anyway.
A Penny for Your Thoughts
3-3-05
Simulationism
I'm not going to reconstruct the history of this, nor work especially hard to defend it, here on my blog. If you want either of those, I'll see you at the Forge.
Also, for god sweet sake, please understand "empowered" to mean that everybody contributes over the course of a session or some sessions, not that the players necessarily get to narrate into existance the safe and the dirt inside it.
So! The question here is: is there a positive thing that we can identify with all three of a) thematic play where the players aren't empowered to create the theme; b) non-thematic, non-competitive play where the players are all equally empowered to contribute to what matters; and c) non-thematic, non-competitive play where the players are not all empowered to contribute?
If we can't, the definition of Simulationist play is negative: Sim is whatever's not-Nar and not-Gam. Whether that's okay or not, we'll deal with if we come to it.
If we can, however, identify a positive feature that those three kinds of play share, but don't share with Narrativist or Gamist play, then we've defined Simulationist play positively, right?
It turns out that we can.
Walt Frietag proposes "realizing the ideal." Ron says "celebrating the source material." Both of those are more generous than my "peer-appreciated wish fulfillment," but you can read them all about the same way.
What seems on my diagram to be three whole different kinds of play turns out to be merely different arrangements of "realize" and "ideal."
Thematic, non-empowered play: the ideal is one person's theme, one person's take on a human issue. The person might be the GM, might be the game designer, might be the original author of the source material (as in, "let's regurgitate what Tolkein said about loyalty"). The players are there to make real this person's polemic.
I've been that guy as a GM. I had my little lesson to teach and I was by god going to see it through.
If we open the theme up to the players' participation ("screw Tolkein, screw you Vincent, what do we think about loyalty?") this kind of play becomes Narrativist.
Non-thematic, empowered play: the ideal might be emulation of the real world or of some other source material ("let's do Middle Earth," "let's do Cambodia 1967" or "let's do Red Mars"), but what matters here is that it's no one person's vision. All of us love Red Mars, all of us are willing to do the work required to make Red Mars real in play, and all of us trust one another to contribute good stuff.
I like to call this kind of play "made up journalism." I've done a whole hell of a lot of it.
If we get drawn into the moral issues that'll inevitably arise, this kind of play becomes Narrativist. Note that taking on the moral issues will require us to be willing to screw up the Source material. Taking a moral stand may make our game diverge from what happened in Cambodia in 1967. It may make our game diverge from Middle Earth or Red Mars. Our reverence for the source material (not just loving it, revering it) stands between this kind of play and Narrativism.
(Have you ever seen the Pogo strips that Walt Kelly's wife wrote, after his death? They suck. She respects the characters too much; she only ever has them do things they've done before. Walt Kelly loved them, but he never treated them with reverence.)
Non-thematic, non-empowered play: let's split this one in half.
Half one: "let's do Vincent's fantasy world! Vincent, am I doing this right? How about this? How about this?" The players are there to realize my vision of how things should work. Ever played Millenium's End with a serious gun geek? Or Middle Earth with only one big Tolkein fan? Same thing.
I've played this game, as both the guy with the vision and not.
Half two: "let's do the GM's story!" ...But it's not a story, it's just some random crap that happens to some random people. This kind of play is so common that it makes my ears bleed, with all these game texts exhorting the GM to make a story for the players to enact, but not telling the GM what a theme is or how to fucking get one.
I've played my share of this game too. Haven't we all.
Narrativism = "let's create theme together!"
Gamism = "let's kick each others' butts!"
Simulationism = "let's realize this ideal, enact this vision, celebrate this source material, fulfill these wishes!"
That seems like a positive definition, exclusive with Narrativism and Gamism, and occupying the same level in the big model. It seems sound to me.
Show of hands: those of you who feel like I'm maligning Simulationism, is it because I'm maligning the "realizing the ideal" style of play I've just described? Or is it because you kind of like the word "Simulationist," and it deserves to mean something cool instead?
On 3-3-05, Ben Lehman wrote:
I want to talk about "don't ask me."
Have you ever played the game where the GM makes the big bad-guys, that are way too big for you, so the GM's uber-NPC has to come knock them down?
I think it is that game.
Is it Sim? Don't know. It is wretched.
yrs--
--Ben
On 3-3-05, Vincent wrote:
Oh man, this is terrible but you're right.
That looks like a case of "let's realize the GM's ideal!" to me, of the suckest sort.
On 3-3-05, Dev wrote:
I feel this is one of the most positive definition of Sim I've seen, ever.
It's also funny how the Sim section came up and nearly ate everything on the damn chart. (Also, this reminds me of the GDS vs Centralized/Decentralized-Authority model from a few months back.)
As for the low-input/competitive game: how about moments from Paranoia? Some moments of the game are indeed celebrating the humorous color, but some moments can also be a (semi-ernest) attenot to "win out" against the Alpha Complex, even though you know that such a thing is not at all possible.
On 3-3-05, Luke wrote:
i think you've painted Sim agenda'd play into such a narrrow corridor that it looks like the Impossible Dream. You describe that any variation toward meaningful play (and, I assume, any variation toward manipulation of the game rules) pushes Simulation into another state.
From this viewpoint, it seems like only the most maniacal GMs or dysfunctional groups could ennact a sim agenda. Perhaps it is something better left to LARPs? I met a guy this past weekend and talked about his LARP. No mechanics, no resolution, simply being in the moment. Sounds like the embodiment of what you described.
Given that and your ultra-clear elucidation, I still don't think Sim exists as a playable agenda in the three-fold model. I am, in fact, leaning heavily toward the Beeg Horseshoe of Jared.
I agree, Color and Exploration and Immersion are not Simulationist agenda, but at the same time... they are. And are or not, I confess that the exclusion or subsumation of the Big S from the three tiers makes me quite suspect about the rest of the model.
-L
On 3-3-05, Brennan wrote:
I never have really gotten Sim. I can get a handle on what Nar is and what Gam is, but Sim has continually eluded me. This is perhaps the most accessible explanation I have seen.
That said, I have played in your definition of Sim, but there is always serious slippage toward Nar in those games. Luke and I play in very similar ways, and I think I am having the same struggle he is in defining myself in Big Model terms. Am I Sim? Am I Nar? I know I don't prefer Gam, even though I can enjoy it in small doses.
I prefer a lot more distribution of power in favor of the GM, but I still like the players to be involved and engaged. Games with mechanical hooks like TSoY's Keys that give me insight into what the player wants seem to be up my alley, and I am experimenting with this sort of thing right now.
Still, a lot of what I want in game play is exploration of the world, society, game-world morality, etc. I thought that was Sim.
On 3-3-05, John Harper wrote:
I don't see why you think Vincent's definition of Sim is so narrow, Luke. It seems to perfectly describe every hardcore Sim experience I've had, in particular the extensive Godlike campaign I ran a few years ago. Which I *thought* was very, very similar to the way you describe your Burning Wheel play on the Forge. The world is as it is, we explore it, our characters strive for this or that, and the system steps in and we let the chips fall where they may. No "Let's create theme!" and no "Let's kick each other's butts!" to be seen.
Sounds like Sim to me, and it seems like a *very* large space to play in. Why narrow? I don't understand what you mean. Your bit about "meaningful" play confuses me even more. I don't see anything about "meaningful" play in Vincent's definition so it looks an awful lot like straw to me. Any type of CA can be meaningful to the players, right?
On 3-3-05, luke wrote:
John,
what are we striving for? Did you strive to overcome prejudice toward talents in the Godlike game? Strive to destroy the Nazis because "it was the right thing to do?" Or in my games, suddenly we're striving to overthrow a culture built on slavery -- why? because it's the right thing to do. Immersion, Color, Exploration, check! But as soon as we introduce the whiff of theme, bam, we have narrativism.
Very, very little roleplaying is devoid of theme. Which makes me think that Sim is ephemera, an illusion unto itself, an ideal to strive for (as in the Beeg Horseshoe).
-L
On 3-3-05, ScottM wrote:
I've played in too many dungeon crawls or "solve the plot" adventures. They wind up in your Non-thematic, non-empowered play. Too many games for counting-- that's where we wind up if there's no attempt to set another agenda before we begin. (In my home, FTF game groups).
When we struggle, we wander toward Non-thematic, empowered play (from the above). Wil often runs these... which usually devolve into PCs doing "routine, boring stuff" night after night until the plot comes along. IT's great for "day in the life", but can get old fast.
Somehow, my moments of Thematic, non-empowered play have been very few-- allowing morality "breaks" a lot of standard game assumptions. It shows in the frustration at hanging around the "weenie paladin" who wants to do right, and immediate game endings because the GM assumes the PCs will be moral (in one way) and the players play PCs who are immoral/ moral in a different way. Our Star Wars, imperials to rebels campaign died messily (and openly) when this happened. -- Scott [delveg at netscape.net]
On 3-3-05, ScottM wrote:
Actually, looking above and breathing... I was treating this as the old dumping ground SIM. Thinking hard on the campaigns and "what I want" and "what I make happen"... they still have fallen into Non-thematic, both non-empowered and empowered flavors. There are a whole lot more positive qualities than my dwelling on the negative examples above implied. Even my favorite sessions rarely wander into thematic realms... which explains the shock DitV, MLwM, and the like cause us all. [Er, my local game group.]
On 3-3-05, John Harper wrote:
Hmmm. Good question about striving, Luke. Each character was striving for something, certainly. But there was no player-aware theme that we were dealing with as part of our collaborative play. As players and GM, we were interested in "what happens next" from, literally, a simulation point of view. Any striving was a part of character background more than anything else. It simply didn't *matter* very much from session to session, anymore than it would have mattered in a real operation during the war. Your guy hates the Germans because he's Polish, eh? Okay then. Now, how are we gonna deal with this machine gun nest, soldier?
Could we squint at it afterwards and say, yeah, there's a theme here? Maybe. But theme was not any part of our process during play, spoken or unspoken. It was simply "what if?" over and over again.
I don't agree that a "whiff of theme" automatically shifts play into Nar. Vincent's definition is pretty clear. Nar is "Let's create theme together!" not "Let's play a game that *might* end up having some kind of theme associated with it. Sometimes. But usually not." An important distinction, to me.
On 3-3-05, luke wrote:
I dunno. "Screw you, Vincent" and it's narrativist agenda.
"Note that taking on the moral issues will require us to be willing to screw up the Source material. "
I'm not talking about Dawson's Creek here. I'm talking about "I'll volunteer to take the Gerry MG nest [unspoken: because of some major cue in my character's history -- which the PLAYER wrote in]. I toss a grenade in hit, 'em with the flamethrower and then shoot them all in the fucking mouth."
"Hey, but you're character's a collaborationist!"
"I changed my mind"
Oops, damn theme getting in the way of my WW2 reenactment!
