The Forge Archives

Well, I just found a few really meaty and useful threads over in Actual Play.  I still wonder how many more meaty threads we'd have if everyone wasn't so obsessed (an earlier incarnation of myself included) with what are largely tangental ideas to the primary value I get from this website; but since I seem to be in the minority on that one, I might as well ring in.

My personal problem with the  whole "Simulationist" thing is that its such a piss poor word to use to describe whats going on in RPGs.  John has shared a pretty clear idea about what Simulation means in the RGFA sense, and I got to say...that ain't Simulation.  

Now I'm not saying it isn't a real and legitimate play style pursued by many.  I'm saying that they've clearly usurped a term that means something else entirely and twisted it to their own private definition. Just as I was saying GNS has done on an earlier thread of mine.

That I think is part of the repeated and regular problem people have with these models.  They see them for the first time and start to argue about them.  Why?  Because they know what a simulation is, but that isn't the way the term is being used and so the same ground has to be gone over and over and over.

I think thats a huge part of the problem actually.  The jargonizing into a private lexicon of words that actually have preexisting definitions.

Case in point.  Over and over its been stated recently that "There is no Metagame in simulation".  That's just flat out wrong.  While it may be true that "There is no Metagame in the RGFA's definition of simulation", the RGFA's use of the term is way off base.

In actual simulations going back to wargaming days there are PLENTY of opportunities for metagame in the simulation.  Not every wargame session mind you, but enough to judge that the presence or absence of metagame concerns has nothing to do with whether or not its a sim.

"What if" scenarios by their very definition are loaded with metagame.  To offer a specific example from my own recent experience:

I was playing in a Close Action game (Age of Sail wargame) in a scenario where the question was "what if the French had pressed their fire power advantage over the British rather than hesitating and giving the British the chance to escape"  (I forget the actual battle, ARW period though).

Early on in the engagement the French scored a series of really fluke criticals against key British ships.  The kind of things that turn the tide of battle.  They were legally diced for but given the probably of those results clearly out side the normal range of expected outcomes.

It was the Admiral of the French force who basically said "no way, that entirely invalidates the question.  No way we can reach any useful conclusions based on such an extreme data point". So the legally game rule mandated criticals were "fudged" and replaced with a more normal result.

Verdict:  The METAGAME goals of pursueing a legitimate what if question were (in this particular case) judged more important than simply relying on what the rules said should happen.

This sort of thing happens ALOT in simulations.  Not all of the time.  Often the aberrant results are allowed to stand because its important to realize what kind of extreme flukes can change the course of the battle beyond expectations.  But often enough that, as I said, the presence or absence of metagame has ZERO to do with whether a game is or isn't a simulation, it just isn't part of the definition.

But the RGFA took this term, a term with a preexisting meaning, and gave it a spiffy new definition which no one knows except RGFA regulars or people who read the FAQ.  GNS's version of Simulation suffers from the same problem.  And so over and over we have arguements and discussions explaining what this term means.

IMNSHO It means what it means NOT what these models would like it to mean.

As far as I'm concerned, John, what you've stated as being Simulation, I'd say "no thats more accurately Simulation with a Metagame restriction".  The implication being, of course, that there exists "Simulation without a Metagame restriction".  

In other words, don't heap all of these extraneous things onto the definition of a preexisting word. Leave the word defined the way its always been defined, and then use your own adjectives to give it the precision of meaning you want.

There is no "simulation"

There is:

Simulation with a Metagame Restriction.
Rules Heavy Simulation.
Simulation with a gritty realism emphasis.
Cinemagraphic/Genre Specific Simulation.
Etc.

But "Simulation" as a word means nothing more than representing the function of one system by means of another less complex and more easily observable system.

Adding anything more to the definition is both distracting and counter productive.

Valamir,

I agree that rgfa Simulation (as I understand it and have seen it explained) is not well served by the word "simulation" (I also agree that some of the most useful/interesting stuff on the Forge has nothing directly to do with GNS - not that that stops me from participating in GNS, or from responding to a post like yours).

I think you demonstrate that quite well here (and John Morrow would apparently not argue with you - I'm pretty sure I saw him post that he doesn't really like the word "simulation" nowadays).  On the other hand, since GNS Simulation is a different critter that can (I think) encompass all that you've put forward here, I'm not sure the case that GNS should not use the word "simulation" is strong - at least on this basis.

