The Forge Archives

Dear Mr. Langford:

As a coda to the previous thread, I offer a pithier explanation of the fundamental difference between an axiomatic game like Monopoly, and a principled one like an RPG, that I could compose for my gaming group:

"When I run a game, I cheat.  That is, the rules as you perceive them, are only metaphors for the reality of the situation, which we can only grasp with our minds.  I assay all situations, by regarding the principles of operation I have already put into play.  So, always remember that the numbers are not the intent."

This got me thinking on a tangent you may find interesting, hence the re-thread.  I begin.

* * *

SPECIAL THEORY OF ROLEPLAYING (rough draft)

Elemental Terms: Gamism (G) , Narrativism (N) , Simulationism (S) , and the Principle of Sufficient Reason (Reason).

Lemma 1:  General Theory of Roleplaying (cf. References, below).

Lemma 2:  Gottfried Leibniz's Principle of Sufficient Reason (cf. ditto).

Proposition 1:  The idea of a triune model, of roleplaying intentions common in varying admixtures to all RPGs, variously explicated by others such as Ron Edwards (GNS) and John Kim (The Threefold Model), contains a natural hierarchy as RPGs relate to the real universe.

Proposition 2:  S is equivalent to that quality which governs the actual process of play for any RPG, and is therefore the "spirit of the game" for all RPGs.

Corollary 1:  N and G are both qualities which, the inherence of either or both within S, is necessary to play an RPG.  Neither pure examples of any of the three elements, nor N and G combined alone, form an RPG.

Corollary 2:  N contains G, but G does not necessarily contain S.

1.Curvature as Universal

Reason indicates nothing may be perfectly identical.  Applied to space, we have the principle of identity (A = A).  Now, apply it to time:

For change to occur in the universe, it must be both continuous and universal.  Change must be continuous for, if any object did not change, it would be identical to itself at different points in time, which violates reason.  Since the universe is defined to contain all objects, change must be universal.

Time is a function of periodicity.  That is, all instances of change are equally change, and therefore identical in terms of possessing that quality.  Being identical, they, or rather it, is therefore, in itself, unchanging, as change is universal.  Being unchanging, the universe is therefore eternal; time is intelligible only terms of experienced periodicity.  That is, periodicity, akin to remembered rhythm, creates time as we experience it.

In order to sketch periodicity, I explain the Maximum-Minimum Principle of Nicholas of Cusa.  This states that the circle is the geometry which allows the maximum work (area) for the minimum action (perimeter).  As such, it is the only self-evident geometrical action in the universe, and so is usable as a basis for constructive geometry.  All other geometrical bases involve unwarranted assumptions about the existence of their components (lines, points, dimensions etc.).  The circle, here, is not declared as an existing object, but as the power which generates a sense object we call a circle.  So think of the circle as a metaphor for the power which generates it.

With circular action, we regenerate all of Euclidean geometry as a subset of constructive geometry.  A small segment of the circumference of the largest possible circle, becomes a line.  The tiniest possible circle, becomes a point.  Multiply-connected circular action, as segments of circular action curving along different planes, allow us to generate spirals.  With periodicity in mind as representative of change, we can represent what is called self-similar spiral action; this is when circular action spirals outward in ever larger orbits, like a stretched conical spring.

Self-similar spiral action will serve as the metaphor here.  It exhibits constant change throughout itself, which circular action does not.  Any increment of a circle's circumference we take, retains the identical curve of change to any other.  Regardless of how small an increment we take of our spiral action, however, that increment will always exhibit a change of curvature that is unique to itself, and possessed by no other increment in the spiral.  The rate of change of change may be identical, but the change itself for each increment is different.  This also shows how no perfect circles exist in the sensuous universe.

This demonstrates that there is no true linearity in the universe.  Each segment of a straight line is identical to each other segment, making them identical.  Linearity exhibits no structural change, only locational change.  Thus, it has no reason to be one place and not another, making it absurd.  Although linear equations may serve as approximations to reality, everything real is only actually associated with various characteristic curvatures resulting from the action of universal physical principles.

This is easily demonstrated by inscribing a triangle polygon into a circle.  Doubling the polygon's number of angles makes it appear more circular.  Successive doublings make the polygon appear more and more circular.  No matter how many doublings are carried out, however, the polygon remains a polygon and not a circle.  Even an a polygon with infinite angles is not a circle, for a circle has no angles.  Thus, circular action describes structural change, while linear action does not.

2.Categories of Action

Spirit of the Game (General Theory def.): The principle employed by the GM, when choosing between options of transformation. It is an amalgam of the GM's knowledge of real physical principles, including the interacting principles of personality characteristic in the participants themselves,

(1) as they relate to evoking desirable spiritual states within the context of the game manifold, and

(2) as they relate to the participants' expectations regarding, preferences of, and faith in the game mechanics.

In other words, the game spirit is that intention to which all questions of game action appeal.  As it is compounded in part of real physical principles (the participants), it always changes.

