Having read through the thread Clarifying Simulationism, an idea opened up to me about mid way through that ironically was touched upon by the final post.

M. J. Young wrote: So even the idea that Simulationism is different because it's defined as a negative falls apart. Really, gamism and narrativism are the negatives--they exclude vast areas of the world that are not related to their priorities; Simulationism excludes that aspect of forming priorities by which to exclude vast areas of the world. It is the more positive concept in game priorities, because it includes everything, not just the things that are relevant to narrowly defined play priorities. Its perceived narrowness comes from its efforts to protect itself against those who would prefer to focus on a part rather than the whole, who would negatively exclude most of the world in favor of those bits that relate to challenge or theme only.

I think there are some issues with focussing too much on the rejection of the metagame implications in sections of Ron's essay. The paragraph is more telling [emphasis added]...

“My final point is that this mode requires clear player-character/real-person boundaries, in terms of in-character knowledge and metagame knowledge. There's no single set of boundaries that applies to all ways to play Simulationist, but whatever they are in a given instance, they must be clear and abided by.”

I apologize if by not broaching the topic directly that I implied that Metagame is verboten in Simulationist gaming. I made the false assumption that when discussing a topic it is understood that we are not speaking in absolutes, but tendencies and trends. The GNS model describes behavior; it does not proscribe it, at least as I understand it. That being said I agree that Metagaming behavior in a Simulationist priority game is not prohibited, but I do believe it is an element of gaming that, should it become “over used”, will begin to have a negative impact on the suspension of disbelief of the imagined space. One cannot be (or it is phenomenally difficult to be) “in character” (1st person or actor’s stance) feeling what the character feels and discussing some event from a 3rd person point of view at the same time.

Ian I did read the post link you provided in your post, and I thank you for do so. Upon reading the entire thread I came away with basically that one poster indicated that he enjoyed playing lots of meta in a Simulationist game and did so successfully. This is not an attempt to gainsay you, but I am holding off on accepting his experiences as doctrine until the idea is explored more fully.

Again I call upon some quotes lifted from the Simulationist article (authored by Ron Edwards) to lay some foundation for my assertions.

“…what matters is that within the system, causality is clear, handled without metagame intrusion and without confusion on anyone's part.”

“Internal Cause is King
Consider Character, Setting, and Situation - and now consider what happens to them, over time. In Simulationist play, cause is the key, the imagined cosmos in action.”

“Two games may be equally Simulationist even if one concerns coping with childhood trauma and the other concerns blasting villains with lightning bolts. What makes them Simulationist is the strict adherence to in-game (i.e. pre-established) cause for the outcomes that occur during play.”

I believe these above quotes do make a very strong case for the idea of internal causality in the Simulationist mode of play. It has been stated many times that because a game prioritizes a mode of play, does not mean that the other modes are not present. It means that a special emphasis has been placed upon certain priorities resulting in a great preponderance of those certain priorities being used, but not to exclusion. I believe and argue that metagaming is not a priority in Simulationism and its use should be minimized, I do NOT argue that it should be disallowed. I caution that by its nature metagaming can (not necessarily will) cause either drift or dysfunction if overly expressed during play in a Simulationist game. To the best of my limited understanding metagaming is one of the key elements of Narrativism and Gamism and its lack is one of the key elements of Simulationism.

Ian Charvill wrote: I also think that the metagame goals of gamism and narrativism - competition and premise - occur in submerged forms in simulationism. Competition occurs submerged in the form of conflict and Premise submerged in the form of theme (conflict I would tend to put in the Situation box; theme in the Colour box).

Ian Charvill wrote: Therefore a sim game can be lousy with conflict without straying into the Gamist realm - the conflict is not an end in itself but it flows from something inside the game.

Ian Charvill wrote: Sim motivated by conflict is merely Sim, Exploration of Situation (I tend to believe this to be a very common form of sim).

I think what you're aying is essentially this, that:

The key to productive sim play is emotional engagement with the imagined elements. For many - maybe even most, maybe even everyone except me - this means something involving immersion or suspension of disbelief. I'm jsut going to use the term engagement here because Immersion/SoD both carry baggage that I'm not sure I'm happy getting into (YMMV).

In terms of what helps with engagement, certainly strong consistency of in-game causality is an important one and Actor stance (perhaps aided by occasional, convert, Author stance) is another.

I would also suggest the following three:

Pacing - lulls in the action are an easy time to get distracted so keeping things moving is important.
Environment - playing the Lord of The Rings RPG while the stereo's blaring out a Bill Hicks CD may be disruptive; conversely if that same stereo is playing the score from The Followship of the Ring it may be very helpful.
Avoiding Covert Out of Game References - certain scenes are apt to break engagement - because they are reminiscent of a Monty Python sketch, becaus they remind someone about what happened to them last Tuesday and now here comes an anecdote - being aware and controlling the references within scenes is a worthwhile thing, though not always easy.

Now, for me, personally, engagement is also increased by personal creative investment in the imagined elements of play. This can involve heavy use of metagame elements but this doesn't have to be the case. Frex, many people seem to be more engaged by sim play when they've created their own characters as opposed to playing pre-gens. In other words, I think that another technique that can be useful in promoting engagement, is to give players ownership of part of the imagined space. Now, traditionally, this is limited to the player's own character and a small amount of associated space - their kit and maybe a few close relationships (allies, enemies, dependent NPCs).

Now, I'm apt to get hobbyhorseish about this because I am that guy that proposes the heavy-metagame sim in the other thread. But, unless you want to follow that particular avenue further, I'm going to drop it there unless you want to cotinue (if you want to go into it further feel free to PM me).


* * *

Asides:

I don't think you're the first person to question the appropriateness of Simulationism as a term, but I don't think there's much milage there. The term is what it is, but just abbreviate it to S or to Sim, if it helps you to just think of it as an abstract lable.

I've found it helpful w/r/t narrativism to focus tightly on the difference between Theme and Premise: Premise being the question to which Theme is the Answer (e.g. "What is Love Worth?" as compared to "Love Conquers All"). Narrativism is play focussed on Premise rather than Theme. Theme is a pretty common result of Narrativist play, but I'd argue that Theme qua Theme is also pretty common in Simulationist* and Gamist** play.

Situation is just what happens when character meets situation, and I suspect all three GNS modes find most of there productive play at that juncture.