I'm saying that, in many, many cases, that "what if" drifts the game away from its assumed and intended agenda. We'd like to think we're all Civil War reenactors going through the motions for the history of it, but as soon as one of us brings one of our issues to the table, bam, the scene shifts and bleeds.
Ok, it should be obvious that I'm painting myself into a narrower and narrower corner as the Big S priority is better and better defined. But, I still think the only useful examples of Sim agenda'd play that can be offered up are those of dysfunctional play -- the pointless dungeon crawl, the autocratic GM's theme (which is my favorite GMing style, btw). As soon as you offer up a reasonably functional example of play -- where players have input either into the overall game, the direction of said game or into the character-to-game contributions, you no longer have Big S play under Vincent's definitions.
You don't have to be a gay, vegetarian hippie and shout "Let's create together!" before a game begins to have thematic play. It can and does erupt during play due to the situations and choices presented to the players. Even back in my most railroading, force-wielding GM days -- when one of my players used to refer to himself as a slave to fate -- I would still look them in the eye and say, "are you going to slaughter those helpless people? Is that what's important to your character?" Integrity and humanity became our unwitting themes. Damn it! I just wanted to reenact fantasy medieval Korea!
-L
On 3-3-05, Vincent wrote:
Luke, here's my take:
You're luckier than me.
You've dismissed let's say 15 of my 20 years' roleplaying experience as "such a narrrow corridor that it looks like the Impossible Dream." Those bits above where I say "I've played this game," right? I've played those games a lot.
So here, look. I'm describing 15 years' roleplaying experience to you. You say it's a crappy way to play? Yep, I agree with you. You say it doesn't exist? Bullshit.
On 3-3-05, Luke wrote:
:)
Ah ah! Not so fast.... Such modes of play do indeed exist; I have admitted my guilt--i played 'em and ran 'em for years.
My point, though, is that there seems to be a tendency to lump "the bad ol' days" under the Big S, and say "The Big N! It's the cat's bananas (or pajamas if you prefer)."
What you've described is clearly dysfunctional play. Where it falls in the creative agenda, I don't know, but I don't think conflating overuse of Force and Illusionism with Sim agenda'd roleplay is cool.
Anyway, if you've had enough of my browbeating, that's cool, we can move on. I don't want to cause any friction. Just lookin' to chew the doggie toy of theory and hopefully better understand my art as a result.
thank you again for your time and patience.
-Luke
On 3-3-05, Chris wrote:
Hey Vincent-
Would it make sense to make that bottom slice of the chart "Celebratory play"? That would make it a lot easier to point to the differences between Thematic Sim vs. Celebratory Sim.
Perhaps instead of the "Right to Dream", it might be better summed up in "Stuff happens"- sometimes strong to causality, sometimes predetermined via Illusionism or Participationism, and sometimes random play as you were pointing out.
Thoughts?
On 3-3-05, Vincent wrote:
Luke: just cause I'm pissed doesn't mean I'm unhappy!
Your hand's up as "I kind of like the word 'Simulationist' and it should refer to something cool instead," yeah?
I think that there's a powerful distinction we could discuss, if we could go ahead and say that the only roleplaying worth discussing is thematic + collaborative. However, it creates a continuum not two exclusive styles (I think), and it plays out over a shorter term than the sessions of a CA.
Let's call it, as a stab, constructed vs. nonconstructed.
Look at My Life with Master or Primetime Adventures: highly, highly constructed. Named issues, strict attention to pacing and scenes, a very formal, considered structure with a climax and an endgame or a planned session-by-session arc.
Look at Dogs in the Vineyard: not nearly so. Everything on your character sheet is a thing about your character, unlike say Screen Presence or Fan Mail. Yes, your character has issues, but nobody says them out loud and, structurally speaking, nobody cares about them. You go from town to town doing what you do; if your issues arise, ain't nobody's doing, it just happens that way.
Is The Burning Wheel less constructed, storywise, than Dogs? Maybe. It's certainly not more constructed.
So there's a distinction at the highest level of a game's techniques. It has to do with what's a character's and a game's lifespan, how do you organize scenes into sessions and series of sessions, what attitude should the player take toward the character and the rest of the world? And then it projects its implications down into the lowest levels of the game's techniques, of course, like: can a player narrate a safe and dirt into existance?
I believe that, to many many people, "Simulationist" means something like "nonconstructed." When I say "My Life with Master is a Narrativist game," they think I'm talking about its formal, explicit structure.
I believe that this would be a more worthy use for the word "Simulationist" than the one we've got now.
On 3-3-05, Vincent wrote:
Chris: "Would it make sense to make that bottom slice of the chart "Celebratory play"? That would make it a lot easier to point to the differences between Thematic Sim vs. Celebratory Sim."
The purple section of my first drawing, that's the bit you mean, right? I don't think we need to name that. It's just roleplaying that's not thematic and not competitive. It has what all roleplaying has: consistent characters situated in a setting, in action, all colorful and all based on some vision or source material. It doesn't have what some roleplaying has: theme or alternately competition.
I like "realizing the ideal" instead of "the right to dream," personally.
On 3-4-05, Chris wrote:
I don't know, maybe its just my need for radial symmetry to name the purple part. "Undirected play"? At least that puts a name on it and explains why it isn't either thematic or competitive, plus it nails both "let's explore" without purpose and empty "stuff happens" play in one go.
That aside, I think its -vital- that a group be on the same page as to where they're supposed to be on this "dartboard" of CAs. The only area I could see being completely dysfunctional might be "don't ask me", with the exception that it might be sufficient for zilchplay.
On 3-4-05, Chris wrote:
"Don't ask me"- you know what that is?- It's not just big bad guys, but its basically games where you have the bad guy/puzzle/trap with one obscure way to solve it, no clues from the GM and ultra harsh punishment for not figuring it out. "Dude, how COULDN'T you see the answer was the 223rd digit from pi?"
Theoretically the players could possibly "win" an encounter, but without the necessary information to make informed strategic decisions- they're disempowered. I think the situation Ben talks about where the GM sends in the uber NPC to save the PCs slides it into Sim, because basically at that point any chance of strategic input on the part of the players has evaporated, and competition is impossible without it.
On 3-4-05, Luke wrote:
Yeah, sort of. I was living under the perhaps mistaken idea that all agenda were equal in merit. And I didn't think "I'm a bad/obstuse GM/player" was a model to describe the majority third of creative play.
Ok, I understand what you are saying about Simulationist agenda as an analog for nonconstructed game structure.
How is this affected by thematic play? Or are you proposing that Sim agenda get elevated/separated to a seperate supranormal level of the hierarchy? Nonconstructed play overarching the development and exploration of themes within? Does this drift into Narrativist territory? (God, I hate those terms. When I say The Big N, I mean play focused on or influenced by theme. Do you hear me God? I didn't think so.)
Care to elaborate?
-L
On 3-4-05, Jadasc wrote:
"Show of hands: those of you who feel like I'm maligning Simulationism, is it because I'm maligning the 'realizing the ideal' style of play I've just described? Or is it because you kind of like the word 'Simulationist,' and it deserves to mean something cool instead?"
A little of both, I think. I've spent a little time thinking about it, and I'm pretty happy with, "Let's make it real and keep it going." The "keep it going" part is important, in my estimation. Gamism ends, so you can tally the score, however you're keeping it. Nar ends so that it can raise the stakes, or reach a climax, or in some way actually deal with the theme in a final way or move onto the next one. Sim, on the other hand, doesn't really end. Like the realness it emulates, it keeps moving even when you're not paying attention to it.
On 3-4-05, Clinton R. Nixon wrote:
Holy crap, that's a lot of talk.
I want to distill the Luke-Vincent conversation and put my take on it.
You can't say Simulationism doesn't exist, because there's a whole hell of a lot of it out there. What I personally think you can say, which is negative, but, you know, whatever, is that Simulationism is the act of generic role-playing with the tools we've mainly been given until recently.
Narrativism and Gamism are the results of taking that and making it a functional activity with value.
Ouch. But, I think it's true. That D&D game in the basement of my friend's house at 14? Definitely non-redeeming: a waste of all of our time. We didn't improve the world, and didn't improve ourselves. Even as an imagination exercise, it only worked for the GM.
On 3-4-05, Ghoul wrote:
I've always thought the ultimate Simulationist example (even though it's a computer game) is the Sim family, from SimCity thru the more modern versions.
They're a big toolkit/toybox you can play with, with the system reacting to your actions and the setting developing as a result. There is no narrative structure, nor is there a game objective. Enjoyment is gained by creating micro-narratives or mini-objectives for yourself.
From that persective, I see Simulationist gaming as being just the same, a flexible toolkit ready for the players to determine individual, temporary narrative or gamist arcs, but with neither as an over-arching "the whole game is about this" sort of arc. A "good" Simulationist tool is one that reacts predictable and flexibly to keep the mini-arcs created in it consistant with the style/setting/era/genre/whatever it is Simulating. Those mini-arcs are player-initiated and complete when the players (which, of course, includes the GM) are satisfied and move attention to another mini-arc. Several can go on at the same time. In other words, it's less like a focused short-story and more like a rambling Chinese novel.
In the same way a Narrativist game tends to pre-determine Theme but allow for genre/setting changes with little stress, a Simulationist game tends to pre-determine genre/setting but could care less about what Themes develop (with limits, of course). They're about "found story" or "imputed story" not "inherent story".
So, Simulationism isn't thematic or competative, it's a form of empowerment that lets you shift back and forth between these styles in an ever-shifting focus, which can be empowered (in a successful example) or non-empowered (in an example where the rules get in the way of focus-shifting). If I had to name that plane, I'd call it "genre loyalty" (rather than "realism"). In other words, a successful Simulationist game draws play back toward genre when it drifts. Successful Simulation is one where genre-appropriate actions and results are the natural norm of using the system.
On 3-4-05, Vincent wrote:
Luke: "How is this affected by thematic play? Or are you proposing that Sim agenda get elevated/separated to a seperate supranormal level of the hierarchy? Nonconstructed play overarching the development and exploration of themes within? Does this drift into Narrativist territory?"
Oh no, quite the opposite. I'm proposing that we limit ourselves to discussing thematic + player-empowered play - rejecting all that yellow space as crappy - and make Simulationism a kind of it. Simulationism would be half of the little green demicircle.
AS THINGS ARE NOW, if you say to me "I like nonconstructed, in-game-causal play," I only care about one thing: are you talking about thematic + player-empowered nonconstructed play? If you are, let's talk (and Luke you've made it clear that of course you are). If you aren't, there's no conversation to have: I don't have anything to contribute and I'm not really interested.
Clinton: I totally agree with that, of course.
I think what happens is that Luke (and Emily, and Ghoul, and I'm sure a zillion other people) want the word "Simulationism" to refer to something better than "that crap kind of gaming no grownup would enjoy." They're Narrativists but they identify as Simulationists, based on a non-Forge definition of the word, and they don't like their word being used to mean something so lame.
