" section.

But hell, maybe the best thing to do is for me simply to pay attention while others talk for a while. I've already probably missed several posts by typing this, and the thread is already getting humpbacked.

Ralph or M.J., if you'd like, maybe you can identify several sub-sets to the thread, so they can be split out into separate ones? Especially since some of the discussion is about "understanding GNS in the first place" and since some of it is about "hoary veterans refining what they know much further."

Best,
Ron

Ack. I'm really not all that gung-ho about arguing over this Sim1/Sim2 distinction. Rest assured that while I may disagree with you from a GNS theory standpoint, Ralph, I clearly understand what you're saying and can see the validity of your claims from a certain point of view. For that matter, I also like Beeg Horseshoe from certain perspectives. Which explains why I typically stay out of theory debates - I'm just not passionate enough about theory in the first place... :)

Well, for example, Jonathan's post.

Fucking terminology. By "Creative Agenda," all that "creative" means is that people are talking to one another and including what they hear into what they're imagining. All that "agenda" means, is "by what social and aesthetic parameters."

That's all. The "creative" is not supposed to be some kind of profound and Invention-heavy thing.

And by the way, I have a lot of trouble with the terms"active" and "passive." For instance, to me, "passive" would mean no one is talking or looking at one another, or, for that matter, in the same room or on the computer or anything. They'd be lumps. Anything besides that, to me, is "active."

Best,
Ron

Confusion fixed, Ron, thanks to your last big post. Sorry to give you a headache.

Check my new thread on "Defining Roleplaying (According to GNS)" if you want to continue the active/passive discussion. I was mostly referring to people who share the imagined space, but aren't doing anything at the moment.

Actually, Ron, I'm not entirely certain what there is to discuss here; I understand what Ralph is trying to say, but I don't think it withstands scrutiny.

We've got three GNS modes. Gamism pretty much means that we're here to compete in some way, to test our ability as players to beat something and impress someone (even if it's only ourselves) with our skill. Narrativism means we're trying to explore moral, ethical, or personal issues of some sort. Simulationism means we're discovering a world, a character, or some other aspect of the shared imaginary space.

Within those three modes, players make things happen by utilizing the tools given them to impact the shared imaginary space. Games differ in the number and kinds of tools which are used for this. Most players in most games are able to impact that SIS through the actions of their characters; some players are able to do so through means other than their characters, and some do not have characters and so are limited to other means.

Classic play in all three modes tends to be represented by games in which "players" who are not referees can only impact the SIS through character actions. In narrativism, that most commonly means front-loaded narrativism, although it can mean thematic development through in-game character choice. Narrativism is tremendously enhanced by making director stance creative abilities available to players, but that's a relatively new development in game design. In gamism too we usually have setting-based challenge met by character choice and tactics; director stance in gamism is difficult to implement, but it has been done more recently in a very few games. Simulationism traditionally has been the same: the referee and game designer do all the creative work, and the players interact with this solely through their characters. However, using director stance in simulationism inherently means that some of what the referee does in creating the setting and situation is passed to the players to manage out-of-character.

Three things should be noticed about this.

The first is that what the referee does in traditional simulationist play is not less simulationism than what the players do, even though it is completely different--just as what the referee does in traditional gamist and narrativist play is still, respectively, just as gamist and narrativist as what the players do, despite being entirely different in function and method. To create the world for the purpose of revealing that which has been created is simulationist, just as to discover what has been created is simulationist.

The second is that even in the most traditional approach, the players have some impact on setting, through the actions of their characters--they create and reveal situation, at least, within the world, and sometimes impact setting through their actions. Thus whether they are limited to actor or pawn stance or allowed full author or directoral credibility, they are still impacting the game world. It is not a matter of function, but merely of degree and method.

The third is that there is not this black and white either/or that Ralph seems to be implying; it is a continuum. Always the players have some impact on the reality they explore; rarely (but not never) can they create that reality with the same credibility as the referee. The credibility of the players to impact the SIS is somewhere between not at all and completely.

I think this thread has been very useful in elucidating these facts about simulationism; I'm not certain I saw how director stance could and did fit into the simulationist mode so clearly before. I do not think that we've found a new mode of play, but rather that we've discovered that, just as stance can make a great deal of difference in Narrativism and Gamism, so too it can have strong impact on Simulationism.

