The need for detail in a Sim game is equivalent to someone constantly touching and touching some lost treasure that was lost and found. The act of “touching”, represented in Sim roleplay as the constant need for accurate detail, is “needed” in that it affirms and reaffirms the fictional reality of the SIS. Since in roleplay there is no tangible element built in, the closest we have are the affirmations, via details, of the synthetic reality. As was demonstrated in previous threads details do not a Sim game make. The desire and or the preponderance of time spent on details in Sim games reflect something going on that IS important to the players. Sim players do not desire lots of details as an end unto themselves, but rather the need for details represent a need for something that is expressed in the desire/acceptance/search for such details. The presentation of these details can be done so in a manner that has its own aesthetic, and can be appreciated beyond the utilitarian needs satisfied, but they are present for a purpose that is important to the players beyond that aesthetic.

Which brings me to my point – the things we create in each agenda do have a yard stick by which to measure our efforts.

Gamism – Victory
Narrativism – Premise/Theme
Simulationism – Aesthetic

· Thus in Gamism we determine the value of actions taken by the players as measured against the metric provided by the idea of victory.
· In Narrativism we determine the value of actions taken by the players as measured against the metric provided by the premise.
· In Simulationism we determine the value of actions taken by the players as measured against the metric provided by aesthetic theory. This aesthetic is almost invariably not formalized and it is just this ambiguity that baffles so many people.

Conversely these metrics also (in 2 out of 3 cases) provide some guidance as to what to do in a game if one should be stymied…

· In Gamism, when in doubt about what to do next, choose those actions that drive towards victory.
· In Narrativism, when in doubt about what to do next, choose those actions that address or create premise.
· In Simulationism, when in doubt about what to do next, the aesthetic metric does not provide much guidance so in its stead we lean on the elements of the Shared Imagined Space. The more details, the richer the resource we have from which to mine new ideas. Creation, at least on a mortal level, does not occur in a vacuum, thus the more fodder (details) we have the easier it becomes for us to create.

It is for these reasons that I see a strong connection between the need for internal causality in Sim as well as the desire for detail which is frequently seen in Sim play. I do not believe that lots of details are merely a reflection of an aesthetic desire by players, but serve a vital purpose in supporting the players. This is not to say there cannot be an aesthetic attached to the delivery of details, but that pure aesthetic is not the driving force behind the desire for relatively large amounts of details. If we as players are going to “lean” on the “fictional world” then we need something that is not going to shift out from under us. These numerous details and their consistency are the bedrock upon which we build our game experience edifice. This to me, also explains to me why Sim games typically have so many rules attempting to model the “physical” aspects of the game. It is an attempt to solidify or make consistent the very foundation upon which the players build their game efforts, especially since we have no (or extremely limited) external metagame tools available to help.

Just some thoughts.

Aure Entaluva,

Silmenume

There! There! There!

Jay, you nailed it.

The key secondary insight to consider is that "attention to detail" is not itself Simulationism, but rather a necessary reinforcer of the Right to Dream. I call attention to the "right" in the phrase: the key aesthetic is that it not be violated by another agenda.

Also, the detail of what varies greatly (motivation, for the so-called "system-less" crowd; physics, for the engineering-points crowd; etc).

I am currently seeing some amazing new Simulationist designs emerge from the Forge - ReCoil, Thugs & Thieves, and more, some of them quite wacky and some quite down-to-earth. The common feature seems to be a lot more responsibility on everyone involved to help one another enjoy their Right to Dream ... a common, shared Right, not a bunch of separated, solipsistic Dreams. I think many Simulationist-leaning designs in the past have left that sharing to pure Social Contract, or expected default-Gamist player attitudes to keep them involved in the GM's Dream. I really like what I'm seeing now, and finally experiencing enjoyment in my own Simulationist play.