In light of the game spirit are created the specific intentions, or principles, which operate on the game to form an ongoing manifold of transforming situations.

In light of these principles, are created the specific objects, or axioms, which are interacted with in the game.  Like many durable material objects in the real world, axioms appear to contain parts which either never change, or change only in response to the Newtonian-type influence of other axioms.

Thus we see successively inferior layers of emanations which at once realise the intent of, and yet are qualitatively further from, by themselves, the spirit of the game.

There are two mental faculties gaming exercises: the intellect and the imagination.  The intellect struggles in some sort of challenge, while the play of the imagination equals exploration.  That is, either the PCs face opposition of some kind, or they are disposing of resources of some kind.  If neither is going on, the game has been paused, or a decision-free mechanical function of some kind is being enacted.

Cross-indexing the above faculties with the lower qualities, gives four categories of action, or eight if we divide each listing into social and material aspects.

..................................PRINCIPLE.............AXIOM
CHALLENGE...........Competition...........Puzzle
EXPLORATION..........Creation.............Assembly

Examples of each category:

Material-Competitive: Combats, Natural Disasters
Material-Puzzle: Obstacles, Traps
Material-Creation: Inventions, Skilled Trades
Material-Assembly: Looting, Logistics

Social-Competitive: Battle of Wits, Psychiatry
Social-Puzzle: Personality Clashes, Strange Social Trends
Social-Creation: Love Affairs, Ceremonial Occasions
Social-Assembly: Storytelling, Auguring

3.Hypothesis as Spirit

The essence of S is hypothesis.  The GM projects an hypothesis regarding the desired outcome of the game, considering all involved, which itself defines how the game will tend to change.  He asks, "What is this world like?"  From the Maximum-Minimum, think of hypothesis as the action (circumference), and the detailed secondary world as the work (area).  

This hypothesis, being that which effects change by being that which the GM refers to when making decisions, is the game's intent.  In other words, hypothesis is the spirit of the game.

Without N or G, S becomes the equivalent of Socratic dialog.  S is therefore an embryonic form of those ultimate RPGs, Classical art (e.g. "I, the audience-member, become Hamlet during his portion of the performance, if he's any good, and if I'm attentive"), and Classical science (e.g. "Thinking the thoughts of God after Him.").

S ideally uses system like a Classical composer or performer uses notes – as a metaphor for what's really going on.  A symphony may sound complex, but the beauty does not reside in the intermediary of the audible or written notes, but in the musical idea which underlies them, and which a impassioned performance and reception may know.

More subtly:  S is a quality of hypothesis about the secondary universe of the game.  This same quality is what governs the actual play of any RPG, for all RPGs embody a changing secondary universe which operates according to an intent termed the game spirit.  Because of this relationship with change, all RPGs are curved.

N and G, by comparison, are linear.  N, for instance, inclines toward mood, by setting up a storytelling teleology of some kind.  The purpose of this, is to create a certain kind of story, as governed by the chosen genre, which will create pleasing emotions in the participants.  This is linear, because it is stimulus-response.  A stimulus (narrative) triggers a response (emotion).  It thus diverges from the real world, into the fantasy world of make-believe.  In essence, N tries to linearise the motive of the game, by bribing the participants with pleasing verisimilar fantasies instead of realism.

G is linear because it inclines toward rules-based operations.  Ruthless competition needs axiomatic boundaries, because principles are alien to it.  Thus, G works in terms of the linear progression of rules-risk.  From any set of fixed rules one can construct a game theory of probability by which to maximise gain and minimise risk.  In essence, G tries to linearise the method of the game, by defining not only the goals (which even N might define so), but the potential for change (via rules rather than principles) as being linear.  This is chiefly accomplished by placing blind faith in the counting numbers as self-evident goods, rather than deeming them as metaphors.

S inclines toward a spirit of play, in an optimistic but lawful sense of exploration which is intelligible as Classical thinking.  S is scientific in its approach:  It records data (statistics) and builds machines (rules), addressing them in terms of the Maximum-Minimum principle; namely, it thinks in terms of economy of world-building, seeking to improve on the current reflection of the game's intent, by pursuing realism, detail, efficiency, elegance, and power.  The nature of S, then, if it is astute, is to see that mechanics express spirit just as the material world expresses the principles of nature, for the sake of realism.  Realism is an endeavour of Classicism (ironically).  The more "genre" it is made, the more toward N or G it becomes.

N and G are both outgrowths of Romanticism, and are anti-roleplaying in that sense.  We could think of N as playing under the aegis of "moody Romance", a purity of which gives an opium dream of pure mood, while G on the other hand is the militarist Roman-Legion kind of Romantic, a purity of which gives a tournament war-game.

If we seek truth regarding RPG structure, as to how the human mind works in these matters, then if our theory is to have any truth it must fit with the nature of man in the first place.  This means that of the three, only S is characteristically human.  G and N are not – chimps compete and whales tell tales, but only humans hypothesise.

