Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 8636494" data-attributes="member: 42582">In this thread I keep reading stuff being attributed to Edwards which is not true, and which can be seen to be not true by reading the quotes that have been presented (mostly by me) in this very thread!So, <a href="http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/2/" target="_blank">here</a> is Edwards on the components of any RPG:When a person engages in role-playing, or prepares to do so, he or she relies on imagining and utilizing the following: Character, System, Setting, Situation, and Color. <ul style="margin-left: 20px"> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Character: a fictional person or entity.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">System: a means by which in-game events are determined to occur.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Setting: where the character is, in the broadest sense (including history as well as location).</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Situation: a problem or circumstance faced by the character.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Color: any details or illustrations or nuances that provide atmosphere.</li> </ul> At the most basic level, these are what the role-playing experience is "about," but to be more precise, these are the things which must be imagined by the real people.The one point where I think this is wrong is in the characterisation of system as something imagined. Baker, in his clouds-and-cubes work, explains system in much more detail, as an interplay between imagined things (the characters, setting, situation and events) and real-world cues (maps, dice, charts, etc).Anyway, <a href="http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/3/" target="_blank">here</a> is Edwards explaining simulationism:Simulationism is expressed by enhancing one or more of the listed elements . . . in other words, Simulationism heightens and focuses Exploration as the priority of play.In a <a href="http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/15/" target="_blank">subsequent essay</a>, he explains thatObviously the thing to do is to get as clear an understanding of "Exploration" as possible. It's our jargon term for imagining, "dreaming" if you will, about made-up characters in made-up situations. It's central to all role-playing, but in Simulationist play, it's the top priority. . . . unlike Narrativist and Gamist priorities which are defined by an interpersonal out-of-game agenda, Simulationist play prioritizes the in-game functions and imagined events.In the same essay, he goes on to say thatThe five elements of role-playing . . . are obviously where we start. Modelling them is the ideal. My first point about that is that the model need not be static; dynamic characters and settings, for instance, are perfectly valid Simulationist elements. My second point is that different types of Simulationist play can address very different things, ranging from a focus on characters' most deep-psychology processes, to a focus on the kinetic impact and physiological effects of weapons, to a focus on economic trends and politics, and more. I'll go into this lots more later. The second point is that the mechanics-emphasis of the modelling system are also highly variable: it can handled strictly verbally (Drama), through the agency of charts and arrows, or through the agency of dice/Fortune mechanics. Any combination of these or anything like them are fine; what matters is that within the system, causality is clear, handled without metagame intrusion and without confusion on anyone's part. That's why it's often referred to as "the engine," and unlike other modes of play, the engine, upon being activated and further employed by players and GM, is expected to be the authoritative motive force for the game to "go."Hence, as he goes on to say, in simulationist play internal cause is king.So pointing out that [USER=82106]@AbdulAlhazred[/USER]'s HoML involves exploration - ie imagining stuff - doesn't show that it is oriented towards simulationist play. As AbdulAlhazred has himself posted, that just tells us that it meets the minimum requirement for being a RPG.The question is, is the game as designed and played intended to heighten exploration as the key focus of play? Or is the exploration a means for the injection of some further agenda? I think AbdulAlhazred has made it fairly clear that the latter is true, and this is one reason for using an advantage/disadvantage mechanic with a few obvious and evocative triggers (like flanking) - the system is intended not to reinforce a focus on itself for its own sake, but rather to be readily available for doing something else ie finding out how dishonourable the paladin is really prepared to be, in the pursuit of victory.I don't know what the verb "advance" means here.AbdulAlhazred is designing a game to support "story now" play similar to how 4e D&D does. His game uses a mechanic which (i) doesn't reinforce exploration of the system for its own sake, because it is simple and confined and doesn't interact much with other system elements in intricate ways, and (ii) makes some of the story now play he is interested possible.He has not stated high concept sim as an agenda, and there is nothing about his game that particularly suggests it is well-suited for high concept sim. For instance, there doesn't seem to be anything that dictates an answer to the paladin's question to flank or not to flank, whereas one would expect a game oriented towards high concept sim to provide such an answer ("internal cause is king").They're "incoherent" in that they are different priorities for play. Purist-for-system sim is about heightening the exploration of system. High concept sim is about heightening the exploration of character, setting and/or situation. It's not arbitrary that you can't just add "system" to the high concept list of elements whose exploration is heightened: the relationship between character, setting, situation and system is not a symmetrical one. (See my post not far upthread replying to you and [USER=6696971]@Manbearcat[/USER].)<a href="http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/15/" target="_blank">Here</a> is Edwards on games that support high concept sim:At first glance, these games might look like additions to or specifications of the Purist for System design, mainly through plugging in a fixed Setting. However, I think that impression isn't accurate, and that the five elements are very differently related. The formula starts with one of Character, Situation, or Setting, with lots of Color, then the other two (Character, Situation, or Setting, whichever weren't in first place), with System being last in priority. . . . The process of prep-play-enjoy works by putting "what you want" in, then having "what you want" come out, with the hope that the System's application doesn't change anything along the way.It's not a coincidence that a lot of high concept sim play involves GM override of the system as presented in the game text (eg fudging, a lot of manipulation of backstory in defiance of instructions to prep and stick to prep, etc). This is because system is last in priority - so departing from it does not contradict the purpose of play - and also because designing a system that will reliably have "what you want" come out is not trivial. GUMSHOE and Fate seem to be some of the best contemporary exemplars, but those techniques hadn't been invented when Dragonlance, Dead Gods, V:tM etc were in their heyday.</blockquote>

Verification