Which is very reasonable. If Ron had had the supernatural foresight to make up a new word for this too, we wouldn't be here now. We'd be talking about Simulationist approaches to Narrativism and we'd be happy.
On 3-4-05, Matt wrote:
Hey V:
I was thinking about comparing Dogs and PA, but in a different manner. It's interesting to me that you see the thematic stuff more upfront in PA than in Dogs, but it's flipped when you enter conflict in those games.
I'm guilty of not having played Dogs yet (though I want to so badly), but it seems to me that the nature of escalation turns every conflict into a thematic one. My game puts all that responsibility on the players. I think it's easier in my game to have lame conflicts than in Dogs.
On your nifty chart above, I'd consider PA more collaborative, and Dogs more thematic, from that point of view. And any game that gets labeled "nar" has to solidly be one of the two. Pool: collaborative. TROS: thematic. BW: collaborative.
Thoughts? If this is too off topic, can we take it offline or to a new thread?
On 3-4-05, Brennan wrote:
I have to throw down a bit here, because although there are some really strong reasons why Gamist and Narrativist play are really rewarding, I don't think you can say that the vast majority of play is completely disfunctional. Sim seems to be the biggest area, and if it were that unrewarding, why would people have consistently done this for over 30 years? I just can't believe that it would endure if it were really that disfunctional. Play would naturally drift to Nar or Gam structures.
I, like Luke, find Sim play rewarding. There may be no Nar "point" or Gam competition, but it is still enjoyable. It can't just be dismissed as bad play. Small themes emerge, and stories revolving around individual characters are a part of it, but making the game about an overall theme isn't the point. The point is consistently portraying people in a consistent world. What breaks Sim play is events that are 'unrealistic,' that don't make sense to the players in terms of the shared fantasy.
The ultimate reward in Sim play is this: "Cool. That is totally what would happen."
On 3-4-05, Vincent wrote:
Brennan: "What breaks Sim play is events that are 'unrealistic,' that don't make sense to the players in terms of the shared fantasy."
That breaks every kind of play.
Consistently portraying consistent people is essential to roleplaying, no matter what part of the dart board it's in.
If the point is to consistenly portray consistent people but to not take on any interesting human issues, that's in the yellow "SIM" part of the dartboard.
When an interesting human issue arises, as it will, do you engage with it or back slowly away? That's the difference between Narrativism and (empowered, non-thematic) Simulationism, true "made up journalism."
<digression>
It also depends on your character, doesn't it?
Does that mean that sometimes details of your character are the difference between Narrativism and Simulationism? Absolutely. Fit character + turning point + conflict across a moral line, right?
</digression>
On 3-4-05, Vincent wrote:
Brennan, let me do over.
Luke says of the yellow part of the dartboard: "such a narrrow corridor that it looks like the Impossible Dream ... only the most maniacal GMs or dysfunctional groups could ennact a sim agenda" and "As soon as you offer up a reasonably functional example of play -- where players have input either into the overall game, the direction of said game or into the character-to-game contributions, you no longer have Big S play under Vincent's definitions."
When you say that Luke enjoys Sim play, I think you must have something in mind as "Sim play" that is not what I have in mind.
On 3-4-05, Clinton R. Nixon wrote:
Brennan: I don't think you can say that the vast majority of play is completely disfunctional. Sim seems to be the biggest area, and if it were that unrewarding, why would people have consistently done this for over 30 years?
Not what I said at all. I talked about value.
I look at Simulationist role-playing the same way I look at most videogames: a diversion, and a limited set of interactions with a pre-set environment. Blowing an afternoon playing Playstation may be fun, but it's got no point, no redeeming social features. Blowing an afternoon playing Volrath the Elf without either honing social skills (Gamism) or exploring moral issues (Narrativism) is fun - I never said I didn't enjoy it - but it's not redeeming. It doesn't have value you can show to others. It's, like the Playstation, only personal entertainment.
On 3-4-05, Meguey wrote:
Hm. There's something stewing in my mind about the possible desire for the word Simulationist to mean something more like 'deep immersion with a ton of detail as to what would really happen in the setting, probably with lots of background research by the GM and maybe the players'. It seems that this might be the type of game where there is a ton of obscure information brought to bear, and the research is part of the pleasure. I keep reading descriptions of Sim and getting pictures in my head of re-enactment people who are really hard-core. On the highest level, this would be folks who portray Private Jones, and they know that in this battle, Pt. Jones dies right *here*, from *these* wounds. I know there must be tabletop versions of this type of play, and I've been in games where there was INSANE awareness and attention to the made-up detail as well, if the setting was based in fiction.
On 3-4-05, Eric wrote:
Brennan's last sentence is pretty close to it for me. What I defy is Vincent's assertion that as soon as we address theme, ping, we're playing Narrativist throughout.
Instead of the wordy: Simulationism = "let's realize this ideal, enact this vision, celebrate this source material, fulfill these wishes!"
... instead, just try this: "Let's treasure the element(s) of CA!" By which we mean one or more of the big five - Setting, Character, and so forth. Usually not all five in one game, of course.
And if it so happens that Luke's treasuring of his once-collaborationist character ends up with something that's also a theme, if he was into it because of the celebration of character... then it was Sim play, functional and positive. Sim-char is one of the hardest ones to distinguish from Nar, because the things that make us thrill about a good character are exactly the same things which (looked at from a slightly different angle) make us thrill about the questions being asked, and the answers being given.
As I said in the last one, my GNS rule of thumb is simple. Say, "Wow, remember ________________, that was way cool!" about your game. Now check what you put in the blank. If it was the issues, the wringing-out of the characters emotionally and ethically, the agony of everyone as we watched that happen to them... Nar. If it has to do with success or failure, triumph of one of the players over some obstacle (in- or out-of-character)... Gam. But if what you name is one of the Big Five, by itself... probably Sim.
Honestly I think a lot of what we see nowadays (among Forgites) is the reverse knee-jerk reaction. Having learned what Nar play is, people look at their games and spot it, and identify themselves as wanting to make that more intense, and thus wanting to play Nar. Which is half-right. Many of them enhance the Nar elements in their play, but are quite unwilling to consider reducing the Sim elements; frequently the Sim pleasure remains dominant, even if they're raising the volume on the Nar pleasure as well. Contrast that to someone who finds Sorcerer and realizes that all the detailed setting bits were simply getting in the way of his fun, so drops the Sim experience down several notches at the same time as he cranks the Nar.
I try to think of it as an audio mixer with three inputs. Deciding that you like play-type X and are willing to sacrifice Y for it is like keeping the volume constant, lowering the drums and raising the guitars. Deciding that play-type X is cool and we should do more of that too is like raising the guitars without changing anything else. If this makes the guitars the loudest thing in the house, then yes, you've switched to "guitar music". But often this simply makes the guitars a louder element of an overall higher-volume concert; maybe it's still mostly drum music when you stand back a few blocks. The limit is the total volume (gaming intensity) we can generate - limited by, for instance, our gaming skills and communications bandwidth - and can tolerate - limited only when we back away from intensity going "whoa, too much, too fast"... which I've seen happen.
So this whole discussion really centers on an approximation, our use of GNS to label a single experience "vocals music" even though maybe it's actually supported by a low-level throb of drumkit and guitar. It's a useful approximation, but here's where it breaks down. We add "some Premise" to our play. Fine. But if we don't specify (a) whether we decreased another element, such as Step On Up, to compensate, and/or (b) whether our increased level of Premise actually made Premise dominant, or merely a stronger secondary... then we cannot assert whether or not the overarching label should get changed. We simply lack the information.
Vincent identifies adding theme in a couple of places in the originating post, and says "But this must sacrifice integrity of the Sim." I submit that this is because Vincent is now used to playing with the volume cranked. Certainly there are situations where raising guitar would require lowering the drums, because your amp only has so much output to give. But other people might not play with the knob cranked all the way to 11, and as such find that they can add a little Premise without sacrificing a damn thing - indeed, maybe it even just adds spice to the (say) primarily-Sim experience. The collaborationist and the grenade is a sweet guitar riff in a drum piece; it may temporarily displace the drums (enjoyment of Premise with Element-cherishing slid back a touch for the moment), or it may in fact supplement a simultaneous crazy drum jag (enjoyment of Premise in support or echo of a spike in enjoyment of Character, for instance).
As long as we are willing to acknowledge that "This is basically guitar music" is just an approximation, the other instruments are playin' too, then pretty much all GNS squabbles (including this one) fade like smoke.
On 3-4-05, Emily Care wrote:
Yeah, if only we had stuck with the good old, process oriented def. of sim, rather trying to stick it into the CA biz. It suffered a sea change that made it much less useful (to me at least) as a concept.
Matt wrote:On your nifty chart above, I'd consider PA more collaborative, and Dogs more thematic, from that point of view. And any game that gets labeled "nar" has to solidly be one of the two. Pool: collaborative. TROS: thematic. BW: collaborative.
The one thing is that all narr games have to be collaborative in some way. If the players get cut out of addressing theme, it's by def. not narr anymore. So the distinction you are drawing may be about the degree to which the game is collaborative, or, alternatively, about how directed the issues are that the players deal with.
On 3-4-05, Matt Snyder wrote:
I think what happens is that Luke (and Emily, and Ghoul, and I'm sure a zillion other people) want the word "Simulationism" to refer to something better than "that crap kind of gaming no grownup would enjoy." They're Narrativists but they identify as Simulationists, based on a non-Forge definition of the word, and they don't like their word being used to mean something so lame.
Sing it, brother. I encounter this via online discussion all the time, and -- less frequently -- in real life. There's a whole helluva lot of flailing around ... for nothing. People bitching about labels because they want to label themselves. But, then get mad when their label doesn't stick. WTF?
Seems to me that nine times out of ten these people are Narrativists (which means, of course, that they tend to prefer play that allows everyone at the table make choices about powerful, human interests).
On 3-4-05, Luke wrote:
I actually dreamt theory last night. One of the things I dreamt, in my madness, is that Sim (as defined) is impossible for two reasons. First, you can't "consistently portray people but not take on any interesting human issues". Portraying people (aka humans) means that people issues are going to creep in. Even if they are ugly, messy and dysfunctional.
Two, you can't have genre fidelity combined with randomization mechanics. The first catostrophically failed roll and your "it has to be like this!" fun is out the fucking window. How many times has that happened to you during play? "But the Gray Mouser wouldn't die to a bunch of Slayers!"
Again: Force, Illusionism and bad game design are not a viable section of the CA model. You can't say "this is a mode of playing, it's good, it's how I play. This other mess is my past and everybody else, it's bad!" and maintain a viable position.
