The Death of Simulation

[Raven Crowking]

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

I admit it; you are wiser than I am.

RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

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.

Exactly so. Moreover, if the thematic question is "Does the end justify the means?" then dealing with the consequences is part of answering that question. The "dodge" of avoiding the Dark Side Point also dodges part of the theme. One could easily argue that the ability to avoid the consequences is actually damaging to your ability to explore the theme.


RC

 

[LostSoul]

Let me start off by saying that I'm not sure I "get" what you're trying to say. I'll try to answer as best I can!

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."

Interesting point. I think (let me bold it... there) that the bolded bit is the important difference between sim and nar. We've agreed to standards before sitting down to play. In this example, those standards are what we see in the original 3 Star Wars movies.

I do agree there is a thematic statement there, too; maybe my example was as bad as I thought! I guess another point of difference is whether or not making that choice is the point of play, or something that comes up now and again.

Hmm... I think it would be better if I could use an example of my own actual play, but I'm drawing a blank at the moment.

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.

I think that what one relies on in nar play is each player's own idea of what "bad means" are.

 

[LostSoul]

Exactly so. Moreover, if the thematic question is "Does the end justify the means?" then dealing with the consequences is part of answering that question. The "dodge" of avoiding the Dark Side Point also dodges part of the theme. One could easily argue that the ability to avoid the consequences is actually damaging to your ability to explore the theme.

I didn't mean to say that, in avoiding the DSP, the player was avoiding the consequences; I was trying to say that the player didn't think he deserved a DSP at all for what he did, because he did the right thing. Maybe I should have tried harder.

 

[Celebrim]

Interesting point. I think (let me bold it... there) that the bolded bit is the important difference between sim and nar. We've agreed to standards before sitting down to play. In this example, those standards are what we see in the original 3 Star Wars movies.

Whereas, I think that systematic standards are a mark of simulationist play because they relate to the goal of simulationist play, but don't agree that conversely a lack of standards is a mark of narrativist play. You can have narrativist play with or without systematic standards. The presence or absence of standards doesn't bear directly on the goals of narrativist play. I can create a peice of fiction with or without 'world building'. The lack of 'world building' may prove I'm not a simulationist, but it doesn't in and of itself prove that I'm a narrativist.

Again, it is my opinion that what you really need to be looking at is the motivation involved. Any sort of play can look up close like being any sort of other play if we divorse it from the context.

In RC's example, the difference between the two theme building events is that in Narrativist play, the exploration of the theme was expressedly the goal of the play. The group got together to explore that theme, and the goal of the play was for each character to examine there own thoughts and feelings about that theme and to partake of the shared story about that theme. In theory, all the participants are conscious of what the theme is. Whereas, in the simulationist example, the referee probably didn't create the conflict with the expressed goal of exploring the dramatic theme 'Do the ends justify the means?', but rather that theme evolved based on the conflicts chosen as realistic for the setting and the actions of the players - which probably were not directed toward creating that theme, but either exploring the game universe or 'winning' whatever conflict they were presented with. None of the participants, including the referee, may be conscious of the theme at all in the simulationist case because exploring thier own feelings or creating a story may not be part of thier goals for play.

On the other hand, IME, in really well realized simulationist play, eventually you get so absorbed into the universe and the events taking part in it that dramatic exploration becomes highly attractive regardless of what your initial intentions may have been.

 

[LostSoul]

Hey Celebrim;

I agree with pretty much everything you've said.

I didn't get the same impression from the example RC posted; I thought he was saying that, as far as creating theme goes, there is no difference between sim and nar play. I think that in both types of play, you can create theme, but in narrativist play it's the point. I think that's what you're saying, too.

I am reading you correctly? How about you, RC - did I not get your example?

 

[pemerton]

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.

As with Skeptic I also like these things in a game - indeed, they are part of my theory of how RM can facilitate narrativist play to a greater extent than RQ (a superficially similar purist-for-system game engine).