Something like "people have preconceived notions about the word Simulation - find something else, it's too hard to get them to stop seeing their preconceptions if you use that word" is a valid concern - fine by me if it gets changed.  In some ways, a new word just COULDN'T be any worse . . . though it might also not be any better.

Gordon C. Landis

Well, I concentrated on the extraneous baggage the RGFA definition (as shared here by John) has in this post, because I hammered on the extraneous baggage the GNS definition has quite thoroughly in another thread.  However, that was before the FAQ.

But the current GNS FAQ definition still ascribes all sorts of extraneous things to Simulations.  A couple quick examples.

"The purpose of play is to experience the results of the resolution system and of playing one's character, specifically without establishing victory or theme as the indicator of success."

This is in no way shape or form the purpose of a simulation.  It may (or may not as has yet to be finalized) be the correct purpose to ascribe to a GNS apex, but that apex should not be labeled a simulation.  Simulations have many diverse purposes: educational, fact finding, what ifs, escapism.  There are many reasons why people play or run simulations...some are for entertainment, others are professionally motivated.  Likewise there are many occassions where a wargamers primary purpose IS winning...to crush his enemies, see them driven before him, and hear the lamentations of the women.  Just because someone is playing to win doesn't make Home Before the Leaves Fall any less of a simulation.


"The one common element is for the mechanics to act as final resolvers to a stated/established set of conditions. To clarify: operationally, in Simulationist play, "announce action completely," "resolve success or failure," and "resolve outcome" are always handled in precisely that order."

I've yet to see any real justification for this.  So far it appears (to me) that this conclusions stems from 1) categorizing a bunch of games as Simulationist, then 2) surveying them to see what kind of mechanics they use, then 3) drawing the conclusion that this type of mechanic must therefor be inexplicably linked to simulation.  (I don't know for sure that was how it was done...thats just what it looks like barring any other explanation).

I've said before, however (and I know you've been following this thread over on GO) that any game mechanic could if set up in a particular fashion support any kind of play desired.

This sort of "fortune at the end mechanic" may in fact skew a game TOWARDS simulation, and simulations may in fact find it easier to use such mechanics to support their goals(and evidence would suggest they do)...but I find the claim that "They are always handled in precisely that order" to be a conclusion supported rather shakily propped up by circumstancial evidence at best.

Ron categorizes Pendragon for instance as a simulation. Yet I used its combat mechanics in a more FitM fashion long before I'd even heard of the term or realized there were mechanics designed expressly for that purpose.  See in a Pendragon combat there is no "I swing, you swing" mechanics.  Its a simultaneous roll with high roller (basically) winning.  There is nothing in the mechanics to tell you what that means, so all of the "I swung a mighty blow which glanced off your shield and you thrust your sword under my guard" stuff was filled in after seeing the result.

As long as the results that are described adhere to the basic need for verisimilitude ANY resolution mechanic can support a simulationist goal.  In fact, many of the early military sims were decided by experienced generals essentially narrating what would happen if the 3rd guard clashed with the 4th hussars in an open field flanked by a stream.

Every year there is a National Security Council game which is essentially a giant sim played like a LARP (granted its verisimilitude can be somewhat questionable)but the point is clear.  Yes system does matter (I've said that for years).  No that doesn't mean there is a 1:1 correlation between system to use and game goal to pursue.

Quote
On 2001-07-02 15:09, Valamir wrote:
My personal problem with the  whole "Simulationist" thing is that its such a piss poor word to use to describe whats going on in RPGs.  John has shared a pretty clear idea about what Simulation means in the RGFA sense, and I got to say...that ain't Simulation.  

Oh, I agree.  The word is poor for many reasons.  And I think it is a poor choice for the GNS model for the same reason that is it poor for the r.g.f.a Threefold -- it means too many things to too many people.  And no matter how many times you point out that "simulation" has a specific meaning in your jargon, people will inevitably substitute their own meaning for "simulation" including, to complicate matters even more, the r.g.f.a definition.  About the only word I've seen in role-playing discussions that is more confusing because it means different things to different people is "fair".