* e.g. CoC & Humanity is Insignificant in the Face of the Unknowable Vastness of the Universe
** e.g. D&D & Good is Destined to Strive against Evil

Hi there,

I'm not sure what to say except that this is a wonderful dialogue. Thanks to both so far.

My current thoughts on the "does Simulationist play have a metagame priority?" are that people can mean the same thing by answering either Yes or No. In that circumstance, the best thing to do is to use Gamist and Narrativist play as a contrast, and if you see a distinctive difference between S and [GN] in terms of how real-people agenda impacts the imaginary events, then you're all good. No need to parse that out differently at this time; it doesn't seem to work out well in this medium.

Best,
Ron

Silmenume, I find myself disagreeing with you at one of your foundational premises.

Simulationism has nothing to do specifically with first person play or character identification or emotional involvement--no more or less than any other mode. In fact, some people play wargames in what is simulationist mode, completely non-competitively, just to determine "what would happen if". Some years back I had an extended correspondence with a fellow who called role playing "the great thought experiment", by which he meant that you could use it to ask "what if?" about almost anything and produce an answer through play. This is simulationism: the desire to know what something would be like. It can be all of those things you suggest, but it can equally be completely detached--emotionally satisfying only in the same way as learning calculus is emotionally satisfying if you wished to do so.

On the issue of metagame in simulationism, In the article Applied Theory

in the section on apportioning credibility I wrote: It is much more difficult to address credibility distribution in simulationism. What matters here is the verisimilitude and consistency of the shared imagined reality; that is, all players must see the same thing and believe it. This does not preclude broadly shared credibility; it does require a solid agreement on the nature of the reality. If we're playing in a medieval fantasy world, exploring an abandoned castle, a player given credibility could announce that he saw objects on a table, and describe the objects he saw. As long as those objects do not upset the agreed nature of the reality, such credibility is not problematic. Thus it is evident that the objects could include bottles and lamps, perhaps swords and daggers, possibly jewelry, all things which would typically be found on such tables. Were the player to describe seeing laser guns or kinetic blasters there, this would clearly violate the agreed reality, and his credibility would cease at that moment. However, there are difficult cases here. The player might describe finding the famed lost jewel of Prince Balthazzar, or opening a bottle to release a djinni, or discovering a scroll with a map to a hidden treasure. These, too, are all plausible within the setting, but may be stretching the credibility of the player. For this reason, it is more common for simulationist games to prefer narrower credibility for the players and broader credibility for the referee. It is not a necessary arrangement, but it does tend to support simulationism better.

Hi there,

M.J., do you think that your point of disagreement would be diminished (not refuted, just diminished in importance) if Silmenume's point is specified to be a historical observation? That's pretty much the line I took in the essay.

Best,
Ron

Let me attempt to parse my agreements and disagreements a bit more clearly.

I agree that we play simulationist games for reasons which involve emotional satisfaction. I disagree that that emotional satisfaction either must or always has come from character identification. We play gamist games and narrativist games for emotional satisfaction. We play Pinochle and Miniature Golf and Trivial Pursuit for emotional satisfaction, as well as attend movies and read books and even in some cases go to school--and these clearly don't involve character identification. My objection is that the idea as presented is saying "This is the reason people play simulationist games". I am quite happy to concede that it is a reason that some people play such games, and even that I have played some simulationist games with this character identification/secure illusion of reality as one of the principle motivations. I have also played simulationist games for other emotionally satisfying reasons, such as seeing how an idea plays out among a group of characters, or attempting to emulate something that resembles real-world physics, or hearing the descriptions of an alien world. There are a lot of ways in which games can be emotionally satisfying, and some are so in more than one way.

So I agree that this is a line worth pursuing, as long as it is understood that we are exploring one form of simulationism, and not its central defining concept.

As far as historical context is concerned, that's more difficult to say. For most of the first decade of my gaming experience, I had little or no contact with any gamers outside our rather isolated gaming group. If that is how most people did play, it would be outside my knowledge; we did not always do so (although we were certainly the kings and queens of constant drift).

I also object to the notion that simulationist play must include conflict to be interesting. Simulationist play may include conflict to be interesting, but it can instead become interesting through the aspect of invention/discovery (two sides of the same concept). I would love to have someone drop me into Perelandra, just so that I could experiment with the floating islands and have that feeling of walking on the tops of waves. I don't need a story or a conflict or a tension to find a world interesting.

My wife is an extremely avid reader. She reads more than she can afford to buy, and so re-reads many books repeatedly. Her favorite parts of most books are not the issues or the characters or the action, but the descriptions. Just tonight she stopped my mad rushing to somewhere to have me pause and read a page out of Steinbeck's Of Mice and Men, in which he describes a quite afternoon looking out at a bend in the river. The vividness of the description is wonderful. She considers Steinbeck's stories to be rather on the depressing side, but she loves the skill of any author who can do that. She recently read one of CJ Henderson's books (I brought it back from the con--the non-supernatural one with the private eye). She said it was terribly violent and in places unnecessarily vulgar, but that he did have a wonderful talent for description that made it worth reading.

Not everyone needs conflict to be interested in what we call in the more general sense story. My creative writing professor made us write several short pieces before we wrote a story, one of which was a description of a scene. That can be as engaging as an action movie, if it is a well-told description of an interesting scene.

So I object to the notion that simulationism requires conflict to be enjoyable. Again, it certainly may contain conflict, which may contribute to the enjoyment thereof by many players, but it is not an essential ingredient.

I see the metagame issue as a side point. If we want to say that early simulationist games avoided metagame as disruptive to the in-game reality, I would concur that even today most simulationist games do so; but I believe I've demonstrated that this is not a requisite of simulationism, but rather an approach to design and play that is easier and perhaps more common.

So by all means, continue to discuss these aspects of simulationism; please, though, recognize it as one denomination, and not the entire religion. I may even have more to contribute to the thought on that basis.

--M. J. Young

Hello and thank you all for having taken the time to read my ideas and post thoughtful responses.
Ian, I think your summary of my ideas is pretty close to the mark. Your suggestions as to how to aid engagement are virtually identical to some of the tools that I/we do use. It strikes me as a little fascinating that the same tools should arise independently when discussing like goals (though not necessarily supporting them).