Brennan is correct: "consistently portraying people" is a mode of play. But according to your definition, as soon as theme arises (and it will nearly always arise, broken or no) play drifts (even if only momentarily). It happens secondarily, but it is undeniable.
I propose rearranging the model to look like this: G S N. But then erase the S. So you have G -- N. Like your first diagram, except without hard lines, the purple and green blending and only pure in the their corner. Immersion, Exploration and Color lurk in the purple like sharks in the aquariam tank, spinning round, round, round.
So you can have Immersive or Explorative Thematic play, or Immersive Competitive play (that's what our old DnD games were about, right?). And if you play a LARP with no resolution mechanics you have Immersive, Explorative and Colorful play with no thematic or competitive leanings.
Functional and dysfunctional play can exist anywhere on that paradigm right? Just depends on if the players are keyed into the agenda, right?
Excellent work, Vincente! I think we made some progress. (Just don't let me hear you making synonomous the Big S and dysfunctional play.)
-L
On 3-4-05, Neel wrote:
Hey Clinton, take a look at Mark Rosenfelder's Language Construction Kit. Do you think that kind of activity -- sitting down and making up new languages for fun -- is without value?
If so, then we can't talk. If so, then think about what it means to play a roleplaying game with this kind of activity foregrounded. That's what I call simulationism. It's also why I think Vincent's idea of capital-S Simulationism is wholly besides the point for me -- I don't necessarily have, and definitely don't need, any source material to celebrate or emulate.
On 3-4-05, Ghoul wrote:
I think I'm somewhat with Eric here. In fact, I meant to say something similar to it then went off on a different tangent.
I'm not sure any mode doesn't break if you do ONLY it. Vincent said, every mode of play breaks if you break Genre. But that's not really true. If ALL you care about is the competition (pure G), then when aliens with ray guns drop into the castle, you say "Great! Ray guns to loot!" and go; the genre break doesn't bother you because you're looking elsewhere. If all you care about is exploring the Theme (pure N), then the most surrealistic and bizzare plot twists are completely acceptable if the magnify the Theme, even if the default genre is realistic.
In the extremes, you sacrifice the other objectives. But who really lives in the extremes?
But Sim's focal objective is something so basic to storytelling ("stick to the genre/setting/physics"), it's hard to imagine both what a game/story would be like without some nod toward it (I suppose we'd be much like WTF? with players who won't agree on anything) or what would happen in a game that ONLY did that, which isn't nearly as true as with Gam or Nar. But I point back to the Sim* computer games, which I'm sure many of us burned time playing with.
On of my favorite Teenagers from Outer Space characters (not my PC, but someone else's I turned into an NPC in the TFOS Yearbook and regularly offered him for play at GenCon games) was a character named Gerald Martin, Jr. ("GM, Jr"... no effort made to hide the joke), who had the power to change the genre on his whims. If he got bored doing High School Romantic Comedy ala Rumiko Takahashi (default mode), he'd change things. The result is ultra-unpredictable, distinctly "player-empowered", Sim-focused yet Sim-bending play.
On 3-4-05, Matt wrote:
Hey my main man Luke:
Have you ever checked out the Beeg Horseshoe Theory on the Forge? Especially with the "fidelity axis" as I think it's called?
That's what a lot of this thread is reminding me of.
On 3-4-05, Brennan wrote:
Luke: I propose rearranging the model to look like this: G S N. But then erase the S. So you have G -- N.
That's pretty much how I am seeing this work, as well, given Vincent's definition of sim. You can't have accurate human character portrayal without involving human issues, so by definition Sim doesn't exist. You and I occupy similar space on the G -- N line.
On 3-4-05, Vincent wrote:
Eric: "What I defy is Vincent's assertion that as soon as we address theme, ping, we're playing Narrativist throughout."
Let's be clear about my assertion.
<begin assertion>
If we collaboratively address theme, we were playing Narrativist for the entire time it took us to address the theme. A session, several sessions, a whole summer's play - whatever.
If we collaboratively address theme for three sessions in the middle of a campaign but not for the whole campaign, we weren't playing Narrativist the whole time, just for those three sessions. It's very important to note that it takes significant time to address theme: one character decision, one scene, is VERY RARELY sufficient.
<end assertion>
If you defy that, then you don't understand Narrativism. There is no other definition for Narrativist play than "we collaboratively created theme."
Furthermore: "Vincent identifies adding theme in a couple of places in the originating post, and says 'But this must sacrifice integrity of the Sim.' "
No. Never.
Taking on human issues requires us to own the source material, to work with it, and to not revere it.
If you sacrifice the integrity of your character, of the setting, or of the in-game causality, you have irrevocably fucked Narrativist play, just as badly as every other kind of play.
Revering your source material is a whole different thing than relying on its integrity.
On 3-4-05, Vincent wrote:
Luke: "you can't 'consistently portray people but not take on any interesting human issues'. Portraying people (aka humans) means that people issues are going to creep in. Even if they are ugly, messy and dysfunctional."
Sure you can. You just choose a person who's not at a turning point, who's not engaging with any interesting conflict, who can back out of taking on any issue - and then you make sure that nothing intrudes.
People practice for years to get good at this. I could probably introduce you to some. You call them "bad roleplayers."
On 3-4-05, ethan_greer wrote:
"Show of hands: those of you who feel like I'm maligning Simulationism, is it because I'm maligning the "realizing the ideal" style of play I've just described? Or is it because you kind of like the word "Simulationist," and it deserves to mean something cool instead?"
I feel you're maligning the "Realizing the ideal" style of play. Because, well, you are. Which is, of course, fine.
Clinton, quick aside: Personal entertainment is, in and of itself, quite valuable. Basically, you're describing Sim as being play, and play is a vital human pursuit. Purposeless? Yeah. But that's sort of the point.
On 3-4-05, Clinton R. Nixon wrote:
Neel: Hey Clinton, take a look at Mark Rosenfelder's Language Construction Kit. Do you think that kind of activity -- sitting down and making up new languages for fun -- is without value? ... If so, then we can't talk.
Oh, but we can. This is getting all sorts of splintered, and so you might want to e-mail me at crnixon@gmail.com. We've got a lot to hash out, and a lot of it might want to be cooked before public consumption.
But, yes, I see it without value, or to be clear, without value to anyone besides one's self. Creating a language to help foster communication between two peoples: that's a redeeming activity.
To reiterate again: I see no activity engaged in solely for the fun of persons to be a redeeming activity. And, unfortunately, that's where I see a lot of Sim play: it's there only for entertainment.
And to reiterate another point: I don't think that "not redeeming" = "bad". It just means there's no point, and that is a major difference to note between activities.
On 3-4-05, Ben Lehman wrote:
All those people who say "you're wrong, sane people could never enjoy *that* sort of play, we can't have Sim like that, because it is marginalized." You know who you are.
You're wrong.
A lot of people play like that. A lot of people enjoy it.
The fact that you consider it impossible for people to enjoy it, or even play it, bespeaks that you have different agenda, not that it can't happen.
"You can't do that," "that's bad RP," and such are some of the things GNS theory was supposed to fight against ("look, we can all have fun in our own way, let's just do it right," seems to be the core message.) Let's not start them again.
yrs--
--Ben
On 3-4-05, Ghoul wrote:
Luke: Two, you can't have genre fidelity combined with randomization mechanics.
You can if you (IMO) correctly understand their role as determiners of the undetermined and use them thus. What you need is vetoable randomization mechanics, which is, of course, the norm except in some extremes.
Vincent: If you sacrifice the integrity of your character, of the setting, or of the in-game causality, you have irrevocably fucked Narrativist play, just as badly as every other kind of play.
I disagree, in general but specifically with your Causality point. Causality is a habit and a familiar mode, but it is hardly a necessity in storytelling, collaberative or otherwise. The unexplained (and unexplainable) event is not acceptable in some forms, but quite acceptable in others. RP can work without causality, and does all the time. You just have to make sure something else is working well enough to "justify" the gap in another direction.
If the story needs A to happen, then A happens, even if A is actually VERY unlikely from an independent PoV. The rescue arrives right in the nick of time, even if their travel time doesn't actually add up. That violates causality, but it's commonplace in Nar play. No one cares (except the people who send in movie "goofs" pointing that sort of contradiction out).
On 3-4-05, Vincent wrote:
God damn it.
Ghoul: "If the story needs A to happen, then A happens, even if A is actually VERY unlikely from an independent PoV. The rescue arrives right in the nick of time, even if their travel time doesn't actually add up. That violates causality, but it's commonplace in Nar play. No one cares (except the people who send in movie "goofs" pointing that sort of contradiction out)."
This happens in Sim play too. All the time. Look no farther than the PCs glomming together into a group even though there's no good reason for it.
Standards for in-game causality vary, from group to group and from game to game. If you break your standards, whatever they are locally right this minute, you screw up your game.
This has nothing to do with Narrativism and Simulationism, because Narrativism and Simulationism HAPPEN IN A WHOLE FUCKING NOTHER TIME FRAME.
You can't look at what's happening in an action or a scene and identify Creative Agenda. For in-game causality to be relevant to your Creative Agenda, you'd have to break it FOR A SESSION OR MORE.
On 3-4-05, Vincent wrote:
On 3-4-05, Ghoul wrote:
You can't look at what's happening in an action or a scene and identify Creative Agenda. For in-game causality to be relevant to your Creative Agenda, you'd have to break it FOR A SESSION OR MORE.
So if something must stretch over multiple sessions, the characters/setting/etc. re-set each session to the initial state (say, like a classic sit-com or cop show), the fact that there was a theme built and resolved in the prior session (a natural human impulse, to find and form patterns) and now ignored gives us a pure-Sim format. The resetting episodic format.
And a darn popular one in non-RPG circles, and not that bad in RPGs either, if used appropriately. TFOS or what is now called Zap/Classic mode Paranoia, for example, work wonderfully this way. Maybe not your cup of tea, sure, but I've had no end of fun with both.
On 3-4-05, xenopulse wrote:
Here's a lonely voice from someone who is still very new to RPG theory. Can we go back to basics for a second? I'm getting lost in abstractions here.
I thought that CAs were apparent in player decisions at any specific time. It helped me understand the three CAs to imagine a character in a certain situation and see how the player makes the decision about the character's next move. Is the decision motivated by:
a) beating the challenges of the game;
b) furthering the thematic value of the story; or
c) figuring out how this character with this specifc background (setting) and personality would act?
That's GNS to me. I *know* from experience that there are at least three ways in which I make in-game decisions, so there's gotta be something to that. Sometimes I want my character to survive and act contrary to their personality or what would thematically fit best. Sometimes I ignore personality and challenge-efficiency both to make for a more interesting story that addresses a certain issue. And most of the time, I try to figure out who this character is, and what he/she would do. To me, it correlates a lot with the different stances.