As background, I was one of the advocates of using the term in the r.g.f.a Threefold.  It made sense to me at the time.  It was only after repeatedly having to clarify what it means to various people that I've come to understand just how confusing it is.  As one person pointed out to me in a private email after I explained the term to him, if a jargon can only be used properly by the people who created it, it isn't a very good jargon.  At first I disagreed but I now think he has a point.

Of course the key to the whole r.g.f.a Simulationism definition is Immersion.  It makes more sense to exclude metagame in order to achieve simulation from an Immersive player stance than from any other stance.  This is why I felt that Barbara Robson's early triangle (that I posted a link to) that defined the styles as interactive storytelling, in character experience, and problem solving probably did a better job of capturing the assumptions and biases of the r.g.f.a Threefold than the current names do.  

It is possible that, as Gordon suggests, that the GNS definition of Simulation is a better fit for the word than the r.g.f.a Threefold's.  It is also possible that how good of a fit it is depends on how you personally define "simulation".  

But I think it might be better to describe the problem with putting r.g.f.a Simulationists and Dramatists into the same category in the GNS as the problem that those two styles often specifically don't like the other style and often will not enjoy games run in the other style.  It strikes me very much like finding sports books and science fiction novels mixed together in a bookstore (*).

(*) At a science fiction convention, an editor described how a sports in science fiction collection of stories failed horribly because there was almost no overlap between sports fans and science fiction fans and because neither is really interested in the other.

Quote
On 2001-07-02 21:09, JohnMorrow wrote:
But I think it might be better to describe the problem with putting r.g.f.a Simulationists and Dramatists into the same category in the GNS as the problem that those two styles often specifically don't like the other style and often will not enjoy games run in the other style.  It strikes me very much like finding sports books and science fiction novels mixed together in a bookstore (*).

This is an excellent point.  I struggled long and hard to wrap my brain around the GNS parameters of Simulation.  I really like where it left me - in particular, I like how it puts so many of the aspects of wargame simulation into play in the same category re: rpgs in GNS.  But this point - that it ISN'T helpful from a "pick a game you'll enjoy" standpoint to include mutually-hateful extremes - gives me pause.

Perhaps it is helpful from a design standpoint to group 'em together?  Is that enough to keep 'em there?

Quote
(*) At a science fiction convention, an editor described how a sports in science fiction collection of stories failed horribly because there was almost no overlap between sports fans and science fiction fans and because neither is really interested in the other.

Hey, I bought that collection!  Maybe that explains . . . something . . .

Gordon C. Landis

Okay. So Simulationism is not an ideal term. What's a better term? And will it be sufficient? More below.

At this point, Dramatism is detached from Simulationism. In fact, what I've done is leave the 3 points (G/N/S) and added the 3 edges. Games positioned along the edges are fusions of 2 styles.

The way I see it, Dramatism lies on the Sim-Nar edge. Dramatism uses primarily Simulationist systems and Simulationist relationships between GM and players. The player stays primarily in Actor stance, but for the purpose of telling the GM's story. It's really a shift in emphasis from making decisions based on what the character would do in a given situation to making decisions based on what's good for the story. Of course, once the players start using Actor/Director power to actively change the story or tell other stories, it becomes Narrativism.

I think the Gam-Sim edge is pretty much what you get when you play Simulationist games for Gamist ends. I think Rolemaster is a prime example. Here, you have this mechanical simulation of the game world, but many people play it the same way they play D&D: To beat the challenges, kill the monsters, and gather the treasure. RM's rules are intended to create an ultimately neutral environment so that the players' victories are because of their skill and their defeats occur because they were not skillful enough.

The Gam-Nar edge either includes Narrativist games played for Gamist ends or Gamist games played for Narrativist ends. I would actually put Extreme Vengeance on this edge. In a lot of ways, it's a very Gamist game, but you play it for Narrativist ends. Depending on the players and their contract, it can become more Gamist or more Narrativist.

Here's another issue: Simulationism has within it 2 distinctly different styles of play. We've known that for a while, but we've been slapping band-aids on it. On one end, we have the mechanically heavy world simulations where believable results are mechanically enforced. In such games, it's easy to treat your character as a pawn and say, "Hmm, what will happen if I do this?" Trust in the GM is irrelevant. The rules determine the outcome. At the other end, you have the Elaytijist approach with minimal mechanics and maximum use of immersive play. The players must trust the GM implicitly. Both have these threads in common: The GM retains all the power and the players are primarily locked into Actor stance. Essentially, it's the rgfa reasoning: It's all Simulationist because there's no metagame.