An issue that keeps arising now is the definition of Metagame and as it is growing in importance in our discussions as its role/effect in determining GNS mode I will spend some time trying to clarify it definition. By way of starting I will begin with what I think is a fairly good start with one of your engagement enhancing suggestions, but with some changes.

Originally posted by Ian Charvill
Avoiding Covert Out of Game References

M. J. Young wrote: On the issue of metagame in simulationism, In the article Applied Theory

in the section on apportioning credibility I wrote: It is much more difficult to address credibility distribution in simulationism. What matters here is the verisimilitude and consistency of the shared imagined reality; that is, all players must see the same thing and believe it. This does not preclude broadly shared credibility; it does require a solid agreement on the nature of the reality. If we're playing in a medieval fantasy world, exploring an abandoned castle, a player given credibility could announce that he saw objects on a table, and describe the objects he saw. As long as those objects do not upset the agreed nature of the reality, such credibility is not problematic. Thus it is evident that the objects could include bottles and lamps, perhaps swords and daggers, possibly jewelry, all things which would typically be found on such tables. Were the player to describe seeing laser guns or kinetic blasters there, this would clearly violate the agreed reality, and his credibility would cease at that moment. However, there are difficult cases here. The player might describe finding the famed lost jewel of Prince Balthazzar, or opening a bottle to release a djinni, or discovering a scroll with a map to a hidden treasure. These, too, are all plausible within the setting, but may be stretching the credibility of the player. For this reason, it is more common for simulationist games to prefer narrower credibility for the players and broader credibility for the referee. It is not a necessary arrangement, but it does tend to support simulationism better.

In the listed example of finding a table with objects on it, “depending on how it was handled”, I do not believe it to be a case of Metagaming. “Depending on how it was handled” is a critical issue here. If the DM completely describes a room, and does so without the mention of a table, then the player saying, “I see a table” breaks causality. The reality had already been established with the DM’s complete description and the player altering/impinging on that reality (Imagined Space) without the use of in game resources to do so is Metagaming; he is breaking causality. However if the DM leaves space in his description where it is plausible that such a table could be found, or at least not specifically prohibited, then that player is aiding the exploration of Setting, not contradicting it/breaking causality.

I do not believe that credibility is identical with the issue of Metagaming. Rather I believe credibility is a yardstick whereby one can measure if a player’s action is Metagaming or I could say whether one is straining or breaking in game/Imagined Space causality. It is at the point when credibility hits zero that cries of foul (Metagaming outside the social contract) are cried. For example a DM with low credibility kills a PC in combat. The Player who does not trust (has a high credibility faith) in the DM believes that the DM broke causality and imposed a Metagame agenda by killing the player character in a fashion that was not consistent or supported by the “reality/plausibility/physics etc.” of the Imagined Space. In other words the DM enforced an out of Imagined Space (Metagame) agenda upon the PC that did not stem from an in game cause but from a desire of the DM that bypassed internal causality.

The above example highlights two issues. First is that when action credibility goes to zero Metagaming is resulting call by the effected. Second credibility is an incredibly important issue in gaming.

To go back again to the essay posted by M. J. Young, that a player was exploring setting by “painting in details” is in itself not Metagaming if the Imagined Space/internal causality is not broken. However, as you had indicated, credibility can be strained if the items “painted” into the scene stretch the bounds of internal causality. Your average noble is not likely to just leave lying about the famed Jewel of Prince Balthazzar on a table without guards and other protections. This doesn’t mean it can’t happen, but it shouldn’t happen all the time. Using the same, possibly incredulous (low credibility or credibility reducing), example if a PC does this many times then the play can then be accused of Metagaming when his credibility reaches zero. If the player does this consistently to his own, or even his party’s betterment, then he could even be accused of drift into Gamist play. He has broken internal causality so often that it becomes apparent that the player’s priorities are more that of winning or being better than others than he is of consistent Exploration of the Imagined Space. Although subtle, when it becomes “clear” to others that the player is manipulating circumstances (his credibility is zero – he is no longer subject to the internal causality of the world but actively altering it to his favor) then his actions become overt – seen and understood by others to have an agenda that transcends Exploration and the need to maintain Internal Causality. Determining credibility is not a black and white issue, and is a tough one to handle, and it is something that I believe should be handled on some level in the Social Contract.

However, if this give and take works, this “painting in”, then this brings me back to something Ian stated in his post encouraging engagement.

Originally posted by Ian Charvill
I think that another technique that can be useful in promoting engagement, is to give players ownership of part of the imagined space.

Again I agree with you, but with a slightly different emphasis.

Give players partial ownership of all the imagined space.

I would love to go into that topic, but that would require a whole post of its own.

M. J. Young wrote: Silmenume, I find myself disagreeing with you at one of your foundational premises.

Simulationism has nothing to do specifically with first person play or character identification or emotional involvement--no more or less than any other mode. In fact, some people play wargames in what is simulationist mode, completely non-competitively, just to determine "what would happen if". Some years back I had an extended correspondence with a fellow who called role playing "the great thought experiment", by which he meant that you could use it to ask "what if?" about almost anything and produce an answer through play. This is simulationism: the desire to know what something would be like. It can be all of those things you suggest, but it can equally be completely detached--emotionally satisfying only in the same way as learning calculus is emotionally satisfying if you wished to do so.

This is why I think the moniker Simulationism is confusing or misleading when applied to the S mode of play of the GNS model of Roleplay.

The example of a war game being played in a non-competitive fashion is not the same as Simulationist Roleplay. Several key elements are missing from the war game analogy that are abundantly present in Sim Roleplay. The first is that Exploration is absent from war games. There are no characters/avatars that we as players use to Explore the world. If there are no characters then it’s not Roleplay. Roleplay has a distinct set of actions the primary of which is Exploration. To me, and maybe this is where things are going to really fall apart, Exploration is an experiential/dramatic process. We are Exploring human beings (dramatically speaking – though we make be donning different raiment’s in the forms of different sentient and feeling races) not inanimate processes. The act of Exploration, as defined within Roleplay constraints, is a dramatically revealing process.

