OK,

So I have this essay now on Threefold Simulationism (which is IMO distinct from GNS Simulationism). So I wrote this essay delving into the topic. At first I thought I would touch it up more, but then I thought that people here will probably have very good comments on it -- so I'm exposing it in rough draft form and asking for comments. It's complete but may need some copy editing, and maybe I should throw in some more references.

http://www.darkshire.net/~jhkim/rpg/theory/threefold/simulationism.html

So I figure I'll have one revision to finalize it after discussion here.

The article makes it seem like there are no antagonists in Sim play. This may be unintended, but it reads that way to me. I would say that Sim play has plenty of antagonists that can be presented to the PCs along the way without PC exploration (assuming a "standard" RPG with players and a GM). What differentiates Sim play versus Narrative play is that there is no drive to a climax in the story, per se. The GM adventure prep style should generally be of a "wing it" variety where the GM defines details of background, locations, NPCs, and crucially NPC motivations. The GM may have NPCs may act directly against the PCs and the PCs will respond. Or the PCs may act inadvertantly act against a NPC motivation and the NPC will respond accordingly. The difference is that the GM does not have a specific end state in mind. The Big Bad Guy may die ignamously with a cheap shot arrow to the head or the PCs may fail and the Big Bad Guy actually brings armageddon on to the world. The GM in Sim play will let the players' actions affect the world and the game world will affect the characters. No punches held back.

I'm still digesting "Immersion" as a subtype of Sim. I'm not sure if I agree with that or not. To me another variant of Sim would be to be detached from the character in favor of the system ("I know my character would does 'X' and not 'Y', even though 'Y' is more beneficial from a meta-game sense") Or maybe that is Immersion?

Hello,

John, that's a fine article.

Umberhulk, when you refer to "Narrative play," I hope you're not referring to Narrativist play by the GNS definitions. Because everything in your post after that describes Narrativist play, if we're using those definitions, not Simulationist. And if we're going by John's definitions, then I don't know what you mean by "Narrative play" at all. We should probably discuss that in another thread, because I don't want to hijack this thread about Narrativism.

Therefore I hope the following is just a quickie question and answer:

It seems very clear to me that Narrativist play in your scheme, John, would simply be a sub-set of Simulationist play as you've laid out here. "Premise-addressing" would just be another way to do it. Where we'd differ, perhaps, is that I would claim that an out-of-game mindfulness expressed as social reinforcement about the process is necessary, entirely in defiance of the "in-game cause" rubric for Simulationist play.

Am I right about that?

Best,
Ron

Hmphf. For narrativism, I may be confusing Credibility Distribution/Stance with Narrativism. Regardless, I don't feel that changes my take on Simulationist.


Here's a definition of simulation from Webster:

3 a : the imitative representation of the functioning of one system or process by means of the functioning of another b : examination of a problem often not subject to direct experimentation by means of a simulating device

Umberhulk, as Ron indicated, both Threefold Sim and GNS Nar strongly reject the GM having a prepared ending in mind for the adventure. Having a prepared ending is generally termed "Illusionism / Participationism" here on the Forge. In the Threefold it is considered to be part of Dramatism; while in GNS it has been considered to be part of Simulationism.

I see it mainly as the uneasy marriage of simulation-style action resolution with literary pretensions -- such as in "Vampire: The Masquerade". Both Threefold Sim and GNS Nar consider this incoherent. Their resolutions to the incoherent matchups are somewhat different, though.

Ron Edwards wrote: It seems very clear to me that Narrativist play in your scheme, John, would simply be a sub-set of Simulationist play as you've laid out here. "Premise-addressing" would just be another way to do it. Where we'd differ, perhaps, is that I would claim that an out-of-game mindfulness expressed as social reinforcement about the process is necessary, entirely in defiance of the "in-game cause" rubric for Simulationist play.

Am I right about that?

Content stuff:
Let me test my understanding. What is [basically] being referred to in the essay is Open Play (Pinball Sim, Plotless-Background Based). Given, Open Play is specifically a GMing style, but same idea right? If true, then I think it's clear (and good). I'm going to try to get a member of my group to read it and see if this paragraph:

John Kim wrote: Many gamers worry that this approach will lead to nothing happening. The PCs will walk around and look in different places, not find anything special, and be bored. Indeed, if the players are conditioned to expect a prepared adventure, this can be just what happens. The players search around for hints about what the GM wants them to do, and fail to find it. But by adjusting play, a different dynamic emerges.