And I am siding somewhat with Ghoul here. Most games I played were motivated in the following way: Let's play a Sci-Fi game with lots of cool aliens (e.g., Shatterzone). Let's play a more gritty, medieval fantasy game (Harnmaster). Let's play Werewolves (that one should be obvious). We as a group were interested in playing in a certain setting primarily, and then characters within that setting secondarily. That's what caught our interest. We wanted to collaboratively write stories in a specific genre. We didn't pick out a theme. We did not agree on a specific issue. But we had a lot of fun. Ain't that the point?
Heck, I've played freeform for 9 years. There was no common theme there; it jumped out now and then, but usually it was all about the interaction of characters. It's about creating a story together, where you never know what the other characters are going to do. It doesn't have to be a George Orwell story. It can just be a more sophisticated soap opera. Does that make it dysfunctional? I don't care. It's fun.
- Christian
On 3-4-05, Vincent wrote:
Christian, that sort of decision-by-decision take on GNS is common, but incorrect.
Practically all of the time, practically all of us have our characters do what our characters would do. I might play a game for ten years, addressing Premise and creating theme like a madman, without ever once having my character do something my character wouldn't do.
On 3-4-05, xenopulse wrote:
Vincent,
Hmm. So what good is the theory? If it's an outcome descriptor that is independent of in-game decisions, it's really useless to me, because all I can change about the way I play are my in-game decisions. I can say "Look, I played Nar," the same way I could say, "Look, I got the flu."
That is, unless you say that the difference lies in how I create the character or the game itself. Which would mean all play is predetermined from character creation on. That's not my experience.
Or does it depoend on how the GM (or sharers of GM responsibility) guide the play? Which is probably why you put Nar in the player-empowered category, right?
In that case, there must be some other way of talking about my decision-making process regarding my character's actions, because it has quite an impact on our games.
Practically all of the time, practically all of us have our characters do what our characters would do.
Not in my current group, where we have strong Gamists. They don't even have much of a concept of character personality. Their decision making process is not "What would my character do," but "How do I beat this challenge." Pawn stance all the way, baby.
I, on the other hand, frequently make my characters (especially but not exclusively in free-form) do things that are not necessarily the most likely actions he/she would have done, but those that create the most interesting conflicts and complications.
Wow. This is going to be the longest thread with the most tangents ever. :)
- Christian
On 3-4-05, Vincent wrote:
Christian: "Not in my current group, where we have strong Gamists. They don't even have much of a concept of character personality. Their decision making process is not 'What would my character do,' but 'How do I beat this challenge.' Pawn stance all the way, baby."
That falls under "standards for in-game causality vary from group to group and game to game."
"I, on the other hand, frequently make my characters (especially but not exclusively in free-form) do things that are not necessarily the most likely actions he/she would have done, but those that create the most interesting conflicts and complications."
Notice especially that "not necessarily the most likely actions he/she would have done" does not equal "sacrificing character integrity."
On 3-4-05, Thor Olavsrud wrote:
I'm with Christian. I honestly am not sure that GNS classifications have any point outside of moment-to-moment play (and I'm also under the impression that GNS was only meant to classify such discrete decisions made in play).
Now, if you put a qualifier on the statement--FROM THE OUTSIDE, you can't look at what's happening in an action or a scene and identify Creative Agenda--then I'll agree with you, hesitantly.
Maybe an example will help:
I'm playing in a game and running this peasant turned badass archer captain. He's got a wife that cuckolded him and worse, she did it with a guy that's infected with Vampirism (in Burning Wheel, vampirism is a condition that afflicts the living, but only really manifests when they die).
Now, my character lobbies to have the wife burned at the stake.
Did I make that decision because I figured out how Burning Wheel Vampirism works and that's the only way to defeat Luke's nefarious puzzle?
Did I make that decision because my character is a cold-hearted fanatic, and I think that's what "my guy" would do?
Or did I make that decision because I'm interested in seeing the consequence of vengeance vs. mercy?
It could have been any of them...hell, it could have been all of them. I understand that's why you say that a session or more is needed to determine what's going on. But I know why I did what I did. And to muddy the picture, I get to make this sort of decision everytime a conflict rears its head in play.
Anyway, what I'm getting at is that I see the use of using GNS to classify discrete decisions made in play. And taken over a period of time, yes, they can form a pattern. But people are going to fall in varying places all over. This guy makes exclusively Gam choices. That guy tends to a blend of Gam and Sim choices. That guy over there tends toward Nar and Gam choices, etc.
So, I'm failing to see the use of strict GNS classifications for periods of play rather than instances. HOWEVER, the tension between Thematic and Competitive rings true to me. What if, instead of your triptych, we imagine it as a square divided into quadrants, with Thematic play as the X axis and Competitive play as the Y axis?
It seems to me we can come up with more accurate classifications that way. Or not. What do you think?
On 3-4-05, Vincent wrote:
Christian: "If it's an outcome descriptor that is independent of in-game decisions, it's really useless to me, because all I can change about the way I play are my in-game decisions."
Finding ways to make moment-to-moment decisions more reliably create theme over the course of play is the work of Narrativist game design.
On 3-4-05, Vincent wrote:
Hey friends, this is really important.
I know GNS. I know it approximately as well as any other living person does.
If you're, let's say, Ron Edwards, Mike Holmes, Ralph Mazza, Paul Czege, one of that crew - I'll debate with you what the definitions really are.
Otherwise, I'm going to ask you to take my word for it.
Narrativism, Simulationism, Gamism - they operate at a time scale you can generally measure in hours. They are not present in moment-to-moment decisions.
I'll explain why this is so to anyone who asks, as I have done, but I'm not going to seriously engage with anyone who argues that it must be otherwise.
Here's the answer again: If we collaboratively create theme, it's Narrativist Play. It takes lots of action to create theme; a character must engage with sufficient opposition to "prove the point." We don't know whether we've created theme until we've played for long enough to have done so.
On 3-4-05, ScottM wrote:
Luke wrote: "you can't 'consistently portray people but not take on any interesting human issues'. Portraying people (aka humans) means that people issues are going to creep in. Even if they are ugly, messy and dysfunctional."
Vincent responded: Sure you can. You just choose a person who's not at a turning point, who's not engaging with any interesting conflict, who can back out of taking on any issue - and then you make sure that nothing intrudes.
Just so you know it's not unusual, this is the way we typically play. It can be a lot-- very great bunches-- of fun. For standard assumptions (like party play) it's invaluable-- if people change too much, they're likely to want out of the group.
One of my favorite games was our Mage: The Ascension campaign. There was drama and grittiness each week; weak theme snuck in at the edges (what/who will you sacrifice to protect yourselves, should you stop progress for personal gain, what responsibilities does power convey), but usually GM introduced and not addressed much. A lot of theme suggested by the books was watered down, since it took away from plot time.
We loved it. It's still one of the most requested "lets pick that up again" games in our group. Partially because of the characters-- they were distinct, very pulp like in the end. I don't know-- a lot of stuff just sparked well. As much as I like the blue & green areas of the circle, it was clearly yellow and fun.
On 3-4-05, Brennan wrote:
Vincent: Here's the answer again: If we collaboratively create theme, it's Narrativist Play. It takes lots of action to create theme; a character must engage with sufficient opposition to "prove the point." We don't know whether we've created theme until we've played for long enough to have done so.
OK, this helps define Simulationism, then. Sim can occur when human issues are addressed, just not in a long-term and consistent way. This is probably the typical play mode for many groups, mine included.
On 3-4-05, Vincent wrote:
Brennan: "Sim can occur when human issues are addressed, just not in a long-term and consistent way."
Yes! Yay!
On 3-4-05, Ghoul wrote:
hmmm... Looks like my little rant on episodic TV was on-topic after all. But Brennan certainly summed things up better.
On 3-4-05, Vincent wrote:
Ghoul, since we can, in fact, create theme in a session, your episodic TV game might be ten individual instances of Narrativist play. Ten distinct times, we collaboratively create theme, with the same characters and from the same starting point each time.
On 3-4-05, Brennan wrote:
Brennan: "Sim can occur when human issues are addressed, just not in a long-term and consistent way."
Vincent: Yes! Yay!
Wow! I finally seem to get it.
On 3-4-05, Ghoul wrote:
True... But I think intent needs to be considered. As I said, there WILL be a theme. Perhaps a thin and unfocused one, perhaps one only visible in hindsight, but that's likely just as much because we like to fit a story to random events we remember after the fact as that we like to fit the story into a form as we create it. In other words, Theme Happens. IMO, the fact that this is true does not make everything with Theme Nar and more than everything where there are challenges and rewards must be Gam. To be Nar, theme must be an objective, not an accident, and certainly not a "hmmm, maybe it was all about..." retrofit. Perhaps that's where we're not on the same page.
On 3-4-05, Eric wrote:
Vincent - and yet this whole thread erupted because in your initial post, you posit some examples of play which would sit in each of the "yellow regions" on your diagram; you then argue as though those examples constituted the in toto of possible play in that region. And much of the disagreement isn't with your definitions, other than possibly with the "positive definition of Sim" which was the point of the originating post... it's with this assumption that your instances are the whole of play of those types.
For instance your repetition of the word "revere" with reference to the source material. (I personally suggest we all focus on the "empowered" circle exclusively, an instance of which Vincent refers to as "Made-up journalism." Non-empowered play can go rot in undiagnosed hell - and I say this as an occasionally-Participationist GM.) I take issue with the unstated assertion that "reverence" is the only way to enjoy - which is what GNS is about, why something is fun - empowered roleplaying without addressing Theme or Stepping Up.
A troupe-style game of Aria Roleplaying which built up a huge and beloved cycle of myth, explicitly for the sake of the beauty of that cycle and the world that grows around it, would overall be a good instance of positively-defined, functional, empowered Sim. Yes? Now imagine that, during a sequence of play (sufficient to address Theme), someone addresses a Theme. The players groove on the theme briefly, but chiefly appreciate the way it illuminates the Canon of Jubereth and Hertschine. The positively defined Sim per either my or Vincent's definitions, here, remains their focus. Remains what jazzes them.
To say that addressing Theme here made it Narrativist play, because by positive definition Theme = Nar, is to assert that the positive definition of Nar trumps any positive definiton of Sim. Which pretty much abnegates Sim... hence the spluttering. Back to my music analogy; no matter what we pick as the positive definiton of "Drum music," no matter how rockin' the thus-defined drum is belting out the tunes, you would have it be "Guitar music" as soon as the guitar kicked in. Are you surprised you hear disagreement?
How's about we strip off the fucking assumption that there's a Pauli Exclusion Principle for GNS adjectives. If theme crops up, it's Nar play. Cool. If (insert positive definition here) also exists, it's Sim play too. The two joys are mixed in some way to create the resulting fun. Anybody who puts a hidden "Just" on the front of calling this experience Sim or Nar play, is perpetuating the assumption.