To borrow your definition - Simulationism is the “desire to know what something is like.” The “desire to know what something is like” is an empathetic desire. This empathetic desire is a very different goal (and experiential process) than desiring the knowledge of how something will turn out, such as simulating a battle to “see what results” or “what would happen if,” which is basically modeling. That is a Metagame goal beyond the reach of Exploration. Perhaps that could become a mode of play separate from what is currently called the S mode.

As an aside I would also like to note that usually when one is interested in “seeing what happens” there is an implicit understanding that we are testing or at least comparing results of more than one run through (actual simulation) based upon different data sets (trying different things) but with the same conditions. This comparison does not necessarily have to be matched against the results of action with the same group of players, i.e., one could be comparing against another groups results, but this does introduce difficult to account for variables. While Gamist play may allow for such play, like competing teams at conventions, the goal here is to win, not to just “see what happens.” While this “scientific method” of play may be applied to roleplaying I have yet to see such play. (I understand, though, that one person’s experiences don’t make for a good data sample)

When one models to see the result of some actions, like in a war game, especially one where the competition priority has been set aside, the goal is not the process, but rather the results of the experiment. Exploration, in Sim play, is not goal oriented rather it is experiential. “To know what something is like” is to experience the event; it is not factual knowledge, but a deeper more personal emotive knowledge.

This distinction between 2 types of knowledge, the factual distant type, and the personal/experiential/emotive type is not just some semantic argument, I believe it is germane to this discussion. Spanish, if I can remember back to my high school days, has two distinct forms of the verb, to know; conocer and saber. Saber - to know a fact, to know something thoroughly, to know how to do something. Conocer - to be acquainted with a person, place, or thing. This distinction of types of knowledge, that which is distant and that which is personal experiential, goes deeply back to the roots of Western Civilization as the distinction is made some 5000+ years ago in the Old Testament.

I believe Exploration within the Simulationist mode of Roleplay is of the “desire to know what something is like” camp. It has all the tools used by other empathic exploration genres like novels and movies.

M. J. Young wrote:
At one point in your discussion, I was reminded of the section in Ron's GNS essay, $#!+ I'm Playing Narrativist!--but I don't know for certain that that's what you're doing, I'm just suspicious.

I went hunting all over that citing for the reference you were making. I finally found it under “But I’m story-oriented”! As a response I quote from the article itself -

“’Story’ may mean ‘series of caused events,’ in which case the issue is trivial.’”

Very close to my feeling that story is not something created prior to play, but is the historical retelling of what transpired during the course of play.

Best.

Silmenume.

A couple of distinctions that I think'll be useful at this point:

Sympathy/empathy - sympathy being feeling what someone else is feeling, empathy being understanding what someone else is feeling. They're not mutually exclusive but neither does one mandate the other. I would suspect sympathy to be a great drive in most people's actor stance sim play (especially that type usually called 'immersive'). Empathy would be more of a guide in author stance sim play.

Metagame goals/metagame techniques: I don't think sim offers much of a metagame goal, if any - certainly this is distinct from G and N. Metagame techniques however - like all techniques - are more of a use to taste thing.

I'd end with a note about bringing imagined elements into play. I think that the process that gets called retconning - for retroactive continuity - is something that people have wildly differing degrees of tolerance for. I can get on with large amounts of very obvious, explicit retconning without breaking my engagement with the imagined world, other people would be against the least measure of it.

Quick clarification: M.J. is referring to a section in my essay Simulationism: the right to dream, specifically the one called "Oh shit! I'm playing Narrativist!" Not a section in the GNS essay.

Best,
Ron

Ian, unless I misunderstand you somehow, you have Sympathy and Empathy reversed. Other than that clarification, I agree with the point.

Mike

Wow, there's a lot to consider here.

I apologize for citing the wrong article; I'm going to have to go back and read them all again, just to get them straight.

Silmenume, you and I are using "credibility" in wildly different ways--both correct in English, but very different in context. I understand what you mean by saying that someone has depleted his credibility, but that's not consistent with my use of the term.

The idea of credibility as referenced in the article comes from a thread a couple years back about authority, credibility, and the shared imagined space. "Credibility" is the right of any participant to define elements in the shared imagined space. It is "apportioned" by the "system", that is, everyone knows how much each is allowed to contribute. If as a player I am allowed to define my character's actions but nothing else, that is the limit on my credibility--any statement I make about my character's action is credible, defining what he is doing in that shared imagined space; any statement I make about that shared imagined space that is beyond my character's ability to control is also outside my credibility, and I cannot make it "real" within that world. Yet there are games in which players have credibility to create and control objects within the game world that are beyond the control of their characters. In such games they, like the referees in most games, have greater credibility.

By this definition of credibility, it is not something that you lose because people don't believe you. It's something that you have because the system gives it to you. The referee has the most credibility not because we all trust him, but because our system (in the broadest sense) decrees that whatever the referee says is real is in fact real in the game world, and whatever he says is not real cannot be real in the game world. How much credibility the referee has varies from game to game, and system can dictate changes in that--for example, a fortune mechanic which allows the referee to override the player's statement of what he is doing, such as declaring that he has yielded to the temptation, or he is too drunk to do that, or he failed his will power check.

While you're using credibility in a valid way, it's not the way the word is used in the article (where it is defined).

There's also a problem with the word metagame; in this case, the problem is a lack of clear definition. The word means everything and nothing. In the current context, I have taken it to mean any ability to cause or influence in-game events by players other than the referee which involves real-world events. My Wuzia example was exactly of this sort. The effectiveness of the character action is not based entirely on the physics of the world, or the ability of the character, but in some part upon the action taken by the player to enhance the character's action through the player action. By describing a more vivid and interesting combat move, the player empowers his character to be more effective in combat, thus simulating the Wuzia world more accurately by using a metagame mechanic. Now, you can argue that this is not metagame; but if so, I'm going to have to ask you to define metagame. The definition you present in your post suggests that by "metagame" you mean "that which would be disallowed by all players in the game"; but if that's the definition, then there can be no valid metagame in any game, because what is disallowed is by definition disallowed.

Again, metagame is a side issue.