Umberhulk wrote: To me, this is a functional definition of roleplaying itself. But more specifically, it deals with games that have rules that are true to the subject matter. In my mind, Champions is still the pinnacle of simulationist design for super heroes, because it modelled super hero comic books in play better than any other system. Simulationist play, in my mind, would be players staying true to the form of the subject that the system is simulating.

Back to the dictionary definition of simulation again:

examination of a problem often not subject to direct experimentation by means of a simulating device

I like Champions a lot, and yet I would say that most of its successes are because it is different than superhero comics. For example, it is fundamentally false to comic books to specify, say, that Firestar's fire bolts have a 500 meter range. Champions calls for detail and specificity in superpowers far beyond the loosely-defined powers of comics. It also has no handling of pacing for fights or otherwise to try to get them to match the very deliberate dramatic pacing of comics. At the most basic level, comic-book writers don't roll dice to write their stories -- as the authors of Theatrix were quick to point out.

Hi Umberhulk,

Simulation does not exist for simulation's own sake, it has to tell you something about what is being modelled or it is pointless.

Ron Edwards wrote:

Simulation does not exist for simulation's own sake, it has to tell you something about what is being modelled or it is pointless.

Temperamentally speaking, I agree with you. But observationally, apparently quite a few role-players emphatically state that this is, indeed, exactly what they are all about.
...
When I ask any of these folks about Premise or Step On Up stuff, they emphatically tell me, "No! I get what you're saying, and I specifically reject exactly, exactly those things as the source of my fun."

Some are focused entirely on Character Exploration with a specific lack of interest in thematic resolutions (John, this is very different from your approach to character, if I'm not mistaken).

Some are focused entirely on the imaginary-physics and logistic elements of the situation, and whether the system hums correctly in resolving it.

Some are focused on that imaginary world and their characters are essentially a pair of eyes through which they get to view it, step by step.

Some are enjoying emulating a particular kind of story; they enjoy its features and familiar theme with almost exactly the same kind of approach as the setting-folks above.

Still others combine these interests in a variety of ways.

Hi Brodie,

I think one of the big standards for this forum is that alternate models for role-playing are welcome - but the purpose isn't to butt them against one another in terms of which ones we (for lack of a better word) believe. I, at least, am not debating which model (the Threefold, mine, or presumably yours) is better.

Well, not at this point, and not in this thread, anyway.

So I'm hoping that we can all participate in this thread with an eye toward understanding what John's saying, and only then moving (if we do) toward comparative quality/utility debate. Without that shared understanding, then I think the presumed debate would be an abominable waste of time.

Best,
Ron

Understood. I went through a self-learning/discovery process as part of my postings. I had no intention of derailing this thread.

Umberhulk wrote: Back to the dictionary definition of simulation again...

And that is what "Simulationist" means to me

I fully agree, and as a relative newbie I am still getting a handle on that jargon. However, all these models with their separate jargon are all discussing the same real life subject area. Eventually, as the theories mature, a consensus will be reached on the terms and syntax of the modeling language. Ahh, many debates to come! :-)

John Kim wrote: Critics of Champions are quick to point to these as flaws. However, I don't think this is clear. They mean that Champions does not strictly emulate comic books -- but that may mean that Champions works better for role-playing.

Mike Holmes wrote: As a note, what John's describing here would seem to me to match to what in GNS might be termed "open sim", when the priority of the players isn't on creating theme. That's the part of the mode that wouldn't be covered by narrativism as Ron points out. Basically, it points out an axis that exists across these forms that deals with how the story gets created - is it by GM force, or player choice?

It brings up an interesting question - does "open sim" really exist? If not, then Threefold Sim is just narrativism, tending to the vanilla.

Mike Holmes wrote: John, are there aspects that you'd like to look at besides the GNS comparisons?

John.

I certianly admire the thought and effort you put into this essay. Defining things like this can be a pretty daunting taks and I Appreciate you sharing your ideas.

Howver, I have some serious qualms with some of the notions and points laid out in the Essay and I felt I should address them. Of course this is one man's opinion so take it as such.