Gamist and Narrativist styles also offer the possibility for great variety in play style, but the Simulationist range is the only one with a clearly drawn border inside itself. This is something which we should discuss. It speaks directly to what the model is about. There are many issues: Observed style of play, relationship between player and GM, decision-making process, means for event resolution, purpose of play, etc. Which are most important to us in developing the model?

A point to consider: The goal for the faq is to advocate roleplaying as an activity and represent all styles of play without bias.

Logan

Hey Logan,

At this point, Dramatism is detached from Simulationism. In fact, what I've done is leave the 3 points (G/N/S) and added the 3 edges. Games positioned along the edges are fusions of 2 styles.

The way I see it, Dramatism lies on the Sim-Nar edge.

This seems fine to me, but I do have some questions related to Dramatism in the model. We're defining Dramatism as games that share preferencing of "story" with Narrativism, although without the "shared authorial stance" requirement, correct?  Does Dramatism have "story after the fact" in common with Simulationism? If so, then I'm not understanding its distinction from Simulationism. But my instinct is that it doesn't. And then I have a hard time coming up with a game that qualifies as Dramatism that doesn't have railroading as a key driver of story. Is that the rgfa understanding of Dramatism? I'm worried that Dramatism becomes a confusing term in the model when it's known to have originated as a category built for Theatrix. I think Theatrix is a Narrativist game. If Dramatism is story during play without authorial contribution from players, then it's largely a synonym for railroading, and Theatrix is railroading poison in the hands of a skilled player. You simply have too much power as a player to be truly railroaded. You just initiate flashbacks (that don't cost anything) and earn plot points, and then you use the plot points to make your statements about things true. Which means railroading is nigh impossible. And at that point I can't come up with any games that qualify as Dramatist. Why not just put "railroading" on the model? What am I missing?

Paul

Hey Paul,

As far as I can tell from discussions up to this point, we're defining Dramatism as "group telling of the GM's story." I'd have to say, Dramatism could have "story" before, during, and after the fact. Before, it has whatever pre-plotting the GM prepared. During, it has whatever changes occur as a result of PC actions and GM adjustments. After, there is the complete tale that players can relate to others. Railroading may be a big part of it, but I see no reason why the GM couldn't run a branched adventure with multiple endings, an Intuitive Continuity, a Set of Encounters, or even Relationship Map adventure.

It seems to me, the real difference between dramatist and simulationist adventuring is the player motive in decision-making. In a sim game, the player does what his character would do. In a dramatist game, the player looks at the situation and tries to do what's good for the story.

I have to say, I'm as much passenger as driving force in this part of the debate. I see several ways dramatism could fit into the model. I've chosen to follow the inputs of those most involved in discussions on the subject while maintaining the integrity of the rest of the model.

I know Ron and others want Narrativism preserved as an entity. It makes sense to also preserve Simulationism as an entity. That means Dramatism must go somewhere. Making it a bridge between Simulationism and Narrativism is not a big leap. I think it solves a lot of problems. I think MJ Young's game, Multiverser, is supposed to be played as a Dramatist game. At least, from what I can tell, that's the way he runs it. It's about the stories he wants to tell. The players make decisions based on the story. They don't have author/director power. The mechanics are Simulationist mechanics, intended to preserve versimilitude of the game world. With some tweaking, it seems to me that Amber, CoC, and many other games would be very suitable for play with Dramatist goals.

Theatrix could be played as a Dramatist game, though I suspect the style of play would be much like the diceless examples on John Kim's site. I also suspect that groups playing Theatrix as a Dramatist game would have to restrict the Author/Director power of the plot points. I think John's point in his posts about Theatrix and Dramatism is that rgfa pretty much rejected the Narrativist style of play as presented in the game. Dramatism was as close as most of them wanted to get to it. Of course, we see things a little differently. If anything, all that reinforces what we're doing with Dramatism now.

To simply add "Railroading" to the model would be rude and inaccurate. First, the word itself has negative connotations. Then, any GM running any style of game can do things that force the PCs into a particular situation or course of action. Whether such guidance is welcome or not depends on the group of players, their preferences, and the GM's skills.