I do not believe credibility is the equivalent of metagaming even as I've defined the two terms; rather, I believe that credibility can be apportioned in a manner which provides valid metagame influence to the non-referee players, and that this then means a valid metagame mechanic. To cite my table example, if we've all agreed (that is, the system allows) that players can create detail consistent with the setting that is likely and not extreme, then the creation of the table is a valid use of credibility in a simulationist game, and may well involve the use of metagame mechanics; if we've agreed that only the referee can create or describe room detail, then the creation of the table by one of the other players is neither credible nor metagame--it's merely disruptive, because the player lacks the credibility to create the table, so it doesn't exist, so his talking about it is only delaying the game until we can get back to what the referee actually has described.

In this context, you wrote: If the DM completely describes a room, and does so without the mention of a table, then the player saying, ?I see a table? breaks causality. The reality had already been established with the DM?s complete description and the player altering/impinging on that reality (Imagined Space) without the use of in game resources to do so is Metagaming; he is breaking causality. However if the DM leaves space in his description where it is plausible that such a table could be found, or at least not specifically prohibited, then that player is aiding the exploration of Setting, not contradicting it/breaking causality.

You subsequently wrote: The example of a war game being played in a non-competitive fashion is not the same as Simulationist Roleplay. Several key elements are missing from the war game analogy that are abundantly present in Sim Roleplay. The first is that Exploration is absent from war games. There are no characters/avatars that we as players use to Explore the world. If there are no characters then it?s not Roleplay. Roleplay has a distinct set of actions the primary of which is Exploration. To me, and maybe this is where things are going to really fall apart, Exploration is an experiential/dramatic process.

I will start off my essay here with a quote drawn from an earlier post –

Silmenume wrote: I made the false assumption that when discussing a topic it is understood that we are not speaking in absolutes, but tendencies and trends.

M. J. Young wrote: It is clear here that you're using "metagaming" to mean "breaking the rules". In that sense, you can't have valid metagaming in any form of gaming, because as long as it means "breaking the rules" it's cheating.

To Whit – (again very rough and broad terms)
Gamism = Competition
Narrativism = The Question (regarding some aspect of the human condition)
Dramaticism = Drama/Emotions
Simulationism = Modeling

Hi there,

Ian is correct - it is clear to me, for instance, that you could split games like My Life with Master and Le Mon Mouri from games like The Pool and Sorcerer quite easily. The former focus their mechanics on internal states and self-definition; the latter focus their mechanics on characters' impacts on the game world and vice versa.

Best,
Ron

I look forward to posting a reply to both your questions as soon a work allows me a few moments, which will probably be this weekend.

Aure Anteluva,

Simenume.

As I am still thrashing through my ideas, I apologize in advance if my thesis has not been thought all the way through. I especially apologize to Ron if it seems that I am pestering him to death about problems that I perceive (which may not be real problems but an indication of a lack of clear understanding) in the Simulationist essay. My gut tells me that there are some inconsistencies or contradictions or something of like that need to be sorted out and in writing these posts I find that I understand more and more about the essay and my issues with it. Please bear with me as I work things out. I hope these postings lead to something positive and not just the tired reploughing of very worn out turf.

The simplicity of Ian’s question is delightfully direct and spot on, and I hope in this posting to shed some light on that very issue.

My basic thesis boils down to two parts. The first is that the 4 acts of Exploration (Character, Situation, Setting, Color – which for the sake of this argument I shall refer to as the Narrative Elements [Not to be mistaken for the Narrativist Mode of GNS]) and the 5th are distinctly different and should be regarded as two separate processes, goals and spheres of activities. The second is that, I believe, that Ron has the cart before the horse in his assertion that –

Ron Edwards wrote: …the engine, upon being activated and further employed by players and GM, is expected to be the authoritative motive force for the game to "go."

Ron Edwards wrote: …the engine, upon being activated and further employed by players and GM, is expected to be the authoritative motive force for the game to "go."

Hi there,

Have you read The whole model - this is it? If I'm not mistaken, it's key to the issues you're raising. Also, I wrote that thread in hopes that it would be a door through which one must pass before we go into details about any of the different Creative Agendas (e.g. Simulationism).

If you haven't checked it out yet, please do - the whole thing including comments and replies to comments - because I'm pretty sure it handles the issues you've raised. The relationship of the five elements in particular is something I've been working out slowly in the three GNS essays, and it's key to understanding anything, at all, about what I've been saying.

I don't want to dismiss your specific concerns here at all, but let's both make sure we're speaking from exactly the same big-picture before working out the details.

Best,
Ron

I had not read The Whole Model - this is it thread at the time of the composition or posting of my essay. I have read 3/4's of the entire thread and I see that I have much navel gazing to do before I come back here.

There is much about the Model essay that I found both exciting and educational. I can't wait to have finished my meditations and make some hopefully useful comments. It does answer some questions/points I had and helped frames others.

I especially was intrigued by the inclusion of the Ephemera level - which to me seems to be the "actual play" (what we set out to do) of the game. The Ephemera seems to me the playing out, the engaging, the act of satisfying the original desire that started the whole process where one decided in the first place to play a role playing game. It is the end of the journey when one started with the yen. The Ephemera is the scratch to the orginal itch.

System is a fairly abstract term that indicates that the imagined Situation and other elements actually change through the activity of role-playing.

I'm really tempted to address a whole stack of things--like whether what you describe is simulationist or narrativist (it's awfully close in some spots)--but I think most of them are covered in the other thread. The one thing I am going to discuss is the confusion about system, not just because you're using it to mean something different from what it means in discussions here, but because I think there's an aspect of it that deserves attention.

System is listed as one of the five elements that can be explored. You've said that the system, by which you seem to mean the rules in the book, can't enter the imagined space, and that the time elements of the system only matter in crisis situations. These are fundamental misunderstandings of the concept of system.

The rules in the book are not system. Rather, they are a data point used by system to do what system does. System is the means by which the shared imaginary space is defined for all participants. It references rules as one of the elements that enable it to do so; however, it also references setting, character, color, and to a degree situation. Consider: just as the rules are not part of the shared imaginary space, neither is the descriptive text of the setting, nor the character information on the sheet, nor the module which provides the adventure set up. Those are data elements which are brought into the shared imaginary space via the system: system tells us how we convert numbers on a page to fleshed out characters in the world, dry textual room or terrain descriptions into imagined buildings or landscapes, written character relationships and actions into active events. Thus in a sense nothing can get into that space except system; everything else gets there through system.