I would add to your specs for purist-for-system at least the following: the total character sheet is a product of the system and of play using the system, rather than a metagamed springboard for play.

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've reread Ron Edwards articles many times since I first discovered them a couple of years ago. It's only over time that they've really started to make sense to me, as I reflect on my own gaming experiences and also see how some of the ideas play out in message board threads (like this one, and also on the ICE boards - posting any remotely narrativist or gamist ideas there very quickly reveals how hardcore simulationists think!).

 

[Raven Crowking]

I didn't mean to say that, in avoiding the DSP, the player was avoiding the consequences; I was trying to say that the player didn't think he deserved a DSP at all for what he did, because he did the right thing. Maybe I should have tried harder.

Getting a DSP, though, doesn't mean that the character did the wrong thing.

RC

 

[pemerton]

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.

<snip>

In general, a simulationist game attempts to make things fit the simulated "world". So. if the world included <snip example>.

In general, a narrativist game attempts to make things fit the unfolding "narrative". So, if the narrative included <snip identical example>.

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.

In the two examples, "world" and "narrative" are co-denoting (and acting as synonyms for all intents and purposes, as far as I can see): they both refer to the gameworld elements that constitute the medium of exploration in the game.

Either could be an example of sim play (if the world/narrative is predetermined by the rules, or a module, or the GMs decision, and the players go along for the ride) or an example of narrativist play (if the game elements are able to be used by the players to make thematically pertinent statements).

The presence or absence of rules for sharing narrative control really only goes to the question of whether or not we have pure vanilla narrativism or mechanically facilitated narrativism.

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.

<snip>

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.

<snip>

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.

There is some truth in this, but it also highlights a potential obstacle that some mechanics pose to narrativist play.

I didn't mean to say that, in avoiding the DSP, the player was avoiding the consequences; I was trying to say that the player didn't think he deserved a DSP at all for what he did, because he did the right thing.

Agreed. If, before play, we have already agree what counts as bad, then it is hard to see how we can meaningfully explore that in the game - at least, our initial consensus would have to be regarded as preliminary, and up for grabs as play unfolds.

So in the example of the Dark Side Point, either the Dark Side Point has to be optional (as Lost Soul suggested) or else it would have to be up for grabs that drawing on the Dark Side was not necessarily wicked (ie we are no longer playing canonical Star Wars).

If the wickedness of the Dark Side is not up for grabs, that in seems to me that narrowly moral themes (like the proper relationship between ends and means) are to a significant extent excluded. (This goes back to my exchange with Psion wrt alignment in D&D - if the mechanics already answer the moral question, it is hard to explore the moral questions in play.)

What might be explored instead would be something like the inevitability of corruption in human affairs, and in performing an action that earns a Dark Side Point the player would be adopting author stance with respect to his or her PC (and so not herself accepting that the PC's action is right), and making the statement that corruption is inevitable (or something along those lines), which is a thematic statement but not a moral one in the narrow sense of trying to address a question of right or wrong.

You can have narrativist play with or without systematic standards. The presence or absence of standards doesn't bear directly on the goals of narrativist play

Assuming here that "standards" means "moral standards" then what you say is true, provided that the narrativist play is not intending to explore questions of right or wrong, but some other sort of theme (such as the inevitably of human corruption that I used as an example above).

 

[Raven Crowking]

I didn't get the same impression from the example RC posted; I thought he was saying that, as far as creating theme goes, there is no difference between sim and nar play. I think that in both types of play, you can create theme, but in narrativist play it's the point. I think that's what you're saying, too.

I am reading you correctly? How about you, RC - did I not get your example?

The theme isn't necessarily the point in narrativist play, nor is it necessarily not the point in simulationist play. I don't believe that theme is exclusive, or even necessarily more strongly developed, in either narrativist or simulationist play.

If some folks get together and say, "Let's explore the theme of whether the end justifies the means" both styles of play can be used, equally effectively, for this exploration.

RC