And no one has ever said that if you like a certain mode you will like all applications of that mode; that's a red herring.

I'm satisfied, I think, that this thread has gotten much that is good from it, and that simulationism has been greatly clarified through it (although I still see some confusion in spots). I don't really see much more to say on the subject.

--M. J. Young

Argh. Computer problems and out-of-town time have kept me off the board for a few days, so I wasn't able to participate in the latter part of this thread. My apologies to those whose comments on my posts have gone unresponded to.

Since this thread might be coming to a close, I don't want to go into any further detail on anything, but a few general comments:

1. The question at hand regarding invention-in-play seems to be continually getting sidetracked into an issue of Stance. It's not a matter of Stance. Just as there's no specific stance for, say, Narrativism, there's no specific Stance for invention of Elements in play. The process by which a player's creative thought becomes a part of the shared imagined space might be direct (e.g. using Director stance) but it might also pass through other players, system, and/or a GM.

2. When it comes to the Elements of play, fidelity and creativity have a nonmonotonic relationship. (In other words, more of one does not consistently mean more, nor less, of the other). Example: you want to play a Star Wars game, with "Star Wars style monsters." Here are three ways of going about it:

a. Use monsters from the canonical films in which they appear, translating them as accurately as possible into the shared imagined space.

b. Note that the nature of monsters in the canonical films is that no single type of monster ever appears in the story more than once, and accordingly, create an entirely original monster for each monster-encounter episode, while trying to give each invented monster a certain "Star Wars feel."

c. Use the monster encounter tables from the AD&D 1979 edition.

C is low-fidelity low-creativity, B is moderate-fidelity high-creativity, and A is high-fidelity low-creativity. (The relative fidelity of A vs. B is difficult to really pin down, but most people would regard a source book of monster stats from the Star Wars movies as being more "faithful to Star Wars" than a source book of original monsters claiming to have a "Star Wars feel.") Very low and very high positions on the "fidelity" dials both inhibit creativity.

3. Ron endorses the following statement, in this thread:

In your [Ron's] Simulationism essay, you have this: "'Story,' in this context, refers to the sequence of events that provide a payoff in terms of recognizing and enjoying the genre during play."

Is this the key to distinguishing the abovementioned play modes? My intepretation of this statement is that in Simulationist gaming, a long and complex story might come about and be part of play, but only for the express purpose of bringing about all the appropriate genre elements in the game as part of the internal consistency of the Dream. i.e., A Sim game Colored with elements from Chinese wuxia movies might have a multilayered story involving class conflict, people being trapped by their social position, repressed romance, heavy action, a sorcerer and his eunuch henchmen - but these are all trappings of the genre. So, their inclusion in the game, part and parcel as they are to the Dream, isn't Narrativist because no one is creating a theme that /isn't already there/. In other words, it's just played out as the Situation part of the Exploration; because the dream calls for it, there just so happens to be a kind of intricacy involved.

In Narrativism, by contrast, the major source of themes are the ones that are brought to the table by the players / GM (if there is one) regardless of the genre or setting used. So, to sum up, themes in Nar play are /created/ by the participants and that's the point; themes in Sim play are already present in the Dream, /reinforced/ by the play, and kind of a
by-product.

Whew. Lots of posts over the weekend.

Can I attempt to clarify the debate here? I think that, at this point, the definition of simulationism comes down to two possibilities. I name these after theories, but I do not imagine that what I am saying is exactly what Ron or Jared believe, but rather what the "final picture" looks like (two styles or three.)

1) The Beeg Horshoe solution: The presence of absence of any premise, moral choices, step on up, challenge or competition within the Dream of the game shifts the game into a Narrativist or Gamist category. This relegates Sim to a very thin slice in the middle. According to this, Vampire LARPs are generally Gamist and my preferred playstyle is generally Narrativist.

2) The GNS solution: The prioritization of Dream over other things is what determines whether a game is Simulationist or not, regardless of any other content. This means that Sim can, and often does, coexist with Nar and Gam content. According to this, both Vampire LARPs and my preferred playstyle are generally Simulationist.