As significantly, it is entirely possible for us (by system) to "upload" into the shared imagined space a full background of the world, complete character identities, and a tension-filled situation, and have it sit there as a still picture, doing nothing, going nowhere. This is the sense in which system is "time" within the game world: things change because we imagine that they change; we use system to control the change. In our real world, the medium which enables change is time; in the game world, the medium which enables change is system.

Exploring system may be as simple as seeing whether hitting the door with an axe or shooting the lock with a gun will open the door. It may be as unrealistic as trying to figure out what my character must do to levitate off the ground, or as solidly grounded in reality as to provide sufficiently realistic physics that a properly designed rocket will achieve orbit and an improperly designed one will explode on the launch pad. Exploring system means having the character take actions and observing the results, to see how the world actually works and how it can be manipulated in play.

AD&D2 is not a system; neither is GURPS. These are rules sets which inform systems. Even if we were to agree that every rule in such a rules set would be rigorously applied, that would not mean the entire system was in the books--it would mean that we were using those books as an authority (and usually agreeing on one individual who has the credibility to determine what those rules mean--part of the system) which will inform the system.

I think your objections to system as one of the elements of exploration are based almost entirely on a misunderstanding of what system means.

I hope that helps.

--M. J. Young

M. J. Young wrote: System is listed as one of the five elements that can be explored. You've said that the system, by which you seem to mean the rules in the book, can't enter the imagined space, and that the time elements of the system only matter in crisis situations. These are fundamental misunderstandings of the concept of system.

Ron Edwards wrote: IIEE, Drama/Karma/Fortune, search time & handling time (I consider this more of a label than a method*), narration apportioning, reward system, points of contact, character components (Effectiveness, Metagame, Resource), scene framing, currency among the character components, and much more. Each of these terms represents a range of potential play-[methods.] I consider the two most important Techniques to be reward system and IIEE.

Emphasis and * mine

M. J. Young wrote: System is the means by which the shared imaginary space is defined for all participants.

M. J. Young wrote: Consider: just as the rules are not part of the shared imaginary space, neither is the descriptive text of the setting, nor the character information on the sheet, nor the module which provides the adventure set up. Those are data elements which are brought into the shared imaginary space via the system: system tells us how we convert numbers on a page to fleshed out characters in the world, dry textual room or terrain descriptions into imagined buildings or landscapes, written character relationships and actions into active events. Thus in a sense nothing can get into that space except system; everything else gets there through system.

M. J. Young wrote: Exploring system may be as simple as seeing whether hitting the door with an axe or shooting the lock with a gun will open the door.

M. J. Young wrote: Exploring system means having the character take actions and observing the results, to see how the world actually works and how it can be manipulated in play.

M. J. Young wrote: Even if we were to agree that every rule in such a rules set [The entirety of all systems of Techniques {process/methodology} published] would be rigorously applied, that would not mean the entire system [All the various systems of Techniques {process/methodology} employed in play] was in the books--it would mean that we were using those books as an authority (and usually agreeing on one individual who has the credibility to determine what those rules [Techniques{process/methodology}] mean--part of the system [one or more, but not all systems of techniques {process/methodology}]) which will inform the system [All the various systems of Techniques {process/methodology} employed in play].

[the material in square and curly brackets are my additions]

Hiya,

Actually, I think your discussion is brilliant and will be referencing people to this thread habitually. Plus asking your permission to distill its content a bit for the generalized "role-playing essay" to be completed next year.

Best,
Ron

Silmenume wrote: Much happens in the Shared Imagined Space with the use of system, especially in light Points of Contact games.

To clarify, what I was trying to say is that, in the context of the five elements explored, "system" is defined as "the means by which events in the shared imaginary space are defined and altered". I certainly agree that the word system could refer to many things; but I believe that in Ron's statement regarding "exploration of system" this is the intended meaning. System is, as the Lumpley principle states, the social contract elements by which the group agrees to the content of the shared imaginary space. That may include all the elements you mention, but more to the point it includes anything which enables the group to come to that agreement, and therefore your statement,

Much happens in the Shared Imagined Space without the use of system,

OK – I have come out of my navel gazing reverie and am ready to respond.

First of all let me say that after one of my first epiphanies I turned a little red faced. I fell into the very trap my previous post was trying to bring to light and thus prevent!

Here is the offending quote (and a source of great consternation on my part!) –

Silmenume wrote: Much happens in the Shared Imagined Space without the use of system, especially in light Points of Contact games.

M. J. Young wrote: System is, as the Lumpley principle states, the social contract elements by which the group agrees to the content of the shared imaginary space.

lumpley wrote: what happens in the game, happens because everybody agrees it does

Ron Edwards wrote: Resolution systems are methods for group agreement regarding what happens in the imaginary game world.

M. J. Young wrote: System is … the social contract elements by which group agrees to the content of the shared imaginary space.

M. J. Young wrote: …in the context of the five elements explored, "system" is defined as "the means by which events in the shared imaginary space are defined and altered".

Howdy.

Silmenume wrote: The content of the Shared Imagined Space is not restricted to only those events that are operated on by the published (by corporation or self) system (The entirety of all systems of Techniques {process/methodology} published) as employed.

There is much more going on in the SIS than what the system as proscribed (The entirety of all systems of Techniques {process/methodology} published) details. The importance of that declaration is that many people are trapped into believing that is not the case. The importance of this cannot be overstated.

The Lumpley Principle:
When one participant says that something happens in the game, what has to happen in the real world before, indeed, it happens? Bottom line: all the participants have to assent to it. Mechanics can help create and shape this consensus, as part of negotiations, but they cannot make things happen in the game without it. This process -- statement -> negotiation -> consensus -- is the game's System in play.

As I was reading Jay's (Silumene) latest post, I was thinking that it would be best of Vincent were to come here and clarify the Lumpley Principle; and behold, he has done so.

The problem in this discourse has revolved around something we all acknowledge exists but disagree regarding how to categorize it. Clearly, in every game there are events, occurences, objects, people, things in the shared imaginary space which are agreed by the participants to be there which do not spring from the written text of the game rules/setting materials. The question on the boards is whether or not the way those things get into that shared imaginary space is part of "system", and more specifically whether how Ron intended the word to be understood when he wrote that article.

This is undoubtedly complicated by the fact that the Lumpley principle was expounded after the article was written, which of course means that Ron was not consciously referencing it in the article. We have (somewhere) his assertion that the Lumpley principle was exactly on target for the definition of system as he understands it (it was he who dubbed it "The Lumpley Principle" as I recall), which helps.