A central feature of Simulationism is that it rejects closely identifying role-playing with either fiction writing or other types of games. This is important, because role-playing is often viewed and judged by external standards. For example, an RPG might be judged poor if the events it produces would not make a good book or movie of that type. Conversely, an RPG might be judged poor if it isn't fairly balance like a board game or card game.
Rejecting this identification is important to finding out what is interesting about RPGs uniquely. Thus Simulationism calls for throwing out preconceptions about what the game should be like, and instead requiring people to form their opinion about how they like play as itself. Simulationism allows that individual techniques might be borrowed from other activities -- like mechanics from card games, or inspiration from novels. However, that doesn't mean that role-playing is any of those other activities, or that the essence of role-playing is the same as them.

However, the central tenet of Simulationism prevents this. When the GM prepares between sessions, any invented background should be based solely on what should reasonably be there in the world. It may be extrapolation, random, or arbitrarily imagined -- but it cannot be deliberately constructed for narrative purpose. This rejects melodramatic hooks or other prepared dramatic structure

In Simulationist play, the onus is more on the players to drive play. Without contrived situations to force the PCs into action, the PCs need to be more pro-active. They need to be rebellious, in the sense that faced with a stable status quo, they will take risks to upset that status quo. In GM-driven adventures, there is an unusual event (a melodramatic hook) which spurs the PCs to action. But in Simulationism, there will not usually be such unusual events. Without such hooks, the PCs need to seek out conflict.

Action resolution differs from adventure design, because it is less about GM preparation prior to the session, and more about use of rules and dice during a game session. However, it still follows the same Simulationist principle of following internal cause.
Many drama-oriented systems advise the GM to overlook or modify die rolls or rules. In particular, they suggest that cool-sounding or inspirational PC actions be allowed to succeed. There is also the alternate concept that the challenge should be fair -- meaning that if the players act intelligently, the PCs should succeed. Simulationism rejects both of these. Results are not fudged for story, so when faced with difficult odds the PCs may well fail. Alternatively, they may get lucky and breeze past the opposition. There is no bias that the PCs will be facing difficult but beatable odds.

The vital lesson to be learned from this is letting go of what you want the story to be. Often RPGs can turn into a meta-game power struggle between players and GM, or among players. The GM wants the story to go one way, and the players want it to go a different way. Simulationism encourages letting go of expectations of how you want things to turn out, and instead concentrate on enriching what does happen.

Another vital lesson is to reduce the stigma of failure[/quote[ Totally agree. Indeed I think this could and should be considered in multiple modes of play.

Simulationism rejects this as a method. Without an external agenda of goals which they are supposed to pursue, the characters should pursue goals which are personally important to them. The players must learn to create characters whose actions are interesting to play. The foremost among these is willingness to take risks. Play will then center on extrapolating the consequences of their actions. If a PC takes risks for his ambitions, then he may succeed or he may fail. Either way is interesting.
Further, these become goals relevant to the players, because character creation is a deeply personal process. Given choice and scope to make a complex character, players will invest a piece of themselves. This often represents wish fulfillment: characters who can and will do things that the player cannot. This is not a meta-game agenda separate from the character itself. Rather, the fiction character in its definition reflects the interests and wishes of the player. Extrapolating the results of these efforts inherently produces meaning relevant to the player. Rather than the GM guessing what will be meaningful to the player, it is up to the player to create a character whose actions are meaningful.

I agree. That’s a good thing to try and get the Players to do in ANY RPG. How is it unique to Simulationism or if not unique then more necessary for the heart of Simulationism?

Simulationist role-playing is concerned about accurately reflecting other personalities, cultures, and philosophies from your own

Is the difference here ”accurate reflection”? Honestly again any mode might be about the above with the possible exception of “accurate reflection”.

The emotional power of Simulationism usually stems from the consequences of player choice. For similar reasons, Simulationists tended to favor point-based character creation rather than random-roll.

I am not sure how accurate this is but it seems counter-intuitive. If they would be interested in exploring the world as it presents itself, then would not the randomness of birth be more Simulationist then point buy?

Threefold Simulationism is based on method and observation rather than a theoretical goal which it strives for. The tool is simulation: projecting what should happen based on the game-world as it has been imagined. Put aside what you think the story should be based on books and movies, and instead think about the game-world as an alternate reality

Movies and books are not Alternate Realities?