4.Hierarchy

Restating: All RPGs must contain S, and also either N or G, by definition.  

All S have hypothesis, but not all S have linear method, nor do all have linear motive.  Thus S is the only indispensable, primary component of all RPGs. It contains N and/or G as qualities which allow it to be an RPG.

All N have linear motive (pleasure), but not all have linear method (axioms).  All G have both linear method (axioms) and linear motive (win).   This means that only N can be a spiritual servant of S, in the sense of naturally seeking to cast a shadow of the game spirit into the game outcomes.  N can contain G but not vice versa.  Thus N is the secondary component, and G is tertiary.

Without N, an RPG will tend to emphasise competition and the material.  With N a game acquires a sense of genre or mood, sometimes known as engrossment.

Without G, an RPG will tend to emphasise exploration and the social.  With G a game acquires a sense of hardness or tactility, which if used wisely bolsters reason.

With both N and G, an RPG faces continual competition between different aims.  If both succeed, both fail, because N will find itself caged in rules, and G will find that its opponent doesn't care.

Regarding Proposition 1: Confirmed.  The natural hierarchy of essence in RPGs is

S - > N - > G

Regarding Proposition 2: Confirmed.  S is necessary, as is either N or G, G being a subset of N.

Conclusions:  Starting from its wargaming roots, roleplaying describes a movement upwards towards the ultimate simulations called Classical Art and Science.  This indelible structural similarity explains why roleplaying developed specifically from tabletop wargaming.  It therefore appears to be, at least in terms of the potential imbued in its pursuit by its participants, a characteristically human pursuit, to the degree that potential is developed.

It is limited by the fact that total purification of the form would destroy it as a hobby, transforming it instead into a spiritual exercise.  Thus, used as a stepping stone, infantile fantasy and sportsmanship may lead to spiritual growth, but retained, appear regressive.  Whether or not the evolution of roleplaying will lead to it being established as a bona fide, new universal physical principle of Classical art, is an intriguing and unanswered question, if a farfetched one.

One who wishes to master published-style roleplaying, rather than acting, writing, or strategy games per se, is advised to study the notion of hypothesis, as it defines what he, as a roleplayer, wishes to gain out of the setting, by categorising what he favours and what he does not in terms of principles, axioms, challenge and exploration, and from that, working out an angle of approach by which to strengthen his skills in areas in which he is painfully weak.

It also deserves noting that RPGs have, simultaneously, been progressing downward as well; that is, away from humanity toward the sensational and bestial impulses of absolute amniotic mood, and wrathful lust respectively -- toward the infantile and toward the Satanic, in other words.  Given the deep structural similarity observed by the General Theory in published-style roleplaying games, ecstatic religious rituals such as voodoo ceremonies, games between the sexes, stand-up comedy, and (for the next revision) writing, the personality-altering potential of these pursuits, taken as indicative of a particular cultural mindset, is powerful, making self-reflection advisable.

References

Cpl Ferro, 2003, "Ferro's General Theory of Roleplaying Games", Fixating Productions, http://www.fixatingproductions.piuhateam.com

William T. Myers, "Leibniz: Core Principles, Doctrines, and Proofs for God's Existence", University of Texas, http://www.utexas.edu/courses/hilde/Philhandouts/leibniz.html

Ron Edwards, "GNS and Other Matters of Roleplaying Theory", The Forge, http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/3/

* * *



Cpl Ferro

Of course.

Hmm. I haven't completely deciphered your dialectic yet. But I'm getting some preliminary ideas.

First, the whole is based on a large analogy, and as such is suspect from the start. Second, some of the reasoning is circular. You start with the prepositions as axiomatic, and end up confirming them. This is more like St. Thomas than Liebnitz.

But as it happens, I agree with the axioms, and the conclusions. I'm just not sure that anything has been proven.

But then, as I say, I may just not have uncovered all the subtleties of your language yet.

Also, as I've been fond of pointing out, the min-max concept was extended to game theory by Von Neumann. But this only applied to zero sum games. Later Nash found a more general solution with his Equilibrium Theorem that seems to pertain to RPGs with much more certainty (Rune is the only Zero Sum RPG that I can think of). The areas of play are unbounded, in most cases. Thus if you are going to apply a mathematical model to solve the problem it will neccessarily be much more complicated than what you've presented, IMO.

Mike

Quote from: CplFerroAs a coda to the previous thread, I offer a pithier explanation of the fundamental difference between an axiomatic game like Monopoly, and a principled one like an RPG, that I could compose for my gaming group:

"When I run a game, I cheat.  That is, the rules as you perceive them, are only metaphors for the reality of the situation, which we can only grasp with our minds.  I assay all situations, by regarding the principles of operation I have already put into play.  So, always remember that the numbers are not the intent."

This is actually the only part worth quoting because of how far apart it demonstrates our perspectives.

In discussing my point about Monopoly with my partner, we collected the following idea:

In 'just a game,' all a player's alternatives arise, additively, out of the rules.  This means that the rules provide all the potential choices to any situation of play.