The important thing here: These are two models that describe the exact same situation. This is not a matter of what is "really out there --" we seem to all agree on that. Rather, it is merely a means of discussing it. I submit that both of these definitions have strengths and weaknesses, and that the important thing is that we choose one to inform future discussion and prevent future confusion.

Both of these choices involve a change to the present state of theory. The first implies that Sim, as a category of play, is very small to the point of nonexistence. The second implies that Sim can, and often does, coexist with other creative agendas.

yrs--
--Ben

P.S. It is important to note that I am strictly discussing actual play, here. There are many gamebooks which can be called quite "Simulationist" but, in the light of #1 above, would simply be "easily driftable." And, in the light of #2, simply provide a dream framework in which other material may be inserted.

Hi, Ben!

Ben Lehman wrote: Both of these choices involve a change to the present state of theory. The first implies that Sim, as a category of play, is very small to the point of nonexistence. The second implies that Sim can, and often does, coexist with other creative agendas.

Walt wrote: 1. The question at hand regarding invention-in-play seems to be continually getting sidetracked into an issue of Stance. It's not a matter of Stance. Just as there's no specific stance for, say, Narrativism, there's no specific Stance for invention of Elements in play. The process by which a player's creative thought becomes a part of the shared imagined space might be direct (e.g. using Director stance) but it might also pass through other players, system, and/or a GM.

Hello,

In many conversations, a person finds himself in the position of staying with a frustrating discussion only because he doesn't feel himself to be understood or "heard" by the other party. (add feminine pronouns to taste)

This is a problem with the discussion - the person is now only present in order to hear what he said returned to him, regardless of agreement or disagreement, because so far, he hasn't heard it. He wants to have a real discussion about stuff. However, the substance of the agreement or disagreement being offered by the other people is missed or tabled, because the primary urge - to have been understood at all - is not being satisfied.

That's the position I'm experiencing at this point, with this thread. If one single person, just once, could return an accurate paraphrase of my position in the matter, that would be sufficient. People could then disagree with it, agree with it, offer alternatives, and so on, to their heart's content, and I would be profoundly grateful for whatever they offered, no matter what it was as long as it was based on understanding what I did indeed say.

Until that happens, though, nothing being said is going to enter the state of discourse for me. I can't simultaneously continue clarifying my position (into the void) and deal with points that I can no longer tell whether they are agreements with or disagreements with or exceptions to or clarifications of it.

At the moment, based on Walt's recent post that inserts the crucial yet inapplicable word "just" to my discussion of Exploration, and Ben's recent post which seems to miss the profound meaning I intend with the word "prioritize," I am forced to admit defeat - not in any point at issue, but in the process of discussion in the first place.

Let's take a look as well at Pete's post from a couple of days ago:

There's an implication in this thread that exploration of a pre-mythed (can't find the right term, arrggh) system isn't a creative agenda. Which sounds odd to me, so I'm probably misunderstanding. Especially since there are also implications that a no-myth game must, at some stage, tilt towards gam or nar. Which I'll acccept is certainly a strong possibility where the gam or nar factions have a strong motivation to "do something" with the system, while the sim faction is happily exploring / extending the system...

Am I really odd in thinking that exploration can be an agenda on it's own? Isn't curiousity enough? Isn't it creative enough?

Because I'm beginning to think that's the big creative impulse behind sim, and, crucially, the one that is de-emphasised in Gam and Nar. A gamists curiosity only extends as far as tactical or strategic gain; a narrativists curiosity only extends as far as "does this help me address premise?"

For both, a rabid curiosity will only get in the way of their agenda, unless it is subsumed into it.

I'll take a stab at a summation, with the caveat that I'm still working my way through the GNS essays.

At the level of playing the game around a table, there is a distinctive meta-game social contract in effect. One of the facets of that contract is the group (Creative) Agenda. The game system may or may not facilitate a particular Agenda, and it may or may not impede a particular Agenda.

Functional group play is dominated by a single Agenda, one of Gam, Nar or Sim. That Agenda doesn't need to be shared by all participants as their own personal primary goal for the play experience, but they have to be willing to be involved with furthering this Agenda, and not impeding it, for play to be Functional.