With that in mind, I'm all for it. Without that, we're simply butting heads against the fact that our positive definitions are not exclusive, but we're trying to make diagrams like the ones up top - which presume exclusivity of the modes.
[Note that you're welcome to use exclusivity with regards to "a unit of play" if instead players are participating simultaneously in several "units" of different intensities, durations, and GNS types. If our play is part of a short Nar arc about corporal punishment, but at the same time part of our ongoing Gamist political oneupsmanship overarc... and you want to call that two different "instances of play" arising from one set of interactions, fine.]
On 3-4-05, Vincent wrote:
Ghoul: "But I think intent needs to be considered. As I said, there WILL be a theme. Perhaps a thin and unfocused one, perhaps one only visible in hindsight, but that's likely just as much because we like to fit a story to random events we remember after the fact as that we like to fit the story into a form as we create it."
Creating a story retroactively by mentally editing out the theme-breaking bits of a game a) happens and b) is incompatible with "we create theme collaboratively in play."
Intent - a conscious and agreed-upon desire to play Narrativist - makes Narrativist play more likely and more reliable, of course. But it is absolutely not a requirement.
"To be Nar, theme must be an objective, not an accident, and certainly not a "hmmm, maybe it was all about..." retrofit."
No. To be Nar, theme must be collaboratively created in play.
On 3-4-05, Chris wrote:
Aiyah- get up this morning and look at all I missed!
Brennan-
"I have to throw down a bit here, because although there are some really strong reasons why Gamist and Narrativist play are really rewarding, I don't think you can say that the vast majority of play is completely disfunctional. Sim seems to be the biggest area, and if it were that unrewarding, why would people have consistently done this for over 30 years? "
1) Sim comes in both functional and dysfunctional brands. Functionality based on "everyone is enjoying this kind of thing".
2) That said, Dysfunctional Brand Sim comes about through a) ignorance that there are possibly more ways to play and one or more of the group may want and be pushing for it OR b) One-wayism, + Techniques on the parts of the players to hyper focus on actor stance and ignor what's happening at the table, with Techniques on the part of the GM to manipulate the SIS instead of talking with the players to work out what's going on.
Why would anyone do this? Why do people stay in dysfunctional and abusive situations? Because they either don't know any better, or hope that its somehow going to get better. It's just like a dysfunctional family on vacation- everyone keeps telling themselves that they're having fun(because that's what you're supposed to do on vacations), but mommy's drunk, daddy drove off, and the two kids are crying...
Now- Functional Brand Sim could be Illusionism, Participationism, the "Let's explore!" sort of thing(empowered or not), whatever. Me? Can't see -much- entertainment value in it for me, but then I'm also looking at it the same way I look at people who build little model diaramas. They get a big kick out of making their own little world and putting the people in it. I try putting together a couple of things, and I get bored. But- if that's fun for them, then its functional.
Luke-
"First, you can't "consistently portray people but not take on any interesting human issues". Portraying people (aka humans) means that people issues are going to creep in. Even if they are ugly, messy and dysfunctional."
I wish that was the case. I've played campaigns where that doesn't happen. If its gamism, then we're talking about the characters as pawns or as "characters" in the video game sense of the term. If it's Sim- then I just call the characters "cameras" because that's all they are. They wander around and see shit- and the "conflicts" are mostly just to determine how long the camera stays focused on Scene X and whether certain NPCs are going to show up on stage or not.
Try playing games with folks you don't know, as the player. You'll run into it by the third try(if not the first). I'd say "stuff happens" play without focus is probably more prevalent than raw gamism or even Illusionism. But that's from my experiences.
All of this only promotes my personal belief that people pick up Gamism and thematic play(Nar and Sim) easy and naturally, since they follow things that people do normally- compete and storytelling, while raw unstructured Sim is something people need to "train into".
On 3-4-05, Vincent wrote:
Eric: "I take issue with the unstated assertion that "reverence" is the only way to enjoy - which is what GNS is about, why something is fun - empowered roleplaying without addressing Theme or Stepping Up.
...To say that addressing Theme here made it Narrativist play, because by positive definition Theme = Nar, is to assert that the positive definition of Nar trumps any positive definiton of Sim. Which pretty much abnegates Sim... hence the spluttering."
The positive definition of Nar trumps the positive definition of Sim only if, as you have done not me, you take "revere" out of the positive definition of Sim.
Revering setting/character and creating theme are incompatible, because "revering" is defined as "holding static in the face of human issues." If you hold your character or setting static in the face of a human issue, you can't engage with it and thereby create theme. If you engage with a human issue and thereby create theme, you can't simultaneously hold your character or setting static.
This is why Narrativism and empowered non-thematic play are incompatible.
On 3-4-05, Ghoul wrote:
Vincent: Creating a story retroactively by mentally editing out the theme-breaking bits of a game a) happens and b) is incompatible with "we create theme collaboratively in play."
Intent - a conscious and agreed-upon desire to play Narrativist - makes Narrativist play more likely and more reliable, of course. But it is absolutely not a requirement.
Please explain how these two are not contradictions. One says if it happens by accident when looked back on with rose-colored glasses, it isn't Nar, the other says intent isn't necessary, so accidental theme-creation becomes Nar. Either it does or it doesn't, and the reason can't be success of the thematic coherence even when that success is accidental, can it?
If these are both true, then it is impossible to not be either successful or failed Nar, no matter what you tried to be and do, because there will ALWAYS be at least a fragmented, somewhat-contradicted, poorly realized theme if you look. People do that automatically. There will even, completely by accident, be the occasional clear, consistent and artful thematic arc.
As Eric said, it would seem you're letting this fact trump Intent. To be an Agenda, doesn't there need to be Intent? By letting any hint of successful Nar make a game Nar, don't you let social accident overcome the actual agenda of the participants?
On 3-4-05, Vincent wrote:
Ghoul: If we create theme collaboratively in play, it's Narrativist play.
If we intentionally create theme collaboratively in play, it's intentional Narrativist play.
If we accidently but nevertheless create theme collaboratively in play, it's accidental but nevertheless Narrativist play.
If we create theme collaboratively in play but don't notice it, it's Narrativist play but we didn't notice it.
If we don't create theme collaboratively in play but then insert theme retroactively into play, it's not Narrativist play but we've inserted theme retroactively into it.
On 3-4-05, Matt Snyder wrote:
Ghoul, intent is not necessary for any CA. Intent is a major bugaboo in discussion CA. Indeed, this thread is full of major bugaboos that have been hashed over at the Forge for a long time, several times. This is not a condemnation on my part. It's me recognizing that these are valid questions that have been addressed many times. You are right to ask them. I am confident that the theory includes answers to these questions.
Theme can exist in ANY creative agenda. Any. It may surface "after the fact". But, only in Narrativism is it a product of play produced with people, whether they can write a paper about it or not (i.e. put it into words), who address premise.
Or, to put it another way, the people collaborate in the creation of theme as their primary fuel for play over time.
On 3-4-05, Ghoul wrote:
Vincent Revering setting/character and creating theme are incompatible, because "revering" is defined as "holding static in the face of human issues." If you hold your character or setting static in the face of a human issue, you can't engage with it and thereby create theme. If you engage with a human issue and thereby create theme, you can't simultaneously hold your character or setting static.
True, if you define revere that way. Which, to me, makes it obvious that the problem is in that definition, since it's conclusion (that reverent play cannot be thematic and thematic play cannot be reverent) is so obviously illogical.
It is impossible to really revere in this way except via reset (ala episodic TV), and even then you say if it shows change inside an episode, it might be Nar anway. During story, something of either the character or the setting will change. Otherwise you aren't telling a story, you're describing a situation that doesn't change.
I know you don't want to discuss definitions, but this one is the root of your conclusion and since I think it is wrong, I can't agree with your conclusion.
On 3-4-05, Ghoul wrote:
Matt, Vincent, you seem to be saying the opposite ting to me even while saying the same words.
Matt seems to say theme can exist in any agenda, you're NAR if it's the product of play (which, I'll note, does not include it also being GAM or SIM at the same time). This I'm quite comfortable with.
Vincent seems to be saying it's NAR if it has a theme we created in play (intentionally or no), and so it's NAR, not GAM or SIM. Thus, since humans create thematic structure even more prolifically than we create other humans, means almost everything is NAR if you look for it, and so the definitions of GAM and SIM (particularly SIM) narrow. This I am not comfortable with.
On 3-4-05, Thor Olavsrud wrote:
Okay, I'm really confused. I probably only have myself to blame.
Vincent: "Finding ways to make moment-to-moment decisions more reliably create theme over the course of play is the work of Narrativist game design."
If it's impossible to isolate discrete decisions made in moment-to-moment play and determine whether they support one of the three CAs (and I don't mean to dispute your assertion that it's not), how can I possibly design rules that help make moment-to-moment decisions reliably create theme over the course of play?
What am I missing?
On 3-4-05, Vincent wrote:
Thor! Yay! You're there with me.
That's a big topic; like I say, the work of Narrativist game design.
Passionate character, turning point, fit opposition, rising conflict across a moral line, crisis, resolution. That's how.
On 3-4-05, Vincent wrote:
Ghoul, take a break. I've bombarded you with answers. Let 'em settle.
On 3-4-05, Ghoul wrote:
BTW, I'll apologize now for the multiple posts and the "it's been hashed on the Forge before" issues... I'm bored, stuck at work, and the Forge is blocked by our silly "work uses only" filter while this site is not. All I have on-hand to define GNS is the appendix to Sorcerer, which happens to be in my bag at the moment. The SIM definition seems to have drifted (and narrowed) considerably from then... One of the two example games (Pendragon) now clearly wouldn't fit, since it's all about characters changing as a result of human issues (but individually, not necessarily as part of a grand theme to the game).
On 3-4-05, Chris wrote:
Hi Ghoul-
Matt and Vincent are using the word "Theme" a little differently.
Vincent is using "theme" as short for "Addressing theme(premise)". Thematic play on the chart indicates "addressing theme(premise) during play", player empowered means the group as a whole all can address theme (Narrativism), GM only means you get either Illusionism or Participationism. Jamming theme into play retroactively can be done with any non-thematic play, gamist or whatever, but doesn't change what it was.
Matt is using Theme in the "it reoccurs during play, therefore it is a theme" sense. So, if a game included a lot of decapitations, it would have a decapitation theme- which could happen in any of the CA's altogether.
And this is a prime example of why terminology with nailed down definitions -can- help discussion at times :)
On 3-4-05, Vincent wrote:
No need to apologize! I'm enjoying the conversation, and it's worth our time. Pendragon's a really interesting case, but let's discuss it when our groundwork is solid.
On 3-4-05, Chris wrote:
Thor:
"If it's impossible to isolate discrete decisions made in moment-to-moment play and determine whether they support one of the three CAs (and I don't mean to dispute your assertion that it's not), how can I possibly design rules that help make moment-to-moment decisions reliably create theme over the course of play?"