Jay has attempted to show that The Lumpley Principle did not mean what I assert it meant. In short, Jay and I both recognize that there are many things in the imaginary space which do not come through the application of that which is in the books. Where we differ is in whether they come from "system" or not.

Jay narrowly defines "system" as meaning the agreed rules which are referenced, generally written, and specifically as resolution mechanics and other techniques. He then asserts, quite credibly, that players cannot explore "system" through roleplaying in the same sense that they can explore setting, character, situation, and color. If indeed "system" is the content of book that does not exist within the game world but rather dictates how the events in the game world are resolved, he is probably correct at least that exploration of the content of the book is at least removed a layer from game play.

I broadly define "system" to include whatever influences what is in the shared imaginary space. For example, let us assume that we all play at Bob's house, and we have an unspoken tacit agreement that ultimately we will do whatever Bob wants, because Bob has a tendency to become piqued if we don't, and we don't want to lose our play space. That's now part of the system. No one has written it down; no one will ever say that they have to do this because otherwise Bob will throw a fit (because saying so will only exacerbate the problem); no one will acknowledge that Bob was wrong. Bob's character will not be killed no matter what else happens unless Bob wants that to happen. That's part of the system. The system controls what happens in the shared imagined space. If everyone inherently agrees that no one is to make a pass at Angela's character because Angela is going out with Jim and they don't want to offend Jim, that's part of the system, as it guarantees that Angela's character is now limited to romantic relationships with Jim's character, no one else being willing to interfere with that. Thus everything that falls outside the books and house rules is, in my view, part of "system" as it is used here. What Jay is calling "system" we distinguish as "rules", which we agree may be part of "system", or may inform "system" (in that someone gets to decide which rules are going to apply when and what to ignore when).

Yes, it is still common to refer to a "game system" and mean something published; but for clarity, we have attempted at least for the last year or so to delineate "system" by the Lumpley principle.

I believe Vincent has clearly said that his understanding of his principle matches mine. That should at least settle what the Lumpley principle means. It means that whatever means, methods, rules, agreements, and interactions of any sort cause a group of people to share an imaginary space is the system.

The questions which remain are whether this is what Ron means by "system" as one of the five areas of exploration, and whether "system" as so defined can be valid area for exploration via role play.

I would say that questions like

• What happens when I cast a fireball spell underwater?• Can I fire the laser rifle at the target in the mirror and have it hit and damage the target around the corner?• Will exposure to this level of radiation kill my character or cause him to mutate in interesting ways?• If I travel back in time, can I meet myself?• Is it possible to kill Cthulu with enough firepower?

are all ways of exploring system--of using characters to test the physics of the game world, if you like. It's those "what happens if we do this" questions, when they implicate the decision process that makes those determinations, that we are exploring.

So I conclude that if system is broadly defined as "everything which controls what happens in the shared imagined space", then it is quite possible for players to explore it through roleplay. It only remains for Ron to say whether this is how he understands "system" in that context.

I'll leave by picking one small nit. Every time you wrote proscribe, I think you meant prescribe. I find no definition or usage of proscribe that does not directly mean forbid, condemn, or exclude.

--M. J. Young

Greetings.

lumpley wrote: When you go on to say that according to the Lumpley Principle we hash out before play who'll have authority, and that our agreement to abide by the input of the rules in the game text is binding, you're misreading me.

lumpley wrote: Ron has said that when he writes "Exploration of System" he means "time and attention paid to the process of determining what happens in the game," …

M.J. Young wrote: I'll leave by picking one small nit. Every time you wrote proscribe, I think you meant prescribe. I find no definition or usage of proscribe that does not directly mean forbid, condemn, or exclude.

Spot. On.

And nicely said.

But say more about this bit?

To me, it is in these “non-rules sets” events that Exploration/the Narrative Process takes places. It is here, I believe, as Simulationists, that we find our reason for gaming. It is here that we find the ill-defined/misunderstood heartbeat of Simulationism.

I think it's important to mention quickly, and it may be obvious, but that the negotiation for events to happen in the SIS, is mostly just moving on and having tacit approval. That is, I say, "I go across the street" and nobody objects so that fact has been established. The GM says, "Three orcs appear" and by not complaining about it, it is so. As long as the participants in the game are creating in a manner that's supported by the rules and tradition of play, most things get established with no actual debate.

This is still part of whatever system is being employed, just a largely ignored part.

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote: the negotiation for events to happen in the SIS, is mostly just moving on and having tacit approval. That is, I say, "I go across the street" and nobody objects so that fact has been established.

And like Mike, I want to jump in with one teeny little thing that I hope everybody's already clear about...

The "person or persons who have the authority to apportion credibility" is always everybody at the table. Any other apparent arrangement is the result of ongoing, unspoken negotiation.

-Vincent

Yep, I missed the ratification clause. I think we're all in agreement.

Mike

AHA!!! I am beginning to see a light at the end of this interminable (mea culpa) tunnel of semantics! The Lumpley Principle is a gatekeeper; it is not concerned with content creation. The LP is invoked only after a statement has been made, not before. Thus the LP supports the statement process. The LP has no governing power over the actual creative process, the process that drives the creation of statements. Because the way the LP functions “statement -> negotiation -> consensus” there is nothing inherent to the process that prevents any statement from being made. It has no built in censorship powers over the statement process. However, as we ARE engaged in a consensus effort, it is reasonable to assume that all players involved wish to have their statements ratified as often as possible. This desire to be ratified does then place pressure on the one making a statement to do so in a manner that is more likely to be received well by all involved so as to increase the likelihood of his statement being ratified (given credibility).

So far the guiding principle for reaching consensus is the desire to match our statements with the goal to roleplay. All these acts of ratification (consensus apportioning) are worked out in the Negotiation segment of the process. The procedures in which the Negotiations are worked out, however, are rarely (if ever) left to the Social Contract alone. All roleplaying games have published (pre-created) rules sets, or to put it another way, a set of formalized Negotiation techniques that are employed to apportion credibility. These formalized Negotiation techniques do not preclude non-formalized (non-published) techniques, i.e., those techniques that function or receive their mandate directly from the Social Contract realm. The employment of these various Negotiation techniques does color/affect the consensus process. This coloration effect is one of the reasons why we chose and employ (purchase and put into play) the games that we play.