There is a very specific split in Agendas, into the Gam, Nar, and Sim camps.

Each player of each group, no matter which of the three camps their play is falling into at a particular time, may interact with that Agenda using a combination of Stances. While Agenda for the game is usually unchanging (or, if changing, it changes over a fairly long time-frame), Stances may be switched between frequently and easily. All Agendas partake of all Stances, although some Stances are more suited, or more emphasized, by some Agendas.

Just as all Stances can be used to Explore all Agendas, so too can all Agendas be present in any given instance of play. However, for any particular instance of play, there is an identifiable Agenda being Prioritized by the group, with the other two elements being subservient or largely nonexistent. Motivation for furthering a certain Agenda is given more weight than the others, and can generally 'trump' the others. Note that this is for a specific instance of play, with a particular mix of players, playing with a particularRules Set, and operating under a specific Social Contract.

Gamism involves some form of inter-player Step On Up. Player actions are primarily motivated by an attempt to 'win', for whatever definition(s) of 'win' are appropriate to current play (kill things, not get killed, collect treasure, etc.).

Narrativism involves a focus on development of Narrative and Drama. The vague and unhelpful "Story", more helpfully stated as "Story Now". Player actions are primarily motivated by what makes an interesting Tale. It's not primarily about competition, it's primarily about exploring the interests, events, and plots that circle around the characters and significant NPCs.

Simulationist play involves a focus on the actual process of shared imagination. Thinking about things the group likes, and simulating them faithfully, through the agency of their character's actions and situation. Player actions are generally motivated by curiosity about, interest in, and emotional investment in the elements receiving the primary focus of the game's Simulation. This has been described usefully as "Exploration Now", or "Exploration Squared".

Some in this thread (Walt and Ralph, I believe, but I have to admit that I've lost track) have been advocating for splitting Simulation into two distinct modes, referred to in this thread as Sim1 and Sim2, or alternatively Simulation and Creative Inventiveness.

I (and a few others) have suggested that all three of GNS have the same potential and need for creativity, and that perhaps the "Inventiveness" aspect is either more properly subsumed into the idea of Stance, or is perhaps not a part of the GNS theory at all -- play in any of the G, N, or S modes may or may not have 'Creative Invention', which is indepenend of which of the modes you choose to discuss.

I think Pete was disagreeing with the idea of splitting Sim into two types, and was instead advocating the second position -- that Exploration is a creative Agenda on it's own, and doing so puts it on even footing with G and N, as opposed to in the Saddle point of the Beeg Horseshoe.

I think one area of confusion for both myself and others in this thread has been which thing we're talking about when we say 'Exploration'.

The distinctions that were being drawn between 'Sim1' and 'Sim2', I think, may be the differences between 'Exploration' and 'Exploration Now'/'Exploration Squared'. The first is at the base of the Beeg Horseshoe, and underlies all three of GNS, while E^2 is the S in GNS, and would be a hypothetical third-tine on the Beeg Horseshoe...

As always, this is just my own following of the thread. I think we're mostly arguing semantically about what the various things we all see in play are, and what their relative importance is to the play experience. Some of us may be biased because we're attached to a particular play mode or a particular sort of group Social Contract ourselves, and therefore see it as more (and/or other's as less) valid.

Did I miss anything? Did I horribly misstate anything? Did I slander anybody's inbred cousin by mistake? If so, I apologize in advance! =)

Pax!

(Edit: Minor cleanup, addition of attempt at levity)

Ron -

Simulationist play is simulationist play whether the engagement with the Dream takes the form of immersion or invention or whatever - the method with which you prioritize the Dream is less important than the fact of the prioritization.

You also seem to be saying that this is the GNS model: agree with it or disagree with it, but that is the model.

(I'm guessing that the guiding implication here - and certainly the reason that I broadly agree - is that if you split sim in this way you open the field to splitting G and N on similar grounds and we multiply variety in a wilderness of mirrors)

I'm not 100% I'm catching the implications of your final point - which would seem to be that you can have Narr with heavy Sim support but not Sim with heavy Narr support. Anything more than incidental theme and you playing Narr. You just can't have a sim heavy hybrid.