It's impossible to determine a CA moment to moment- but it is possible to say a particular decision or technique supported one or another in that moment. It is the collection/accretion of all those decisions that shows which of the CAs is most supported by a group in play.
The analogy I keep coming back to is to look at Vincent's chart as a dart board, and each of those moment to moment decisions that supports one CA or another as a dart being thrown. You'll probably end up with darts in many places, but one target or another will end up with the most. That's the CA that the group in play was supporting, and that was the Agenda being prioritized over the tohers.
So how do you design with that in mind? Mechanics are suggestions of techniques to the group to use in play. Techniques usually aim play towards one CA or another, although often they work in combination with each other in funky ways. The two biggest ones to pay attention to are Reward and Resolution mechanics.
On 3-4-05, Vincent wrote:
Chris: It's really not that each decision is a dot and how many dots fall in which domains.
It's that, in order to create theme, you have to get a particular thing out of a whole sequence of decisions.
Maybe one decision early on is the hinge, and from then on the decisions can all be just whatever - that one hinge decision makes it so that you'll create theme.
Maybe it's touch and go the whole time, where one poorly-made decision will scupper theme for good and all.
Maybe it's in between.
So the question really is, how do we make rules so that the individual decisions, in sequence, will give us that thing we want?
On 3-4-05, Ghoul wrote:
Thanks, Chris, that does explain a bit... Vincent's Theme is, thus, considerably harder to do by accident. And "Player Empowered" is considerably narrower as well if it's specifically "Players are empowered to address/advance Theme/Premise" not the broader (and all-agenda) "Players are empowered to participate beyond their character's specific abilities in whatever objective is being pursued."
Here's my premise... With the broader definition of Empowered (which still must have limits, as Vincent proposes re: the safe), I feel that the unlabeled bottom field of the 3-D mapping above is "setting/style loyalty" and SIM is the whole segment it creates not just the line between it and NAR. (I will say Loyalty so as to avoid the overly limiting "reverence".) Pure SIM is play where Theme is not the issue and Competition is not the issue, but the style/setting is the issue, which does not mean theme and competition don't happen, just that they aren't the main focus. Empowered SIM is SIM where the players can add situationally-appropriate details (and is fairly rare or offers only minimal empowerment, as SIM tends toward having an authority, usually the GM), other SIM.
But, then, perhaps that's my bias from all these RPGs where setting/style/genre was the main product they were selling. If "Setting/style loyalty" fits the definition of the a Theme/Premise (I don't think it should, but I'm willing to concede it might), then the "SIM is a line" representation is correct.
On 3-4-05, Matt Snyder wrote:
Matt is using Theme in the "it reoccurs during play, therefore it is a theme" sense. So, if a game included a lot of decapitations, it would have a decapitation theme- which could happen in any of the CA's altogether.
No, I don't think that what I am saying. I'm not talking about repeted memes or tropes during play. Decapitation? What the heck does it mean? Not much to do with what I'm talking about.
I'm saying what Vincent's saying. If it's unclear, it because of our words, not our meaning. I know Vincent's thoughts *just* well enough to know I agree with what he says about this topic. If I'm too clumsy to explain it, my fault.
When I say "theme" I'm saying theme is the answer to a profound, moral question that humans wrestle with to some degree. In Forge terms, in Narrativism we Address the Premise, which results in a theme over time as we answer the question (question = premise).
For example, in Dust Devils, the question is often "Can people be redeemed through violence?" So, we play. Almost every time in that game, we encounter that question. What we decide "to do" during play answers that question. Our answers are the theme we collaborative create during play, and it's the main motivator for play.
When we play, say, Deadlands, we aren't trying to examine that. We're trying to see what it's like to live in the Weird West. We might even be trying to kick the crap outta the zombie outlaws or whatever. And, hey!, whaddyaknow! After we played Deadlands, we realized we could see a theme keep popping up. It was "Violence is ok to enforce the law."
But, that doesn't mean the players collaborated to create that theme. It may mean we just found that in our "memories" as we basically reconstructed our gunfight into a "story" which we didn't try to do at the time of play.
Or, maybe the GM kept ramming it down our throats: "Shoot already! You're supposed to; you're a marshall now, remember? THere are 200 more zombie outlaws. Your character's gonna die!"
Or, maybe it 'just happened': "Cripes. Here we go again! Damn zombies. I want a new job. This marshall stuff sucks. Oh well! I shoot with my gatling pistol! Cool!"
Neither of these require collaboration of the kind Vincent's talking about. Theme emerges -- that "violence is ok to enforce the law" theme -- maybe after-the-fact or "accidentally." But, it had nothing to do with the players collaborating to push that answer at one another. The players aren't emphasizing that theme creation over time. They're getting their kicks on other things over and over again -- kicking ass, or maybe just "seeing how cool the weird west is."
On 3-4-05, Matt Snyder wrote:
Agreed on the dart thing, Vincent.
It's not simply that we get out a balance sheet and record 14 N decisions, 5 S decisions and 2 G decisions = Narrativism.
It's that those 14 decisions were connected in meaningful ways among the participants, and that they clearly were The Thing in this activity. That those decisions taken as a whole produce something that blows us away because it resonates with us as human beings. We share a moment of profound understanding because of the whole experience, and that's what motivated us to play this stuff in the first place. Great!
Take away one dart, and that meaning changes. Take away 2 .. heck, many now the whole thing is gone. So, each dart alone isn't enough. The darts can't tell us anything without the context of all the other darts.
GHOUL: Vincent's Theme, as you put it, is my theme as well, and it's absolutely harder to do by accident. As in, nearly impossible, I think.
On 3-4-05, Chris wrote:
Hi Vincent-
I think it starts with inclusive and exclusive assumptions. That is, any game that has rules for combat is making an inclusive assumption that combat will appear. Games that don't have rules for, say, seduction are basically excluding it as a focus of play. Take that further and also look at what is mentioned in the text, or shows up in the artwork.
Dogs inclusive assumptions include: Everyone plays as a person given authority and power(both socially and spiritually) to pass judgement and little to no limitations as to how to carry out that judgment. The GMs prep is all about making towns and conflicts that encourage folks to have to make hard judgments. Boom- Thematic explosion everywhere. Dogs exclusive assumptions: No rewards for combat, no mention of a town without a thematic conflict(aka no unstructured play), no mention of characters who aren't on the thematic tip(again, no inclusion of unstructured play), etc.
Now, technically I could run a game of DitV by drifting things so we have unstructured play, or just hunting demons, but damn, that's a lot of work on my part, and would require me to ignore most of the damn book. The premise of the game is supported in all forms of game prep, conflict resolution and rewards.
Basically- good design. Don't include things that distract from the thing that you want. Include things that do.
On 3-4-05, Vincent wrote:
I agree with Matt.
It may look like we're saying fundamentally different things about intentionality and accidental theme. We aren't; we're saying very slightly different things about them, based on a vast fundamental agreement, but pitched to highlight the differences between our personal experiences.
On 3-4-05, Vincent wrote:
That is, Matt's "Vincent's Theme, as you put it, is my theme as well, and it's absolutely harder to do by accident. As in, nearly impossible, I think."
Is the same as my "Intent - a conscious and agreed-upon desire to play Narrativist - makes Narrativist play more likely and more reliable, of course. But it is absolutely not a requirement."
I'm emphasizing its possibility, he's emphasizing its difficulty - but it should be clear that we both consider it possible and difficult.
On 3-4-05, Chris wrote:
Hi Matt,
We'll chalk it up to misunderstanding then.
And yes, I am aware that its not a cut and dried measuring of darts on the chart. I'm trying to convey the issue for folks who haven't even gotten the idea that just cause something Gamist appeared in what is a Nar game, that it justifies, "All 3 GNS show up all the time, therefore GNS is meaningless." type misunderstandings.
Instead of darts, I'd probably more align it to quantum probabilities or the sort of probability matrixes in neural net programming- but see, that only makes shit way more confusing instead of simpler for the purposes of general discussion :)
On 3-4-05, Matt Snyder wrote:
Chris, it's cool. I understand what you're saying, and why you're saying it. Maybe I should have held my fire, because my comments were for you and Vincent directly, and not for people working through the distinctions you and Vincent have made throughout this good thread. Don't want to muddy the waters! Carry on, all!
On 3-4-05, Eric wrote:
Fleagh. I think I'll just withdraw from this sucker; I'm happy that I understand what I'm talking about, and while I do not understand why Vincent chooses to draw links (that I see as unnecessary) and then defend exclusivity of modes on the basis of those links... it's his privilege to do so.
It's right down to the definitions level. Vincent uses "non-thematic" as a category, which to me looks like ignoring his positive definition of Sim. I don't buy the "non-thematic" as a defining characteristic of anything except, well, non-Nar play. Vincent, take a look back at your positive definition of Sim - with "or" explicitly between the bits you list. Ignore GNS; to assert your positive definition of Sim, you have to assert that if we "realize this ideal, enact this vision, celebrate this source material, fulfill these wishes!" then we are somehow by consequence not addressing premise. In one specific case (reverence as you've defined it) this works; but that case is not your definition, and I do not buy the logic that all of these exclude address of premise.
You're fabricating a taxonomy which posits exclusivity, using that to define Sim, and then looking for a "positive definition" which somehow inherently brings along an exclusive relationship to this other positive definition. As though "non-thematic" and "realize this ideal" had some intrinsic deep-level tie. I don't think it's defensible, dude; it's just bad logic. Which is why "reverence of source material" looks to me like a special case being stretched and twisted to cover something it can't.
But I think my own take on it's been sufficiently articulated here that anything more is just banging a drum. Apparently you see an a priori reason why the GNS modes should be exclusive of one another. 'Kay. I don't.
On 3-4-05, Vincent wrote:
Eric: "Ignore GNS; to assert your positive definition of Sim, you have to assert that if we "realize this ideal, enact this vision, celebrate this source material, fulfill these wishes!" then we are somehow by consequence not addressing premise."
Yeah, that's precisely what I'm asserting.
Can we agree that play can't be in the any of the yellow regions on my dart board and simultaneously in the green region? That is, it can't simultaneously be non-thematic and thematic, nor non-player-empowered and player-empowered?
If so, then there are exclusive modes of play at that level. Right?
Now, I go on to say this: to realize someone's ideal, we have to defer to their vision, giving up empowerment. To celebrate source material, we have to hold it static in the face of Premise, giving up theme.
Taken together, those two describe the play in the yellow region.
Don't they?
On 3-4-05, Eric wrote:
They describe examples of play in the yellow region. Do they necessarily span it? I don't think so.