Best,
Ron

Silmenume wrote: The act of “touching”, represented in Sim roleplay as the constant need for accurate detail, is “needed” in that it affirms and reaffirms the fictional reality of the SIS. Since in roleplay there is no tangible element built in, the closest we have are the affirmations, via details, of the synthetic reality.
...
If we as players are going to “lean” on the “fictional world” then we need something that is not going to shift out from under us. These numerous details and their consistency are the bedrock upon which we build our game experience edifice. This to me, also explains to me why Sim games typically have so many rules attempting to model the “physical” aspects of the game. It is an attempt to solidify or make consistent the very foundation upon which the players build their game efforts, especially since we have no (or extremely limited) external metagame tools available to help.

For two and a half sessions, I have been running a group through a hack job system I made for them, so they can explore other areas of RPG. The codename became Nar D20 Modern. I really never classified it under GNS, until Lxndr brought it up to me. I described it, and he filed it under 'very sim.' Now, I should point out, the Nar was never intended to stand for Narrative, but Narration. Simply put, it has a very Donjon inspired rule set, usually used to produce extensive explosions, and make the characters look cool, as apposed to the more gamist style of Donjon itself. I took a bit of convincing, due to this very paradigm. ND20M's big theme was don't sweat the small stuff. Details fell through the cracks, in typical B Action style. All of this in search of awesome stunts, big explosions, and convoluted plots. It followed my typical style of trying to create an atmosphere and story. It couldn't be sim, because we don't care about the details. But, it was just that. We were passing over such things in favor of creating that authenticity. We ignored distractions in favor of the atmosphere and action. It wasn't about winning, and it wasn't about any dilemma. At it's roots, it was about blowing crap up, flying high, and being the baddest badass you could be. The very lack of details was what made it the most sim game I've ever played in my life. Now if only I can find another base to stand my own mechanics on, we can ditch that D20 all together. ;p

(P.S. Don't tell me about Wushu or Fung Shei. I'm working on it, honest. These fanboys are touch nuts to crack.)

I've got a quibble with Jay, an answer for John, and an amen for MacMoth.

Jay a.k.a. Silmenume wrote: · In Simulationism, when in doubt about what to do next, the aesthetic metric does not provide much guidance so in its stead we lean on the elements of the Shared Imagined Space. The more details, the richer the resource we have from which to mine new ideas. Creation, at least on a mortal level, does not occur in a vacuum, thus the more fodder (details) we have the easier it becomes for us to create.

John Kim wrote: The question in my mind is: why is this considered more characteristic of Simulationism than Narrativism?

MacMoth wrote: The very lack of details was what made it the most sim game I've ever played in my life.

[EDIT: change "Nar essay" to "Gamism essay" Silly typo coulda ruined everything . . . . ]

I like the analysis, though "victory" as a word gets me worried about the "competition" issues alluded to in the Gamism essay. But to run with it for a bit and cover the usual tricky areas, how about this: if the Sim-aesthetic has a close realtionship with seeking victory or involving theme, we are left with the question - is it victory/theme as aesthetic that we are looking at (Sim), or do we actually measure against the victory/theme itself(Game/Nar)? And if (to use a non-Nar example as the counter-example here) a Game-focus is very concerned about some aesthetic values (proper application and understanding of firearms terminolgy, balistics, and etc.), does that aesthetic concern become a more significant measure than the victory? If so, we'd call play overall Sim. If not, and the victory-measure remains pre-eminent, play overall remains Gamist.

I assume most folks understand that, but I thought it might be useful to put it explicitly into this terminology,

Gordon

It is my belief that all three metrics are employed, in essence, to spur the players to “create” with greater effectiveness.

M. J. Young wrote: the aesthetic metric…It tells us, dig deeper into exploring what is here, so you will know what to do with it
…
Just as gamism says push toward winning, narrativism says address premise, so simulationism says explore everything. It isn't that we go to the detail because we don't know what to do; we go to the detail because that's what we do.

Silmenume wrote:
Roleplay at its heart is not finding what is, but creating something that isn’t “yet.”

contracycle wrote:

Silmenume wrote: Roleplay at its heart is not finding what is, but creating something that isn’t “yet.”

One question, which is, why do you say that?