The other main reason we purchase (or create for that matter) and employ game systems (D&D, Traveler, etc.) is the guidance to the statement process that the source materials provide; the narrative elements – character (as in kinds and generation), setting, situation (at least on a large scale), and color. These game systems, via the providing of the narrative elements, help frame/steer our gaming/consensus efforts. It is in the creative Exploration of these narrative elements that we employ The System (the various Negotiation techniques that will be used) - both published system (extant – a subset of The System) and social contract stipulations (created – which can include alterations to the published system and social agreements like don’t kill Bob’s character – a subset of The System).

It is the Exploration of the Narrative Elements that drives the game (the engine). This is not the same as saying the Exploration of the Narrative Elements is what necessarily drives the players. This is where the problem that Ron had discussed where a disconnect can arise between something that a player’s character might find interesting and the player himself does not. A Hardcore Gamist may give only the most fleeting nod to the Exploration of the Narrative Elements and gain the highest degree of satisfaction from the employment/exploitation of system as prescribed/mechanics/Techniques whereas the fiercest Simulationist (Turku) may only give the most fleeting nod to system as prescribed/mechanics/Techniques while deriving the greatest pleasure from the Exploration of the Narrative Elements. I give these extremes only as examples to help illustrate a point; they are not meant to be actual descriptions of real motivations or play.

There are many elements of the Roleplay gaming experience that take place outside the jurisdiction of the LP, e.g. character creation, kibitzing at the table, deciding who sits where, etc. The implication here is that the LP is in operation for only a portion of the game event. I think I can readily assert that the LP is in operation only when in the SIS. It is because the space is imagined, not concrete, that we must all be in accord as to what is and isn’t in this imagined space or the process will fall apart. I believe it is also axiomatic that one can only enter the SIS through the avatar/character. Everything that is said to be observed is filtered through the senses of the avatar. Everything physical that is said to happen to the character is said to happen to the avatar. Conversely everything that a player does to interact with the imagined world happens through the avatar. These avatars can be robust, actor’s stance, or transparent, pawn stance – but either way the operative sphere is the SIS and the means of engaging it is through the avatar. The avatar is the lens through which we espy the SIS. Why and to what ends (player motives for play – not character motivations) one operates in the SIS is another matter entirely, but it can be said that we are not “roleplaying” until we have entered the SIS. If that is indeed the definition of the sphere of Roleplay – it can be said that anything that takes us out of the avatar mode (doffed the avatar {no longer in a role} and thus losing the lens to the SIS) is said to take us out of the SIS and thus out of “roleplay” – we are no longer playing the imagined role. This out of “roleplay” milieu is what I call the meta-game. The Exploration of the Narrative Elements can only happen in the SIS for they (the Narrative Elements) are all imagined, not concrete (with the exception of color which functions in the “real world” to facilitate the players in their imagining of the SIS). This does not mean that the meta-game elements are not of the game process, but “roleplay” has not begun until one dons the avatar (slips into the role) and starts to interact with the SIS via the avatar. Thus one could spend all night laying out the Social contract, rolling up character, etc., but until the character is employed as a window into the SIS the night was all meta-game and thus no “roleplay” had occurred. Again, this stepping into the SIS may not be the reason that one plays, but play is not said to have begun until one has done so. Roleplay is a consensus process and that process is not begun until one has entered the consensus zone – the SIS.

OK – what’s the fuss? Simply that anything that takes us out of the SIS (because the player must operate out of character/avater) is a metagame process. All Techniques fall into this category. Now here’s the rub. One may argue that because the LP operates within the SIS, and that Negotiations are employed by the LP, and that a subset of those Negotiation tools are Techniques (the rules set as provided by the published works as employed), that it follows that Techniques operates within the SIS. I disagree. Simply put, the employment of Techniques pulls us out of the Avatar and by extension the SIS. The operation of the ratification-by-silent-consent Negotiation tool does not pull us out of the SIS because it does not require us to speak or operate out of character, or to even be aware that the Negotiations are taking place.

M. J. Young wrote: Yes, it is still common to refer to a "game system" and mean something published; but for clarity, we have attempted at least for the last year or so to delineate "system" by the Lumpley principle.

lumpley wrote: Ron has said that when he writes "Exploration of System" he means "time and attention paid to the process of determining what happens in the game,"…

I think your jargon is tripping you up. Particularly I recommend that you stop thinking of the group's consensus and your own imagination as "spaces" of any sort.

You imagine stuff. The only way for what you imagine to become part of what happens in the game is for you to communicate it. The Lumpididdly Principiddly governs communication about what happens in the game. Nothing to it.

Your stuff about "avatars" is just nonsense. You don't need an "avatar" to "enter" the in-game. There is, as they say, no there there. What mediates between you and the in-game is the words and numbers and pictures and things you use to communicate with your fellow players. The in-game is made of words and numbers and pictures and communication, not imagination. Your personal imagination leads and follows the group's communicated consensus, and the bridge between them is precisely negotiation.

I'll leave Ron to defend (or not) "explore" as the word for what you do with System, it's his deal. But try this: "Exploration of System" = "Time and attention paid to participating in the process of determining what happens in the fictional in-game." Do any of your objections still stand?

-Vincent

I wanted to take issue with a couple of points in Jay's post. Overall, Jay keeps trying to put "system" in a smaller box, and I keep trying to put it in a bigger box; but let me address these points individually:

• Whether character creation is excluded from the Lumpley Principle;• Whether the control of a character is the essential for roleplaying.•

This distinction is important because there are times when the DM may wish to direct internal states or noisy, perceptual information to a specific player via their avatar. This is a PIS event as the information is internal or not subject to consensus.

The LP can only operate on actions, not inactions. The LP can only control (stop or allow) the entrance of a statement into the SIS, it cannot Negotiate on an action (statement) when no actionable statement is given.

The LP cannot deny or invalidate a person’s or a character’s emotional state.

The house is burning down; what are you going to do?

Nothing; I'm just going to sit here and watch.

I'm sorry, you're in the house, the heat is getting unbearable--I want you to roll a will power check to keep yourself from trying to save your life by running out of the house.