Yes, Ron, I was trying to do far to much in one post. To tyr to clear up a little...

Firstly, I was fighting against a tendency that I preceived in previous posts that was saying non-creative sim was a weak sim, and not only likely to be subsumed into sim or nar, but probably deservedly so. Yeah, I know, I put a lot of melodrama into other people's posts. Essentially, sim1 is the middle point of the beeg horseshoe.

As a corrolorary to that, prehaps to get sim spread beyond the beeg horshoe's small sliver of sim in the middle, sim2, an active, dynamic creative sim seemed to be proposed as fundementally different, and stood on it's own as equal to G and N.

Now, I proposed that at the heart of sim is curiosity: I'm beginning to prefer this to Ron's use of the term The Dream, but I would, wouldn't I?

Curiosity about the system unifies the proposed sim1 and sim2: I would argue that it can be powerful enough to have step on up or story now present in a supporting role to curiosity, and in that I think I'm disagreeing with Ron, who, if I'm right, feels that sim is unique in that it can only be prioritised in the absence of step on up or story now, and in hybrids must be supporting.

So, I'm disagreeing with people who want to split sim, and I'm disagreeing with Ron about whether sim can be the dominant part of a hybrid.

I'll be in the corner on my own then.

Oh good grief.

I wrote: And yet, most seem to be claiming, whether the Elements of the Dream themselves are created in play or front-loaded is just a matter of preference or technique, it's all just Exploration, it's all creative, it's not a "modal" distinction.

Ron Edwards wrote: "Creative invention" is a Technique. It can be found in all of the Modes, or rather, each of the Modes contains a potential subset which includes "inventing stuff into play."

Walt, your use of Create vs. Explore is opaque to me. "Imagine," to me, may or may not include the creation-thing; it's still imagining, either way.

Ron Edwards also wrote: So some Simulationist play really grips (Explores) certain things, up to and including character motivations or thematic elements. So some of it doesn't. So what? The GNS modes are modes, not "ways to play" or (unlike the Threefold) "styles." Within a mode, there are dozens if not hundreds of identifiable combinations of Techniques and approaches.

Hi Walt,

It's only in Simulationism that the "inventive vs. non-inventive" distinction becomes acute and polarizing.

Walt Freitag wrote: It's only in Simulationism that the "inventive vs. non-inventive" distinction becomes acute and polarizing.

Let's say Ralph's point is 100% right on the mark. I submit that it's no particular threat to the theory as currently constructed. What's difficult about that potential split being a feature of Simulationist play as a category? In-play features and diversity aren't expected to be parallel among the modes. We found a feature of Sim play-diversity. Cool.

Ron Edwards wrote: In-teresting. And yet, I disagree a little. For instance, I think that Narrativist play can function quite nicely with relatively little invention. Theme can be created specifically through player-input through character decisions, wholly within the in-game context. The sole requirement is that the player(s) be empowered to do so; i.e., no single person reserves procedural control over their characters' decisions, and the players do not sit pat, without investing in those decisions.

The setting and situation may be laid out in detail (as long as no outcomes of player-characters' decisions are dictated, or inflexibly expected to go certain ways, which are essentially the same thing). The players may be using no abilities or whatnot that aren't on the character sheet. No Director Stance, no scene/conflict framing control, none of that stuff, beyond the GM.

Final point: let's say I'm dead wrong about all of the above, and Simulationist play (as I see it) is uniquely characterized by a "split" over the Invention issue ... Let's say Ralph's point is 100% right on the mark. I submit that it's no particular threat to the theory as currently constructed. What's difficult about that potential split being a feature of Simulationist play as a category? In-play features and diversity aren't expected to be parallel among the modes. We found a feature of Sim play-diversity. Cool.

Walt,

That's a well-reasoned and pretty compelling argument for splitting Sim. I only see two things that keep me from agreeing (and I say that having started the "Things NOT GNS" thread at least partially because splitting Sim seemed bad and wrong to me):

1) G, N and S are NOT the only really, REALLY important things about roleplaying styles. I think everyone knows this, and from time to time someone points it out - but "the theory" is called GNS, and thus other stuff is easy to forget/de-emphasize. I think we'd be better served by adding these other really, really important things to the model/discussions in a more powerful way than we have so far. Ralph's point that constantly tripping over "you can't have Director Sim" is annoying is well-taken. But is splitting Sim the best solution?