I'll agree that the activity is in some respect necessarily a creative process, but I'm not sure that cannot itself be boxed off and limited to, say, character creation and portrayal.

"meaning" is a term I am seldom able to parse usefully, and this is one of those times. It seems adequate to me to say that we game to satisfy our creative agendas, I'm not sure what further meaning "meaning" brings to this activity.

Anyway, what I am suggesting is that the value of exploration to the sim is precisely discovery, which it seems to me is rendered valueless if the discovery is only self serving, is not external to us. I don't think the spectator or book-reading analogies are far off base, in that I think the sim player does approach play like that to a large degree, does 'spectate' the SIS, and finds explict and overt creation of the SIS anathema.

Every single one of the game designs that starts with the players sitting down and negotiating what the game world is like, what the theme is, turns me right off. I don't care about after I have created it; I already know it and there is little or nothing further to discover. So, why would I bother playing further? It is that externality, the alienation of the SIS from player control, that is in my mind the critical element of Sim as regards internal continuity and detail.

Silmenume wrote: Roleplay at its heart is not finding what is, but creating something that isn’t “yet.”

Contracycle wrote: Anyway, what I am suggesting is that the value of exploration to the sim is precisely discovery, which it seems to me is rendered valueless if the discovery is only self serving, is not external to us. I don't think the spectator or book-reading analogies are far off base, in that I think the sim player does approach play like that to a large degree, does 'spectate' the SIS, and finds explict and overt creation of the SIS anathema.

Let me see if I can land on the middle ground here.

I'm very much with Gareth (Contracycle), in championing the heart of simulationism as discovery; that does seem to be what its about. However, I think that Jay (Silumene) is pointing at part of what play is that has to be considered.

Jay is right in this: everything that happens in the shared imaginary space is contributed by participant (i.e., player, including referee) statements. That means the shared imaginary space is created by the participants, and in that sense role playing is always a creative process.

When I as a player says, "My character is going to enter this room," I have not created the room; presumably the referee or the module materials have that, and they will now be injected into the shared imaginary space by the referee. However, I have created the fact that my character entered the room, and in so doing I also created the opportunity for the contents and appearance of the room to enter the shared imaginary space.

At the same time, there is a sense in which the contents and appearance of the room already exist in the prepared materials; and in one sense they already exist in the shared imaginary space (the sense discussed in another thread, of everyone consenting to the existence within the shared imaginary space of information of which they are individually unaware but which is known to at least one person involved, the so-called secret information). In another sense, speaking them into the group understanding creates these within the shared imaginary space, and for the first time the description of the room takes form in the minds of all the participants. It is thus immediately a creative process, even though the information pre-existed my knowledge of it and I had already implicitly agreed that those details unknown to me existed as part of the shared imaginary space. The very act of discovery is in that sense a creative act, because as the information is revealed to me and the others at the table, we create the image within our shared imaginary space, and thence act within it.

I think Walt's notion that the creative versus the discovery aspects of simulationism should be divorced misses this aspect: all simulationism is creative discovery; it is not an either/or but a continuum between two essential aspects, in which the social contract dictates how much each individual may create (remember, that includes character actions) and how much they may only discover.

Maybe that resolves it?

--M. J. Young

Mr. Young,

You have done me a great service by making very clear what I had originally intended to say.

I will quibble with the idea that pre-existing DM information is part of the SIS when it has not been introduced into the SIS, but I will do so in another thread as an effort to maintain forum decorum.

contracycle - by meaning creation I refer to the fact we do things in game with intention. Because we acted with the desire that some result happen (intention) we are then interested in the results of said acts. So we attend to those results and attempt to interpret the results of those actions. Interpreting means assigning meaning to those acts. What did the results of said action mean to me? We purposefully created that act not as an end unto itself, but because we wanted to accomplish something that means something to us as players. Our creative action is thus an attempt to create a result that has (an important) meaning to us. At any rate I would be happy to discuss this further, but I think that in the interest of maintaining forum etiquette we should take this to another thread.

Aure Entaluva,

Silmenume