I like the idea of "GM guidance," though the idea of GM as "illusionist" practicing the "art of illusion" also works for me.

Logan

Logan (et al):

Admittedly, I like to stay away from GNS debate (not that I disagree with it, I just don't debate about it).  That being said, I will now debate about it...

I would like to see Simulationism preserved as one of the key threefold design concepts.  My reasons are X-fold (I don't know how many yet):

1) I already know it by Simulation.  Renaming it will just add another step to the mental process (Y, oh yeah, Y is S).

2) Simulation, as a word, pretty much sums it up.  

3) Even though it may be a more narrowly defined point to the threefold triangle, I feel it is useful, both conceptually, and utilizationally (is that a word).  I use aspects of the S to pepper my games with "realism" or "immersion".  Dramatist, if you will.

4) Changing the name doesn't change anything.  Call it "Baseball", it will still be what it is.  (Like NHTSA, it is still NHTSA, no matter what they tell you)

X) I say so.  (This may not be the strongest of my points)

Anyway, my couple of pennies.  Do with them what thou wilt (so long as I approve)...

Dav

Quote
On 2001-07-03 02:06, Gordon C. Landis wrote:
Perhaps it is helpful from a design standpoint to group 'em together?  Is that enough to keep 'em there?

I don't really think so.  One problem is that game designs invariably have to tell the GM and/or players how to resolve actions that occur during the game.  

If the game design suggests using metagame considerations to produce a certain genre feel, it won't support r.g.f.a "simulationism" very well.  If the game design ignores the metagame concerns of stories, then it won't have any built-in support for a "dramatist" game.  Whether a system engages the metagame or not is a pretty important design decision.

Quote
On 2001-07-03 10:22, Logan wrote:
At this point, Dramatism is detached from Simulationism. In fact, what I've done is leave the 3 points (G/N/S) and added the 3 edges. Games positioned along the edges are fusions of 2 styles.

Putting Dramatism between Narrativism and Simulationism is interesting but I'm not sure it is a transition, per se.  I think the current GNS is describing two things and trying to tie them together.  

On the one hand, it inherits some of the objective of describing goals from the r.g.f.a Threefold in that the goals of challenge, story, and verisimilitude are still there.  On the other, it adds a layer of where decisionmaking power resides.  That's interesting but I'm not sure it is tied as closely as this model suggests it is.  

In particular, if it is possible to distribute power to the players in order to have them influence the story, it is also possible to distribute power to the players in order to define the setting in a plausible way.  It is probably even possible to distribute power to the players in order to create or improve challenges.  

I've run a game, for example, where one of the players was the designer of the setting.  He had great lattitude to tell me how things were in the setting.  There is also a person on the Fudge mailing list who claims to run fairly r.g.f.a "simulationist" world defining games where the players have the ability to make up details for the setting.  What I see is more of a matrix with a control axis and a focus axis:



            GM
          CONTROL
"Simul'ist"  |  "Dramatist"
             |
             |
WORLD --------+-------- STORY
             |
             |  
   "????"    |  "Narrativist"
           SHARED
          CONTROL

 

"Dramatism" is between Narrativism and Simulationism not because it is a smooth transitional form but because it shares one element of one and one element of the other.  Transitional in a sense but it leaves a gap.  Would a game that fits into the "?" area above also belong on the line between Narrativism and Simulationism?  

Quote
On 2001-07-03 15:57, Logan wrote:
I think John's point in his posts about Theatrix and Dramatism is that rgfa pretty much rejected the Narrativist style of play as presented in the game. Dramatism was as close as most of them wanted to get to it. Of course, we see things a little differently. If anything, all that reinforces what we're doing with Dramatism now.

Well, it isn't really that r.g.f.a "rejected" the narrativist style of play.  It did come up in the dice vs. diceless debates and discussions of Immersion.  You can see the subject touched on in this article.  Basically, as I said in my previous rely, I think they are two seperate issues.  

The reason that the Immersive players on r.g.f.a rejected the distributed authority of Narrativism is that it doesn't work well with Immersion.  If I'm thinking in character, there is no room for metagame decision making or any decision making that lies outside of what the character can control.  It isn't a matter of being "locked" into the "Actor" (or IC or Immersive) stance but a matter of wanting to be there and having no interest in making those decisions.  The metagaming doesn't have a place in that style of play with the player.  