2) I think the issues you point to in variably-inventive Sim play certainly exists in other play as well - I've seen Gamists of different stripes at each others' throats because of differences about the flavor of Gamism they want. Over invention? Maybe not - I'll have to think on that a bit. But would that matter? As long as important aspects of play lead to issues with that play (within particular GNS modes), does it really matter that inventiveness has particular (though not exclusive) importance within Sim? Like (maybe) "balance" has particular (though not exclusive) importance within Gamism?

Those are authentic questions - maybe inventiveness IS a big enough issue that it effectively constitutes a Priority at the GNS level. Your post certainly is persuasive as to its' importance. I'm just not sure what the best thing to do about that is.

Gordon

EDIT for clarity

Hi there,

All systems of classification are going to rely on some variables and de-emphasize others. I've tried to focus on observable processes of play, and tried to keep G, N, and S about fundamental aesthetics rather than about techniques.

Maybe this will help (Jack Spencer brought this up one time). "Mammal" refers to a variety of animals. In biology, it means not only a set of descriptive features, but also a common phylogenetic history (i.e. literal relatedness).

But some mammals swim and have no legs. Others fly. Others burrow, etc, etc. Now, every child on this planet must have explained to him or her, counter to his or her perfectly reasonable perception, that a whale is not a fish, or to put it in technical terms, that ecomorphology does not have to be absolutely fixed with regard to phylogeny.

The classification stands currently because the idea (classification based on shared ancestry) has been multiply corroborated. It doesn't matter that the one classification (mammal) contains a multitude of diversity, as those diverse variables are not considered to violate the conclusion suggested by the variables used to identify the ancestry.

So what is my "idea" regarding GNS? I'm talking about creative agendas at the grand scale. It seems to me that no one "plays Simulationist" at this grand level, any more than a given mammal can be said to be The Mammal (it cannot). An individual "application" is by definition inadequate to exemplify its larger category. Similarly, any two mammals will be "incompatible" in terms of whether they are the same creature.

Since it seems to me that Techniques operate at a much more applied and localized level than Creative Agendas, most of the stuff you list (which is a great list, by the way) seems to me to be about Techniques.

Best,
Ron

Ron -

And preferences in the domain of Techniques (is 'inventiveness' in that domain?) can be as powerful and important as preferences in the domain of Creative Agenda (GNS)?

I think so - and that therefore, the "solution" is to talk up Techniques a heck of a lot more than we have been, and I sense you heading in that direction. But regardless of the solution - I want to make sure that "preference for particular Techniques" makes sense to you as a powerful factor in this understanding. That, I think, might help with the within-Sim conflict issue. But am I adding something inaapropriate to your analysis?

Gordon

Hi Gordon,

Since play is composed of Techniques, the answer is Yes.

Currency, IIEE, character creation, resolution (DFK), reward systems, and the comparatively fleeting Stances, are all "spheres" of Techniques.

Can we talk about a given profile, or set of profiles, defined by the Techniques it contains? Yes. Could it be possible that some sets, with very little adjustment among their members, satisfy or work well for more than one GNS mode? Yes. Could it be possible that some sets are limited to very specific pinpoint-spots within a single GNS mode? Yes.

Can you talk about Techniques in practical terms without at least referring to the GNS mode or modes also in play? Probably not. That leads us into "roll vs. role" and similar stuff. It's another way of saying that people don't do X, Y, and Z for no reason at all.

This is the kind of stuff I wanted to talk about all along, dating all the way back to the Gaming Outpost. If it hadn't been for all sorts of Sturm und Drang about whether GNS was (a) evil or (b) stupid or (c) misguided (poor fellow), we woulda done it by now. Then again, all the clarification from those days and since then (with special acknowledgment to the Scarlet Jester, for Exploration) has proven valuable.

Best,
Ron

Ron,

Would Illusionistic Sim play be considered a Technique in the sense you are using here?