In a role-playing game, the opposite is true.  All alternatives arise from the perception of the circumstances made by the chooser.  Role-playing game rules are about integrating those choices into ongoing play.  These are, therefore, adaptive rules.

As an aside, we saw, for the first time, why so many role-playing games seem to turn into 'just a game' when combat occurs.  At this point I consider that the ultimate expression of 'Gamist-defense' rules.  (These are rules a role-playing game designer puts in to 'protect' play from 'rabid Gamists.'  This has become considered one of the main sources of Drift in some games.)  Think about it, how many games really cut back on the amount of improvisation possible only within combat?  Why is that?  (I'm really beginning to think that this is ultimately why Christoffer is having so much problem with Ygg; he wants a game high in panache, yet still clings to a 'Gamist-defense' combat system, thereby voiding it.)[/list:u]That means you aren't "cheating" when you run, from a role-playing game standpoint, but using the innate adaptive quality of role-playing game rules.

Now if this whole article is about 'how you, Corporal Ferro, play,' there is absolutely nothing I have to say about it; it obviously works.  However, if the gist is: 'this is how role-playing games are,' we are about as out of sync as I can imagine.

Granted that Monopoly is "axiomic" as you put it; I consider it both abstracted

and 'additive' (in that it produces all alternatives for you).  I think we agree there.  I don't consider role-playing games to be "axiomic" by that token at all.

Since this is aimed at me, I must indicate both that I have absolutely no interest in discussing GNS terminology in reference to 'what is a role-playing game' and don't see any value in it.  The GNS is primarily designed for analysis of dysfunction (it pretty much says it at the top of the essay: 'if you're happy with your game, this isn't for you.')  GNS discusses the actions that player take based upon their intentions in terms of how this can conflict; I see no value in considering it for use in divining 'what is a role-playing game.'  They're just not that related.  Personally, I work with a four-fold model (well, its more seventy-two-fold, but that's not important) based upon identifying what scopes of interest players self-identify with.  And even that is pointless in a discussion of 'what is a role-playing game.'

Therefore creating a hierarchy between any such elements is of no value to me in this discussion.  In attempting to create a hierarchy, all you produce is a clearer vision of your personal preference, making no statement on Monopoly, role-playing gaming, or how they relate.  Furthermore, it seems geared to somehow justify the idea that 'additive' rules have to be justified in an 'adaptive' ruleset.  (That somehow rules that 'give all your choices' per Monopoly are somehow relative or inherent in the rules that 'adapt player choices to play' found in role-playing games.)

As far as the "Curvature as Universal" material, I honestly see nothing of value here save that it demonstrates that one can take their favorite aspect of something and blow it into the proportions that make everything else seem a subset of it.  (Wouldn't it be just as easy to say that all lines are straight and that space is curved?)  I'm a deconstructionist at heart and 'finding a universal rule' is often counterproductive to identifying something.  Witness the breakdown in the 'role-playing gaming as the practice of roles' argument.

I'm really not interesting in all the material you've generated about having the gamemaster be 'the enforcer' of the spirit of the game.  I must point out that if you simply must imply that a gamemaster is indeed an indisputable necessity of gaming, we will see no similarity in our concepts.  We cannot make a comparison or even interrelate our points if yours is so restrictive on this, and other, points.

Making the gamemaster final arbiter of all "transformation" is the fundamental breakdown.  You strongly imply here that 'the game' only exists in the gamemaster's head, with the players feeding influence into that.  You place every adjudication of "transformation" into his hands and then likewise all the responsibility for 'sticking to the spirit of the game.'  If it goes wrong, it's his fault.

I patently reject this notion, both because it's unfair and because it is completely unnecessary.  Where is it said that players can't just as easily (if not more easily) 'drive' towards 'the spirit of the game?'  I'd say that it's a fools paradise to imagine that one gamemaster versus many players will stand as much chance of 'keeping to the spirit' of the game as if they all worked together.

'Role-playing games must have gamemasters' is no more functional than the "roles" argument.  It cuts out too many things possible and useful.

Setting up a false dichotomy between the intellect and imagination only serves to afford you a weak fashion in which to connect to the useless (as far as I'm concerned) hierarchy of GNS you've created.

While it is interesting to note that you over-characterize 'resource allocation' as being primarily a function of 'additive' rules (suggesting that you can only do with resources what is listed in the rules) within gaming, I'd suggest not.  All manner of choices may be improvised for the allocation of in-game resources.  While it has been true that traditional games have taken the direction of 'additive' rules to address this issue, assuming that no 'adaptive' methods exist is ignoring the potential that lies ahead for role-playing game design.

Furthermore, the sole act of facing opposition does not devolve role-playing gaming into 'additive' games unless the fashion of reaction is like 'choosing from a menu' rather than 'within these restrictions.'  Any role-playing game system that attempts to be exhaustive, in my mind, is missing this point.  Unfortunately, this is simply placing 'what is role-playing gaming' too much in the meaning of the word game.