Whew ok. Let me see if I can articulate what I get from this. Simulationism as a mode of Play differs from other (unnamed in this essay) modes of play because it relies on Background inspired Character motives to push along the game or story as opposed to Game Master initiated hooks. It also uses mechanics and background to maintain internal consistency. Am I close? If so then I really am not sure how Simulationism is different then any other mode of play. That is to say, many of the ideas that are described in this essay could and do reflect Play in other modes. Also what are the Other or Counter Modes to Three Fold Simulationism? A compare and Contrast could be helpful and not necessarily vs. GNS. I mean in its own Universe, what are the other modes of play associated with Three Fold Simulationism?

Ok so there it is.

Sean

I'm going to run through much of Sean's post point-by-point. This is not intended as one of those vicious "you got everything wrong" things, although I am critical. But Sean has built up a series of objections, and I think it makes the most sense to clarify or respond in order.

Please also note that I'm not particularly defending the Threefold Model here, just seeking clarification.

ADGBoss wrote:

A central feature of Simulationism is that it rejects closely identifying role-playing with either fiction writing or other types of games. This is important, because role-playing is often viewed and judged by external standards. For example, an RPG might be judged poor if the events it produces would not make a good book or movie of that type.

This introduction intrigues me a bit. RPG’s will be judged poorly if they do not make good books or movies? Do you mean if the game does not tell a good story?

What if the people i.e. gamers or RPG’ers, conclude that how they like play is like in a book or movie? Should we conclude for ourselves how we like play? I would think yes. Thats true in any mode. So how is TFS (Three Fold Simulationism) different from the other modes in that regard.

It may be extrapolation, random, or arbitrarily imagined -- but it cannot be deliberately constructed for narrative purpose. This rejects melodramatic hooks or other prepared dramatic structure

...How do you judge unreasonable? WHO judges it? In a Super Hero World if I as GM introduce A Galactus planet eater, is that unreasonable? Simulating possibility and probability would be an arduous task I think, even for the best of us. So reasonability is decided when? Should the players call “bogus” if the GM steps out of line?

In Simulationist play, the onus is more on the players to drive play. Without contrived situations to force the PCs into action, the PCs need to be more pro-active. They need to be rebellious, in the sense that faced with a stable status quo, they will take risks to upset that status quo. In GM-driven adventures, there is an unusual event (a melodramatic hook) which spurs the PCs to action. But in Simulationism, there will not usually be such unusual events. Without such hooks, the PCs need to seek out conflict.

....Ok so what if the PC’s do not seek out conflict? Conflict should not come to them? I would think that in most worlds, trouble usually finds you no matter how hard you try and avoid it, but in Simulationism the GM would not be able to put forth Plot that might intrigue the players?

Also, how is it handled when the GM tries to make things a little more interesting. Lets say our conflict seekers go looking for a Goblin lair. GM knows Goblins are easy pickings so he adds a Troll ally. When PCs meet the Troll do they call foul? “Sorry as previously decided in world Trolls and goblins hate each other.” IS the GM allowed to spice up the world on the fly?

Results are not fudged for story, so when faced with difficult odds the PCs may well fail. Alternatively, they may get lucky and breeze past the opposition. There is no bias that the PCs will be facing difficult but beatable odds.

....[W]hile system and mechanics DO matter and can adjust the feel or mode of game, a mechanic which alters probability could be argued to add to the Exploration factor. Altering probability is real: its called cheating so the mechanics allow the Player to cheat for his or her character. What if that IS internally consistent with the world view?

The vital lesson to be learned from this is letting go of what you want the story to be. .... Simulationism encourages letting go of expectations of how you want things to turn out, and instead concentrate on enriching what does happen.

I am not sure how you can divorce Player expectation of story from the game? If the players desire to be Goblin slayers, they want to play a game about Goblin slayers and their story will be about Goblin slayers.

Its at this point that I might suggest redfining the internal bits of Simulationism, John. You say its not like a movie or book and yet you use Story and Plot to explain what is going on. That would suggest a structure at least a kissing cousin away from book or movie.

Simulationist role-playing is concerned about accurately reflecting other personalities, cultures, and philosophies from your own

Is the difference here ”accurate reflection”? Honestly again any mode might be about the above with the possible exception of “accurate reflection”.