Yes to inapproriate, or yes to powerful and important? I'll assume powerful and important . . .

And sure, discussing a Technique without a GNS context might/can/does get all out of control. But my thought, for what it's worth - fuck it. Time to just start discussing the Technique, make a GNS context as clear as can be managed, and just take it from there. Some threads have managed to do this before, and I'd like to see more do so in the future.

There's only so far that understanding GNS can take you . . .

Gordon

Gordon C. Landis wrote: There's only so far that understanding GNS can take you . . .

Regarding the mammals analogy, sure, mammals are diverse. But they also have traits in common, even if those traits are no longer definitional for the category. Some are unique to the category (hair, mammary glands) and some aren't (backbones, warm-blooded), but at least there's no need to resort entirely to universals (carbon-based lifeform) and negatives (no scales) when describing mammals. There are some definite characteristics that blue whales and shrews share, along with all other mammals and no non-mammals.

The only things all Sim play shares are universals (Exploration) and negatives (not Gamist, not Narrativist). The efforts so far to come up with a positive quality unique to the category have not had impressive results. ("Iin-game causality," "fidelity," and "verisimilitude" have all proven inadequate as characteristic features, and so far the difference between the Sim-specific "Exploration squared" and the universal "Exploration" is about as clear as the difference between "probation" and "double secret probation" in Animal House.)

Anyway, I feel I've been able to present my case as well as I could have hoped to, and I've been fairly heard, so this is the end of it (unless and until I decide to propose an alternative model).

Gordon wrote: G, N and S are NOT the only really, REALLY important things about roleplaying styles. I think everyone knows this, and from time to time someone points it out - but "the theory" is called GNS, and thus other stuff is easy to forget/de-emphasize. I think we'd be better served by adding these other really, really important things to the model/discussions in a more powerful way than we have so far.

And Ron wrote: This is the kind of stuff I wanted to talk about all along, dating all the way back to the Gaming Outpost. If it hadn't been for all sorts of Sturm und Drang about whether GNS was (a) evil or (b) stupid or (c) misguided (poor fellow), we woulda done it by now.

AnyaTheBlue wrote:

Gordon C. Landis wrote: There's only so far that understanding GNS can take you . . .

Sure. But not everybody is walking the same speed, and some people started later than others...

Walt Freitag wrote: What's difficult [about that potential split being a feature of Simulationist play as a category] is that you've put the most divergent extremists in gaming together in the same box. The most freewheeling make-it-up-as-you-go-along-ers (unconstrained even by any need to stay focused on a theme) with the most meticulous rules-sticklers (without even Step On Up concerns to tempt them to bend the rules or exploit a loophole from time to time). Those focused on aesthetic qualities of outcome vs. those focused on perfection of the process. GMs who cannot imagine fudging rolls with GMs who cannot imagine not fudging rolls. Trekkies for whom fidelity to Trek means a phaser on "kill" vaporizes a humanoid regardless of hit location, and Trekkies for whom fidelity to Trek means that bridge officers always survive no matter what. Players seeking the most points of contact possible (effective Gamism usually evolves limits on points of contact due to their diminishing returns in building resource-management richness, while purist-for-system Sim does not) and those seeking the least (e.g. Shadows-playing uncles who don't mind having too few points of contact to allow negotiation of a consistent Premise). Players deliberately using less than optimum tactics because it will lead to more interesting situations and players deliberately using less than optimum tactics because their character's Intelligence stat is "too low" for them to have thought of a better option. Turku immersionists and character-design-in-play auteurs. And the vastly greater numbers whose preferences are more moderate, but who still manage to see themselves on one side or the other of the divide, which they might express in terms of "process vs. outcome," "high fidelity vs. low fidelity" (but you have to know fidelity exactly to what to figure out which side they're on), "flexible vs. strict," or "rules-oriented vs. story-oriented."

Walt wrote: The efforts so far to come up with a positive quality unique to the category have not had impressive results. ("Iin-game causality," "fidelity," and "verisimilitude" have all proven inadequate as characteristic features, and so far the difference between the Sim-specific "Exploration squared" and the universal "Exploration" is about as clear as the difference between "probation" and "double secret probation" in Animal House.)