I reject your Challenge/Exploration division because it functions more as the separation between 'what is role-playing gaming' and 'what are just games.'  Solving a puzzle presented, with choices 'from a menu,' is very like 'just a game' games.  Creating a reaction to situations given, and then 'adapting them to play,' is quite like role-playing games.  That some role-playing games contain mechanism of both in no way makes them hybrids or 'failures,' what matters is that 'just a game' game have no adaptive mechanism whatsoever.

I see no point in including the "Hypothesis as Spirit" in a discussion of 'what is role-playing gaming' if you require that the gamemaster is the sole arbiter.  There are now many games (witness the whole crop of 'who gets to narrate' games recently) where this role is simply not the sole property of one person; clinging to this ideal suggests that these are degenerative games when I would say the ideal of 'what is a role-playing game' easily encapsulates the list of degenerates.  For too long people have made games like Dungeons & Dragons and called them mainstream; it's about time to realize the opposite of that is true and develop something different.

I might go so far as to suggest that trying to place all responsibility in the hands of the gamemaster is probably done out of trying to cleave to the mistaken idea that role-playing games should function as though they have 'additive' rules.  (Making the gamemaster the same body as the rules are in 'just a game' games.)  While this becomes barely functional due to the fact that the gamemaster is then the party that 'adapts' the choices into play, I hardly think that this describes all of what could be role-playing gaming.

I can't say much about how you follow all that with an attempt to justify that gaming is either 'curved' or well-described simply in GNS terminology, because I disagree with the relevance of both.  What it all misses is the fact that all this relates to 'aesthetic problem solving' (another way of describing gaming for aggressive play-styles).  That underscores the point I've been making all along: in 'just a game' games, the choices you have are completely coded into the rules; in role-playing games, you may take any direction you can imagine, the rules adapt that into play.

Confirming your own hypotheses is highly questionable, considering how far you've taken them from the text and intent of the GNS; I suggest you take that up with the masters of that model in its forum.  I don't see how it has any bearing here and don't plan on discussing it more than if it is relevant.

I have to conclude, apart from your conclusions, that the point at which traditional role-playing gaming began was that instant when the makers of single-person unit wargames wanted their token to do something other than presented on the menu of options in the rules.  Once they began trying to create additional, 'adaptive' rules, they were writing role-playing games.  And again, I don't feel it necessary to expunge non-'adaptive' rules from a role-playing game, but until we realize their difference and value, we can't do any really innovative work.  The only point is that no other body centralizes 'adaptive' rules the way role-playing games do.  Looking at this we can experiment with eliminating different components of the traditional 'additive' rules-paradigm (all the way up to playing Freeform, which is a valid form of role-playing gaming).

Fang Langford

p. s. I think your statement about "axiomic" games (being 'additive' in that they have added all the axioms for you) and "principled" games (being those that 'adapt' play towards principles) is almost all that needed to be said.  Well, that and that role-playing games have both kinds of rules, and 'not role-playing games' only have "axiomic" rules.  Theoretically, cheating is impossible in a "principled" game as nothing is truly 'against the rules.'

Dear Mr. Holmes:

I may have confused things in reaching for clarity by using the G, N, S abbreviations.  It was not my intent to suggest a theory based on game theory as such.  I merely used shorthand in part of a reasoned argument, to show that  Simulationism is the irreducible cornerstone of all RPGs, while Gamism and Narrativism amount to augmentations or tints applied to Simulationism, in order to change it from something Socratic to something structurally recognisable as a roleplaying game, as I defined it earlier in my General Theory.

Strike out the last sentence, paragraph 1, section 3 (Hypothesis as Spirit), "From the Maximum-Minimum, think of hypothesis as the action (circumference), and the detailed secondary world as the work (area)".  This sentence is a passing thought that helped in the composition of the theory but is superfluous in the final version.

As my intent is not to mystify anything, but precisely the opposite, I will recapitulate my argument in flow-chart form.  When reading it, bear in mind that I am not making a purely logical argument as such.  Rather, I am making a reasoned argument that the manifold of an RPG (again, defined earlier in the General Theory), serves as a metaphor for the game spirit, and because of this, Simulationism is the primary component.  The metaphysics are included to show that this sense of metaphor is the same kind as is associated with Classical art and science.  Thus, this theory stands or falls based on a critique of Classicism itself.