As a real world example, I played in a Fudge game at a convention where the final battle with the bad guy assumed that the players would expend Fudge points to increase their chance of success to win.  I had read Fudge and I'm sure that I saw that my character had Fudge points on the character sheet but when the time came, I wound up playing pretty Immersively and the idea of using a Fudge point didn't even cross my mind.  I simply wasn't thinking in metagame terms. And it didn't cross anyone elses mind, either.  So the good guys were defeated without Fudge points and the bad guy won the fights.

The story-based (Dramatist) vs. world-based (Simulationist) debate was a different issue concerned with why decisions are made during a game without much regard for how they are made.    The two issues just never really interacted with each other during that debate.  

Look at the thread "Dice and the IC POV" for an example of the dice vs. diceless and mechanics as it relates to Immersion debate.  Here is another article by Alain that might be useful.  Actually, do a search on "player decision GM" on Google (www.dejanews.com) limited to "rec.games.frp.advocacy" and it should turn up some discussions about control issues.

John,

Quote
If the game design suggests using metagame considerations to produce a certain genre feel, it won't support r.g.f.a "simulationism" very well.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with that - I'm not enough of an expert on the rgfa "simulationism" to do so with any confidence - but by the evidence in this link you provide in another post, at least some rgfa simulationists(?) seem able to make a metagame mechanic (fudge points) work for them (in immersive simulation).  This is contradictory to the personal experience with fudge points you relate - perhaps the key pointed to in the linked article is that the metagame mechanic be "in world" (not break SOD), so even while Immersed it occurs to use it.

So, does that mean the design concerns between rgfa Simulation and Dramatism are sufficiently similar that grouping them together (under a new Simulation label, or whatever other name) makes sense?  That'd be a leap - but when I look at all the "metaplot" games out there, where a lot of people seem to ignore the Dramatist metaplot and run the game as pure Simulation, I start to believe a case can be made . . .

Gorodn C. Landis

[ This Message was edited by: Gordon C. Landis on 2001-07-04 02:17 ]

[ This Message was edited by: Gordon C. Landis on 2001-07-04 02:25 ]

Quote
On 2001-07-03 21:55, JohnMorrow wrote:

Code Select Expand



            GM
          CONTROL
"Simul'ist"  |  "Dramatist"
             |
             |
WORLD --------+-------- STORY
             |
             |  
   "????"    |  "Narrativist"
           SHARED
          CONTROL

 

Would a game that fits into the "?" area above also belong on the line between Narrativism and Simulationism?  

That game, it occurs to me, would be Aria Worlds.  "The Canticle of the Monomyth" on the line netween Narrative and Simulation - yeah, I'd say so.

Gordon C. Landis

Concerning Alain's article (which I included because it includes a different perspective), he was also playing diceless and system light games and he didn't play Immersively all that often.  That's important because the problem that Immersive players have with metagame is that there is no place for the metagame in their games.  But it is entirely possible to play "third-person" in character r.g.f.a "simulationist" or from an even more detached perspective.  In that case, the player is more able to use metagame tools because the player is at the table as a player, not as the character.  They are making decisions for their character, not as their character.

This may point to a fundamental problem with the r.g.f.a "Simulationism" description.  Perhaps the avoidance of the metagame has nothing to do with simulating a world and everything to do with maintaining versimilitude for the Immersive players.  And this only supports the point that Barbara Robson's early triangle with "Interactive Storytelling", "In Character Experience" and "Problem-Solving" is probably a more accurate assessment of what was being discussed there than the current labels.

Some background articles on Alain's style:

Alain on Diceless

Alain on IC stance

Alain's comments on an early version of the r.g.f.a FAQ

As a disclaimer, I don't necessarily agree with everything in the articles I'm pointing to from r.g.f.a.  I'm presenting them because they discuss the issues at hand and they might give someone a better persepective on the discussions that led to the Threefold on r.g.f.a.  Also bear in mind that these discussions are up to a half-decade old and people change their mind.  People that I'm quoting may have since changed their mind.  I know that if you quoted everything that I said during that period, I'd find things that I said then that I now disagree with.