The Death of Simulation

[LostSoul]

This is in no way accurate, IME.

Both forms of play, so far as I know, require you to answer a thematic question in your own way, based upon the underlying shared assumptions about the game.

RC

I am a little confused, too.

Do you have an example?

 

[marune]

Well I am no expert either, but yes as far as I can tell you concerns are simulationist, in particular purist for system, in so far as I can tell you want the RAW to be the source of everything in the game world and a creature's stat block or a players character sheet is the full definition of the creatrue or character.

I want the same and my primary creative agenda is definitly nar.

Many nar indie-games are also built according to that idea, Soap for instance.

I never understood "Purist for system" that way, so I'll have to examine it again.

From The Forge :

Purist for System : A category of design which emphasizes applying a set of simulated physical and other in-game causes to a wide variety of possible settings, characters, and situations.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I am a little confused, too.

Do you have an example?

Sure. Toss me a thematic question.

RC

 

[marune]

Sure. Toss me a thematic question.

A classic : Does the end justify the means ?

 

[Raven Crowking]

OK, then. "Does the end justify the means?" is almost always going to be examined by looking at some unsavory means toward a desired end, right? Coping with the consequences is another important part of this theme.

Both simulationist and narrative play are going to require (1) a desired end, and (2) some unsavory means. Both a simulationist game and a narrative game, presumably, allow you to determine what end you desire, and, within the shared context of the game, what means are available.

In general, a simulationist game attempts to make things fit the simulated "world". So, if the world included an invasion from another region, you can attempt to broker an alliance with your former enemies to stave off that invasion (Deep Space Nine). Or you could decide that kidnapping the mayor's kid is an acceptable means to gaining the magic item he keeps in his vault. Either way, you are using the tools available to you to explore/answer a thematic question in your own way, based upon the underlying shared assumptions about the game.

In general, a narrativist game attempts to make things fit the unfolding "narrative". So, if the narrative included an invasion from another region, you can attempt to broker an alliance with your former enemies to stave off that invasion (Deep Space Nine). Or you could decide that kidnapping the mayor's kid is an acceptable means to gaining the magic item he keeps in his vault. Either way, you are using the tools available to you to explore/answer a thematic question in your own way, based upon the underlying shared assumptions about the game.

The rules may determine how much control over the shared world you have, and how you are able to exercise that control, but they don't change the general means available to explore a theme.

IMHO, of course.

RC

 

[LostSoul]

I see things differently. No surprise there!

Let's say we're playing with a sim agenda in Star Wars d6. You decide to torture an Imperial agent for information on the Death Star. Bam! Dark Side Point. That is what we want to see, because that's the "Star Wars" answer to the question. If you do evil acts no matter what your goal, it's wrong and you fall to the Dark Side.

Same thing, nar this time. We want to answer the question for ourselves, so we drift the mechanics slightly: the only time you get a Dark Side Point is when the player asks for one. In this case, you decide not to call on the Dark Side, and get no DSP. Did you do the wrong thing? Only the other people can say, not the game system. We each decide for ourselves if you did the right thing or not.

That might not be the best example, because in the drifted SW d6 system, the question posed is "What is worth giving up your soul for?" Though we do answer "Does the end justify the means".

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I want the same and my primary creative agenda is definitly nar.

Many nar indie-games are also built according to that idea, Soap for instance.

I never understood "Purist for system" that way, so I'll have to examine it again.

From The Forge :

Purist for System : A category of design which emphasizes applying a set of simulated physical and other in-game causes to a wide variety of possible settings, characters, and situations.

This is interesting and goes to the nub of the problem I have with GNS. I read a lot of the background articles a few years ago, but never got much out of it. I felt that the terms were not used consistiently. At first blush I would take the above to refer to a kind of simulation, though now that you mention it, I can see how other interpretations can be made.

Like I said before, I am no expert but I think a lot labels attached to mechanics and systems depend too much on where you are standing looking at them from. I think GNS is an interesting first order simplification but something more granular is needed.

 

[Celebrim]

I see things differently. No surprise there!

Let's say we're playing with a sim agenda in Star Wars d6. You decide to torture an Imperial agent for information on the Death Star. Bam! Dark Side Point. That is what we want to see, because that's the "Star Wars" answer to the question. If you do evil acts no matter what your goal, it's wrong and you fall to the Dark Side.

Same thing, nar this time. We want to answer the question for ourselves, so we drift the mechanics slightly: the only time you get a Dark Side Point is when the player asks for one. In this case, you decide not to call on the Dark Side, and get no DSP. Did you do the wrong thing? Only the other people can say, not the game system. We each decide for ourselves if you did the right thing or not.

Except this is just a dodge. It's an exploration of what sort of game mechanics might be best used to implement a particular style of play, but it doesn't address in any fashion whether or not a style of play can or cannot explore a theme.

The example that you describe actual can be twisted around to show that. In the 'simulationist' play you can think of the act of performing the evil act as asking the referee to give you a Dark Side point. It is just that we have consented before hand to the conditions which equate to asking for a Dark Side point based on some agreed upon standards. In doing the thing that earns the darkside point, the player is implicitly saying, "My character believes that at this moment the ends justify the means. It's worth it to do evil, in order to obtain the goal."

It isn't necessary to lack a consensual definition of 'bad means' in order to explore the thematic question, 'Do the ends justify the means?'. In fact, one could argue that without some working definition of what consituted 'bad means', you are going to have a really hard time exploring that theme in any depth.

 

[Raduin711]

Edit: On second thought, I don't want to get involved in this argument.

 

[marune]

This is interesting and goes to the nub of the problem I have with GNS. I read a lot of the background articles a few years ago, but never got much out of it. I felt that the terms were not used consistiently. At first blush I would take the above to refer to a kind of simulation, though now that you mention it, I can see how other interpretations can be made.

I would add that in a gamist game, I also want that the same, except for "high-level" tactics.

For example, I hate doing puzzle in D&D, but I love to come up with a strategy for using my spells in the better way to beat the bad guy.

Other example, I would like to the one that "solved the mystery" in D&D IF the basic actions I can use to get clues are defined in the rules (social skills, spells, etc.)

Edit : To LostSoul, I'm waiting for your answer to Celebrim before I jump into the "end justify the means" example.