RECAPPING

Sufficient Reason - > Change is continuous and universal - > Time is periodic ->

The Maximum-Minimum principle provides a non-arbitrary axiom of geometry ->

From this comes an intelligible concept of sense-object as metaphor for higher powers - >

This allows us to generate a specific pedagogical metaphor for constant change - >

Self-similar spiral action demonstrates how there is no linearity in the universe - >

Everything real is thus associated with the characteristic curvatures of their acting principles - >

The characteristic curvature of RPGs is thus a function of its acting principle, the spirit of the game;

Now, Simulationism's essence is hypothesis - >

This hypothesis is functionally the same as the game spirit - >

This is a scientific outlook in the same sense as the Maximum-Minimum principle (for example), because it has an identifiable curvature - >

By contrast, Narrativism and Gamism are shown to be linear  - >

Narrativism and Gamism are therefore incapable of being anything but approximations of the game spirit, whereas Simulationism is the game spirit itself.  The difference is that between Newton's approximations, and Kepler's actual discovery of universal gravitation - >

Simulationism then is properly the principle behind RPGs.  Narrativism and Gamism are variations on the matter, so to speak, needed to cast this principle into visibility.



Cpl Ferro

Hey Corporal Ferro,

That's sure an interesting summation.  I simply could see that in what you wrote (seems a bit like my writing of late).

A coupla points:

Simulationism may seem at first the root of both Gamism and Narrativism, but that's because you mistake it for being equivalent to Exploration (see Ron's essays).  It's not, Gamism and Narrativism have clear meta-game requirements, but that does not mean that Simulationism doesn't.  Its requirement is actually a negation.  It prioritizes

ignoring meta-game issues like those raised by Gamism and Narrativism; that in itself is a meta-game agenda.

Verisimilitude (which I believe you are mistaking the priority with either Simulationism or Exploration) is a false goal.  Making a game more verisimilar does not, in any way, make it either more of a role-playing game nor more consistently engaging.  It's actually the perception of verisimilitude that counts, a hundred times more than literal verisimilitude.  I believe Mike calls that plausibility.[/list:u]Anyway, your summation breaks down at a couple of rather crucial points...

Quote from: CplFerroEverything real is...

The characteristic curvature of RPGs is thus a function of its acting principle, the spirit of the game;

It's important to note that no matter how pervasive the emulation, no amount of verisimilitude is actually real.  Therefore no such inference is proper with RPGs, they are not real and need not follow any axioms of reality.

Quote from: CplFerroNow, Simulationism's essence is hypothesis - >

...Simulationism then is properly the principle behind RPGs.

Now you seem to be conflating Simulationism with placing value on simulating; this patently is not true (check out Ron's essay on Simulationism).  Furthermore, for all the pretty argument you've put up, seem bent on proving something that can only be a matter of perception and opinion.  Quite simply, a game whose bent is the activities of superheroes simply isn't that of hypothesis; powers (at least like that) don't exist therefore there can be no hypothesizing about them.  To say that such powers are an adjunct to the hypothesis of a game is to miss the game's point entirely.

Besides, all you seem to have proven at the end is that Exploration (per Ron's definitions) is the crux of gaming.  Frankly, I doubt very much that you'll find anyone to argue that point.  (Re: 'gaming is about imagining stuff.'  Alert the media!)

Now, come again; how does that relate to what I said about Monopoly (or CRPGs) not being a role-playing game(s) or that 'not role-playing games' do not include 'adaptive' rules?  I've lost your point in all the rhetoric.

Fang Langford

Dear Mr. Langford:

As I'd hoped was implicit, my statement to my players was intended to jog them out of thinking in terms of rules, into thinking in terms of principles.  Thus I entirely I agree I wasn't cheating.  The theory that followed came to me while contemplating that in the light of Leibniz, and I suddenly saw the idea of curvature in a clearer light.  Thus all categories of RPG action, are touched by it; even the most axiomatic "additive rule" as you put it, is qualitatively different for being within an RPG, than without.

I fear I have not explained the concept of "Gamemaster" sufficiently.  I do not arbitrarily posit the existence of someone called the GM.  Rather, the structure of all RPGs is such that the concept of GM necessarily includes this transformative power, and transformative power at any given time exists solely in the hands of one person as a sovereign individual in the universe.  That this power may itself be transferred among participants in complex ways, is already accounted for in the General Theory.  Still, the common form of investment of this power, is in the hands of a single GM, probably due to the efficiency of having a designated leader.

The remainder of the Special Theory exists to show how GNS was on the scent of a real idea about the nature of all RPGs, explaining its persistence in the face of attempts at refutation or dismissal.  In so doing,
I have realised the primacy and nature of Simulationism (see my response to Mr. Holmes, above).  The utility of the Special Theory remains as questionable as the utility of any other RPG theory; I have sketched an interface of the two continuums (principles < -> axioms against challenge < - > exploration); that I, personally, find a useful technology; others' technologies may vary to taste.  One can operate a rocket ship without knowing the principle of universal gravitation.

As you have no interest in the relationship of GNS to RPG structure, I must now thank you for your response.  It was a tangential thought that I decided to post partly in case you would find it interesting.



Cpl Ferro

Hi there,

I suggest that the operative or underlying principle that you are calling Simulationism is better described by my definition of Exploration, and that Simulationism represents one possible application of Exploration, just as Gamism and Narrativism do.

That said, I agree that "one of these three things is not like the others," as both Gamist and Narrativist play add a distinctive interpersonal agenda to the Exploration, whereas Simulationist play is dedicated to amplifying the Exploration itself.