Put aside what you think the story should be based on books and movies, and instead think about the game-world as an alternate reality

Movies and books are not Alternate Realities?

Well, I see I am not the only one. Sean seems to have a similar view point to me. Rewind back to address a comment from the first page:

Well, what is the point of simulating something for another thing's sake? I mean, suppose your game is "true" to comics books -- or suppose your game addresses a Premise. Who cares? That just begs the question of why should you do the other thing. What is the point of reading comic books, or watching sports, or dancing, or stamp collecting? What tangible reward does your role-playing accomplish that Simulationist "pointless" role-playing doesn't? It's not like it's going to put clothes on your back or food in your mouth.

Sean -

Some your comments seem to be addressed as if Simulationism is a way that you are supposed to play. It's not. It is distinct from how many people play, but I'm definitely not saying it's superior to others in general.

ADGBoss wrote: What if the people i.e. gamers or RPG'ers, conclude that how they like play is like in a book or movie? Should we conclude for ourselves how we like play? I would think yes. Thats true in any mode. So how is TFS (Three Fold Simulationism) different from the other modes in that regard.

ADGBoss wrote: Also, how is it handled when the GM tries to make things a little more interesting. Lets say our conflict seekers go looking for a Goblin lair. GM knows Goblins are easy pickings so he adds a Troll ally. When PCs meet the Troll do they call foul? "Sorry as previously decided in world Trolls and goblins hate each other." IS the GM allowed to spice up the world on the fly?

ADGBoss wrote: I am not sure how you can divorce Player expectation of story from the game? If the players desire to be Goblin slayers, they want to play a game about Goblin slayers and their story will be about Goblin slayers. The Simulationism vs. whatever alternative would come about as regard of the mechanics but the bits of Simulationism, John. You say its not like a movie or book and yet you use Story and Plot to explain what is going on. That would suggest a structure at least a kissing cousin away from book or movie.

ADGBoss wrote: Simulationism as a mode of Play differs from other (unnamed in this essay) modes of play because it relies on Background inspired Character motives to push along the game or story as opposed to Game Master initiated hooks. It also uses mechanics and background to maintain internal consistency. Am I close? If so then I really am not sure how Simulationism is different then any other mode of play. That is to say, many of the ideas that are described in this essay could and do reflect Play in other modes. Also what are the Other or Counter Modes to Three Fold Simulationism? A compare and Contrast could be helpful and not necessarily vs. GNS. I mean in its own Universe, what are the other modes of play associated with Three Fold Simulationism?

John

Yes I have read the Three Fold FAQ and I see when you say Three FOld you are referring to the entire monkey. From the way you presented your Essay I was under the impression that your Sim was a Three headed beast different from that. However I am seeing the connection now.

I do understand the no GM Spicing idea. My questions were aimed at pinning that down as a basic tenent. It is an interesting Premise but I do find some fallacy with it. I will say that if you could program a computer with all the variables of the world AND give it the ability to describe that to players, then I think this experiment could be well run. I also agree with TFS idea of empowering the players to be more proactive in the game. However, that is not Sim per se thats ANY game and indeed any activity.

I see two main issues with this theory though:

1) Trust as it relates to the Game Master or Judge
2) Creative World Design vs. Railroading

1) The last Player who spoke up and said "Your not doing it right" during a game I was GMing can breathe ok, as long as no one unplugs her :) No seriously, I am all for empowering everyone's voice at the table with regard to play and mechanics. No GM is perfect and if I need to reminded that a sword does D6+1 well hey I appreciate their knowledge of the Rules/ Alternate Reality. The problem comes in because the players have to be wary of everything the GM says and the GM needs to be mindful of internal consistency to an extraordinary degree.

Per example: Players go to a town the GM has only basic notes on.
"Ok we walk up to the Blacksmith in Exmore."
GM:"Ok. HEllo and well met travelers, I am Bob Blacksmith of Exmore."
"What are you making?"
GM: "Horse shoes. Do you all have horses?"
"No. Any dangers in this town?"
GM "Nope. We are having a great time here."
"Well lets explore the town more and seek out conflict..."

What if there IS no conflict in this town? In True Sim if the town had been designed as peaceful then there would be none and the GM could not create one on the Fly. Clearly though the Players want conflict IN THIS TOWN but they would not trust the GM enough to make it up as he or she goes.