But nevermind that, I'm taking issue with the whole chart. Your above logic assumes that "Yellow=Sim" is a meaningful label, which it is only if you use a negative (not-Thematic nor Competitive) definition of Sim. If you use a positive definition of Sim - or for that matter Gam - then the structure of the chart is simply meaningless. Is there any a priori reason why Thematic Play and Competitive Play don't overlap at all? I don't see one in logic, and I don't see one in my gaming.
My version of the chart would have to include three circles in a Venn diagram arrangement; Thematic play in one circle (everything outside is not), Competitive in another overlapping circle (everything outside is not), and Celebratory or some such in the third. Because I don't grant you that there's any reason to deny the existence of play that is simultaneously Thematic and Celebratory - your examples do not make a rule. At most, you could contend that play has to be more one or the other; but that's like saying that no matter how close, either the drum or the guitar is louder - null statement, not relevant.
If you want to eliminate regions of that more complicated chart - such as the Thematic-and-Competitive region that's on mine but not yours - then by me you have to show why it is not possible for an instance of play to satisfy both positive definitions simultaneously. And I've seen lots of examples, but not only can examples not suffice for this task... I can also personally think of counterexamples.
Players tend to enjoy one mode more than another, and tend to have more fun when sharing the same mode (coherence); this makes GNS useful, makes it worth designing coherent games, but in no wise needs exclusivity to exist. You can play a song for guitar fans, and indeed to please the guitar-appreciation streak in anyone... but you do not (and should not) claim that it's "exclusively a guitar song." It's meaningless and not useful, leading to discussions just like this one. "The guitar sure was rockin' in that set" is the nonexclusive equivalent... and far more useful. You're trying to say that there're "guitar songs" and "drum songs" and there are reasons X and Z why good guitar and good drum are exclusive of one another. I say bullshit; at most, the overlap makes it harder (because we have finite audio bandwidth), which is all your examples say to me.
On 3-4-05, Emily Care wrote:
I think a priori is the right term. GNS is predicated on mutual exclusivity of the modes. One of the prereqs for naming a "fourth mode" is finding one that is mutually exclusive with the existing three. I find it frustrating.
However, illustrating the theory as it stands, if we look at it in band terms, the different instruments are not what define the CA but what is played on them. CA conflict occurs when someone is playing brahms on the piano and someone else is playing hendrix on the electric guitar. By modern music standards, this might actually end up being edgy and interesting, but in usual terms it would be seen as incoherence.
On 3-4-05, Neel wrote:
Some questions, based on your comments:
Can we agree that play can't be in the any of the yellow regions on my dart board and simultaneously in the green region? That is, it can't simultaneously be non-thematic and thematic, nor non-player-empowered and player-empowered?
If so, then there are exclusive modes of play at that level. Right?
Okay, this is the law of the excluded middle. I'll buy that, so I'm with you so far.
Now, I go on to say this: to realize someone's ideal, we have to defer to their vision, giving up empowerment. To celebrate source material, we have to hold it static in the face of Premise, giving up theme.
Here's where you lose me. I literally go "whah? hunh?" here. Why is reverence necessary for Sim? Every single time I've gone off and run a game as a small-s simulation, I haven't considered fidelity to any kind of source material as even remotely important. The fun I'm chasing is like the roleplaying equivalent of what you get when conlanging, playing with legos, programming, or worldbuilding. It's us, making OUR OWN stuff that's what's important. Y'see?
On 3-4-05, anon. wrote:
If I may offer an alternate diagram...
The intent here is one circle each for Thematic, Competitive, and (for want of a better term) Stylistic. Each is split into the middle segment ("with player empowerment") and the outer ("without"). I didn't bother labeling the circles; each can be any. This shows just how complicated the middle could be if we assume we could be Empowered in just one, any two, or all three.
But, IMO, the important thing here is the fact that there are overlaps, not the tiny intersections of the XYZ chart. This was what completely threw me for a loop earlier. SIM and NAR don't barely touch one another (or, they do in theory, but NOT in practice -- it's an old joke now to say that in theory there is no difference between theory and practice and in practice there's no relationship between theory and practice). I think I now understand what Vincent is trying to do. He's trying to define the area in the SIM circle that isn't in either other circle WITHOUT saying "it's play that lacks conflict and theme".
Which means the idea that what I've call "genre-loyal play" is down there is true, but it's misleading. Most genre loyal play is informed with NAR or GAM or both. What is in the pure-SIM area is much more unique. It's things like the improv games shown on "Whose Line"... Characters lack names or perhaps there aren't even characters, there's just a rule for how you must talk/act. Down here, what matters is STRUCTURE. Genre is a structure. So is Setting. So are character Archtypes. Heck, so are the rules of poetic form, the "must sing all dialog" rules of pure Opera, the traditions of No, etc., etc.
So, I'm back to the SimCity model. That game provides a structure, a set of items with behaviors you can create, assemble, and observe. If you like, you can create NAR or GAM objectives to color this, but at hear it's pure SIM. And that's what a pure-SIM game is. It's a big-ass box of LEGO that you dump out and play with, linking and creating and destroying. You don't try to build a house or a car or something, that'd be drifting toward NAR. You don't try to out-build someone else, that GAM. You just build for the joy of building.
A pure SIM RPG? Well, I think the episodic TV model holds. Rocky and Bullwinkle are always themselves, every new story, and those stories always circle back to where they started. Ranma and Akane will tease the audience and each other that this time it'll finally work out, but in the end it's always right back to square one. Paranoia Clones (in ZAP style and pretty much in Classic, too) are pretty much "crunch all you want, we'll make more", differentiated barely at all. In pure SIM, we want that fixed archetype or faceless replacability, because we don't want NAR to intrude more than just a little. We want our pieces to bounce off each other for a while, as we observe their interactions, then we put them away (or, in the faceless case, throw them away), to be pulled out (or recreated) for the next time. We don't want a big carefully-planned mystery with hurdles and problems to solve (too GAM), just a situation we can explore and interact with.
Yeah... I've run and played a LOT of TFoS that fits fairly well into that niche. It's not the main style of gaming I do (though it was for one summer when I ran TFoS almost every weekend and a friend ran Paranoia when I wanted a break. It was fun. It wasn't the same style of gaming we'd learned with D&D, T&T, and V&V (this was maybe 1985, so there weren't THAT many games around), the pursuit of character-building was replaced with the goal of just having fun now, even if that meant making a new character for the next session.
And have I "grown out" of that now that I have more sophisticated games to play? Not a chance. Heck, I'm scheduled to run a TFoS/Amber cross-over at AmberCon in just hours under four weeks. If it's anything like the last time I ran this idea, it'll be a blast.
So there's the "pure SIM" world, IMO. Games with neither over-arching competition or theme, just the interaction of roles in a setting. Yes, it develops mini-stories and mini-competitions here and there, but it's never about those things. It's about being your role in a given setting with presented other roles to interact with. All the rest is happenstance.
Yes, I understand what you were going for with the "reverence" issue earlier... I still disagree. The issue isn't that you can't change the setting for human reasons because the setting is sacred, it's that you don't need or want to, because doing so violates the nature of the structure. The players don't change the rules during the game (though perhaps they do BETWEEN games). In-game, they deal with the structure as presented.
On 3-4-05, Ghoul wrote:
hmmm... that came out smaller than I wanted.
Try just clicking on this and it may come in larger and clearer.
On 3-4-05, Chris wrote:
Hi Neel,
It's us, making OUR OWN stuff that's what's important. Y'see?
Reverence to your own stuff also counts in Sim. Reverence to "reality", to canon, to the GM's notebook of world notes, to the stuff in his or her head, to the random stuff we create when we have non-structured Universalis play minus thematically charged conflicts, etc, etc, etc.
On 3-4-05, Ben Lehman wrote:
I'm not going to reconstruct the history of this, nor work especially hard to defend it, here on my blog. If you want either of those, I'll see you at the Forge.
Guys?
I think we've reached the point where you are not saying "I want to learn about this model" but rather, "I am interested in tearing this down." Perhaps this journal isn't the best place for it?
yrs--
--Ben
On 3-4-05, Vincent wrote:
Four things and then let's call it a night. We can come back to this when we need to.
Thing One. Everybody who thinks that thematic play, competitive play, and reverent play can coexist: please take a few days, first to decide if you actually care that much and whether we need to keep discussing it, and then second to read up on the process of creating a theme. When we pick it up again, you should be prepared to talk about the process of creating a theme, the process of assessing another's guts, and the process of realizing someone's vision. I'm absolutely willing to consider that those processes needn't interfere with one another - that is, that there's overlap between Nar, Gam and Sim play. But if you want to make that case, you should know what the processes are, and you should have some ideas about how a group could work around their apparent contradictions.
I've written some about the process of creating a theme here, and it's a thing I love to talk about, so if anyone wants a refresher just say so.
Thing Two. Everybody who thinks that GNS Simulationism isn't the yellow region of my dart board, I don't know what to tell you. Maybe try reading Ron's The Right to Dream essay with my explanation in mind, see if the two click together.
Thing Three. Everybody who thinks that Simulationism shouldn't mean the yellow region of my dart board - believe it or not, I agree with you. I wish we could talk about Simulationist approaches to collaborative thematic play, about collaborative thematic play based on solid Sim techniques. I wish that Sim meant what you think it means. Maybe in the next world.
Trying to change this world - I need to design games instead. If you come up with a workable plan though, seriously, tell me what and I'll help how I can.
Thing Four. Everybody who's still here and who cares should read my friend Ed's reflection on this thread, here at Esoteric Murmurs. It's very good. Wipe your shoes first.
Thanks, everybody!
(Neel, I feel like I maybe owe you a post about reverence, authorship and group creation. Let me know if you feel like I do too.)
On 3-5-05, Neel wrote:
Hey Vincent, you don't -owe- me anything, but I'd be totally interested in anything you have to say.
Clinton, Chris -- is it okay if I start a thread at 20x20 or someplace to carry on our conversation? I'd like to talk publically, if you don't mind, but Vincent has indicated he's tired of it here, so we should continue elsewhere.
On 3-6-05, Chris wrote:
Neel- I'm down for it :)
On 3-7-05, Ben Lehman wrote:
For what it's worth, here's what *I* got out of this thread:
http://www.livejournal.com/users/benlehman/63124.html
On 3-7-05, Vincent wrote:
That 99 sitting there was just too tempting, huh?
Everybody, Ben wins the 100th comment prize. I knew somebody was gonna.
Here's Ben's link, linkinated.
On 3-7-05, Ben Lehman wrote:
Yeah, I suck. ;-)
yrs--
--Ben
On 3-7-05, anon. wrote:
Link's broken, though. Try this one.
(Man am I going to feel stupid if I break this one as well :)
- Christian
On 3-7-05, Chris wrote:
Hi Vincent,
I'd like to think I have some passing GNS understanding, but if I fit into being one of those entrenched bugaboos you mentioned, please email and help me understand if I'm tripping somewhere along the line :)
yeloson at earthlink dot net