Best,
Ron

Dear Mr. Langford:

One must distinguish the overt content of an RPG from the spirit which guides it.  It is this spirit I speak to.  Because this spirit is real – i.e., efficiently acting on the universe, and derived from real physical principles (namely the souls of the participants) -- it will possess this curvature also.

Using your example, a game about fantastic superheroes has a "What would the world be like if...?" like all RPGs.  One without that hypothesis is either a prewritten story being told, or a game with solely additive rules.  It is the act of hypothesising, and having that act do efficient work on the actual manifestation of the superheroes, for instance, which makes the impulse "superheroes!" into a roleplaying game.

Part of this gets into an analogy regarding the real world as being negentropic (i.e. being primarily defined by negative entropy, rather than entropy).  A secondary world can't answer its own hypothesis because, as you say, it ain't real.  The notion of hypothesis, however, /is/ real, and it is this spirituality, I propose, which fuels RPGs as an exciting, and qualitatively different thing from "just games".

I think this is where my struck-out sentence,  "From the Maximum-Minimum, think of hypothesis as the action (circumference), and the detailed secondary world as the work (area)", applies.  That is, God, being perfectly efficient, used the minimum needed action to create the best possible world.  The GM as a god of a secondary world, then, does the same thing: he creates a "What will turn out, if?.  Being human, he cannot know the outcome in advance.  Being secondary, the world cannot be real, only at best realistic.

This appears to be what attracts the hobby to the notion of GM as sole authority.  It is also what tells me that Simulationism, as embodying that drive toward efficiency (minimum) that strives toward the unfolding of the hypothesis to the most embellished or perfect degree (maximum), is the primary element.



Cpl Ferro

Dear Mr. Edwards:

On reflection, I must agree with you and Mr. Langford that Exploration, if not the better term, is at least a substitute for what I term Simulationism.  What strikes me with Simulationism is that it is, for reasons given, the sine qua non of Exploration.  That is, without that drive, there is no game.  Thus, the amplifying effect of Simulationism you highlight is really a drive to expunge those interpersonal agendas, which are like contaminants, in a sense.

That is (referring to my last response to Mr. Langford, above), Narrativism and Gamism equate to entropy, while Simulationism is negentropy.  Just as the real world's negentropic principles require certain entropic incarnations in order to express themselves (like spending energy to build a school, or like the spirit needing a material world in which to act), this entropy is indispensable, but needs managing to avoid a crash.  This perhaps better explains why Simulationism appears precarious and demanding much skill:  Being negentropic, appreciating it demands a metaphorical perspective rather than a materialist one.

Thanks for the input,



Cpl Ferro

Not to be obtuse, but isn't this approach essentialist reductionism?  That is, isn't this all founded upon a metaphysical postulate of unity in truth, as well as a notion that linguistic and performative categories apply to ontologically real objects?

To put that otherwise, it seems to me that this whole theorem depends upon the notion that the term "RPG" must refer to some real thing "out there."  But there is no reason to suppose this, barring a kind radical Platonic Idealism.  Furthermore, the constant flux among such categories as G, N, and S in this forum, not to mention Stances, Exploration, and whatnot, suggest that what you've got here are categories, not objects.

Personally, I think RPGs are complex enough without re-inserting metahpysics.

Corporal Ferro,

I think you are really beginning to go too far.  Perhaps if you could express things more as 'your opinion' rather than 'absolute fact?'  I understand you possess a very strong and...unique opinion, but these attempts to use reason to 'prove' them is highly irritating.

Simulationism

So Simulationism is proposed to be the defining feature of Exploration?  Maybe in the Three-Fold Model, but (sine you are using the GNS) not the way Ron defines it; it is exactly the reverse, Exploration is that without which Simulationism isn't anything.  Further, Simulationism allows you to focus on what you are Exploring, (by Ron) Situation, System, Color, Setting, and Character; Exploration alone doesn't mention that.

You're really, really projecting your preferred style of play onto the community at large here when you say, "Narrativism and Gamism equate to entropy."  First of all, I'd have to say their adherents would point out that, to them, Narrativism and Gamism are 'like Simulationism, only cooler.'  You've as much said these are degenerate forms of gaming (in comparison to Simulationism); like I said, it's quite easy to take one's own beliefs and project them as the framework upon which everything else lies.  From the other two viewpoints I could say that Simulationism is the degenerate (or equal to entropy) because it lacks any external function that gives the elements and their arrangements additional value (emotional or aesthetic); or simply that Simulationism is entropy because it is so structureless, has no goals, and does not give any value to play outside of its imperfect emulation.

But I don't say that, because I'm not a GNS proponent (I could, being the Executive Regional Field Director of the Devil's Advocacy Department at Large for the Midwest, but I won't); my major point here (which seems to be being overlooked) is that bringing the GNS into the discussion, at any level, simply isn't relevant to the point being made by either 'side.'  Furthermore, the reason I said I wouldn't discuss it was because I prophesied that it would disgorge a tangent so unrelated and so overwhelming, that the point would be lost.  I see us teetering on that brink.