True Sim has an in built level of paranoia and distrust which I do not feel makes for good gameplay.

2) So the GM creates the world or buys the supplement with the World in it. By definition it is gong to have Plot Hooks that make it interesting. So its ok to put in hooks and twists and spice BEFORE Play begins but not AFTER? The way you describe it any meddling after the groundwork has been set would deny the characters their right not to be railroaded. I do not think its a fear that nothing will happen players find things to do, but they find them in the Conflicts that already exist within a world. Although it is equally valid for them to start new conflicts that have some meaning to their characters but how is this True Sim or TFS?

interesting part doesn't come from how tough the fight is, but rather from what it means to the characters.

ADGBoss wrote: I am all for empowering everyone's voice at the table with regard to play and mechanics. No GM is perfect and if I need to reminded that a sword does D6+1 well hey I appreciate their knowledge of the Rules/ Alternate Reality. The problem comes in because the players have to be wary of everything the GM says and the GM needs to be mindful of internal consistency to an extraordinary degree.
...
True Sim has an in built level of paranoia and distrust which I do not feel makes for good gameplay.

ADGBoss wrote: Per example: Players go to a town the GM has only basic notes on.
"Ok we walk up to the Blacksmith in Exmore."
GM:"Ok. HEllo and well met travelers, I am Bob Blacksmith of Exmore."
"What are you making?"
GM: "Horse shoes. Do you all have horses?"
"No. Any dangers in this town?"
GM "Nope. We are having a great time here."
"Well lets explore the town more and seek out conflict..."

What if there IS no conflict in this town? In True Sim if the town had been designed as peaceful then there would be none and the GM could not create one on the Fly. Clearly though the Players want conflict IN THIS TOWN but they would not trust the GM enough to make it up as he or she goes.

ADGBoss wrote: Enjoyable read though and much food for thought. I will be interested when the revision comes out that mentioned and see what I think then.

Some things that struck me about the essay – as was said before, opinion not fact.

John Kim wrote: …what happens should be based on thinking only about what would happen in the game-world as a(n) alternate reality.

John Kim wrote: Enriching what does happen

John Kim wrote: By removing the hooks, it forces the players to plumb their characters' drives

John Kim wrote: Threefold Simulation is based on method and observation…

John Kim wrote: Another vital lesson is to reduce the stigma of failure. Systems which reward players with character success also necessarily stigmatize the players of PCs who fail. In these systems, if your PC fails, it is because the GM didn't think your playing was good enough to be granted a success. This makes the game judgmental, and focuses the players on performance (either as game-players or as actors). If the group agrees to stick to the Simulationist results, then the focus shifts. Players still try to have their PCs succeed, but it is more acceptable for a PC to fail because it does not imply failure on the part of the player. There is more focus on detailing what happened -- both externally and internally to the characters.

I think a lot of this is going around in circles, and I think I spot one of the possibly larger number of reasons for it.

Silmenume wrote: The act or desire for enrichment IS a dramatic choice or desire. By dramatic I mean something that engages the players.

There is an assumption that dramatic and internally or “naturally” caused are somehow mutually exclusive.

There seems to be a conflating of ideas regarding the act of mimicry and the act of drawing inspiration from existing dramatic works.

Every player has an agenda when they sit at the table even if it is something as mundane as “having a good time roleplaying.”

out of frustration might plumb their character’s drives, but he could just as well turn Gamist to make things interesting, or Narrativist to push things along, or start yacking it up at the table, or read a book or play a computer game or just leave the table

A GM could be aiding a player through a conflict situation but the player still makes decisions so poorly that the GM cannot overcome the efforts of the player.

As long as the player has some input to the conflict there will ALWAYS be judgment about said player’s actions. The key is that these judgments should not be voiced or acted upon. Point in fact, as the GM becomes less involved in the outcome of the said conflict, the more of the onus of the outcome of the conflict lies on that player, not less. Other than GNS Gamist play, this is something that is to be encouraged in all modes of play.

OK, I'm not going to go point-by-point with Jay's opinions, since I think the general point is key:

Silmenume wrote: TFS seems more interested in keeping its form true than being interesting to the players. Is that the case? I’m not saying whether that is a good thing or not, I am curious because depending on the answer a lot of issues clear themselves up.