The problem inherent in this application is that, as far as I knew, we were not discussing "RPG structure" but criteria for 'RPG assessment.'  That's why I state that GNS is pointless; you cannot look for things which have GNS elements and then go, "That's a role-playing game!"  GNS is for the analysis of the real actions within episodes of actual play with an eye towards dysfunction amoungst the actual players.  It is not a speculative organism by any stretch of the imagination.

Hypotheses

And I think it clear that hypothesis regarding fictional entities are little more than opinions as they cannot be tested in any way.  However real the concept of hypothesis, the actual result of anything regarding a role-playing game is more synthesis of the opinions present than hypothesis.  Provided proper discord, the game ceases to exist rather than one hypothesis winning out over another.  It is the accords, these syntheses, that create the apparent (not existent) 'game world.'

Were subscribing to the 'best hypothesis' or 'most real' of verisimilitude the best form of game, or at least destined to be the most popular, a game like Phoenix Command would sell like gangbusters; however, they doesn't, I think largely because they becomes so overwhelmed with prioritizing emulation that they forget to address the emotional attachments the players must feel towards play.  This is why I say that, while verisimilitude has a value in the way that consistency does, it cannot be the most telling attribute of a game, reaching the players is.

To take this to the next level, you should be able to see that empowering players is one concrete, dependable way to engage them.  That's why using a single authority to vend some kind of righteous hypothesis of verisimilitude draws gaming completely away from it's power to entice, entrance, and engage.  "Players first!"  I always think.  Verisimilitude perhaps fourth or fifth.  (I consider 'meshing' more important as well as a few other objects that support the first better than efficient or perfect application of hypothetical realism.)

This is why you will simply have to agree to disagree with me (and probably a bulk of posters); we cannot reach an accord so long as you maintain the perspective that your opinion on the ascendancy of hypothesis or Simulationism can be proven or must be demonstrably true.

Fang Langford

p. s. To redefine gamemaster as you have is to render it virtually meaningless.  Why not simply call it 'the instantaneous wielder of transformative power?'  Giving it the term 'gamemaster' virtually assures the people will take the implication that there is a 'single authority' at work; the implication is that entrenched.

p. p. s. I do not see it as worthwhile to attempt to separate the content of a game from 'the spirit of it.'  I believe the best games clearly embed 'the spirit' explicitly in their content and I consider any game that does not a sloppy attempt expecting too much from it's consumers.

p. p. p. s. I'm really aghast at your idea to "expunge those interpersonal agendas."  It sounds like, to you, gaming is some dry attempt to emulate some kind of perfect hypothesis, when I think it clear that gaming is about friends getting together to do something they like.  Even when "hypothesis" is what they want, I really want to believe that 'being friends' and 'doing stuff together' has higher priority.  Provided that, 'expunging interpersonal agendas' is like saying, "You can come, but don't expect to have any fun with your friends."  (What is friendship except a series of "interpersonal agendas" that are mutually beneficial?)

p. p. p. p. s. Corporal Ferro, do you know how to retrieve Personal Messages here at the Forge?

Le Joueur Wrote:
"p. p. s. I do not see it as worthwhile to attempt to separate the content of a game from 'the spirit of it.' I believe the best games clearly embed 'the spirit' explicitly in their content and I consider any game that does not a sloppy attempt expecting too much from it's consumers."

Actually I would argue, as would some others, that many games can not seperate content and spirit. I would further state that this is nearly a complete definition of 'genre' RPGs. That is, games that use their mechanics and content to reinforce genre tropes and conventions.

Ross Winn

Hello,

Actually, Fang, my call is that the Corp has stated his point, and it is at least clear to us what he means. The following:

QuoteWhat strikes me with Simulationism is that it is, for reasons given, the sine qua non of Exploration. That is, without that drive, there is no game. Thus, the amplifying effect of Simulationism you highlight is really a drive to expunge those interpersonal agendas, which are like contaminants, in a sense.

... isn't controversial, I think, stripped of the writer's judgmental phrasing. And why carp about someone's personal preferences? That's where Forge discussion says, "How interesting, old bean," and leaves it at that, at least in my view.

Ross, I suggest being careful about seizing upon the phrase "the spirit of the game." It has a way of getting its meaning by the individual user rather than from a shared definition. As you use it, for instance, I don't think it's very different from Exploration as a process; it definitely is a function of people processing the rules/text. As the Corp uses it, it's more like a philosophical Platonic Entity, on its own.

If people do want to get all into some debate about games' spirit(s), then please take it to another thread.

Best,
Ron

Dear Mr. Langford:

It hadn't occurred to me to check for any sort of private messages, so pardon me for my delayed response.  To avoid tearing my brain in half, and since this thread's very axioms are in doubt, I will attend to your message first.  Afterward, if still needed, I will continue, here.



Cpl Ferro