The Death of Simulation

[Bastoche]

But doesn't high-concept simulationism have at least implicit metagame when the players agree to subordinate their mechanical decision-making to genre imperatives? Or does that only happen in a poorly-designed ruleset - a perfect high-concept ruleset wouldn't permit genre violation (like Pendragon, perhaps)?

I believe you cannot entirely eliminate metagaming in any form of play. Just having the players calling each other, decide on a meeting place and a time frame for the game to happen is metagaming in itself. Just like ordering pizza or whatever lol. However I think that simulationism have as a design goal the minimization of metagaming.

For example, in a computer game, you may only select character options from the menus. You couldn't, for example, play an elephant in NWN. I believe that in sim play, the players expect the other players to "just get it" although it is safer to talk about it first to make sure which is a form of metagaming IMO that is unavoidable in coherent play.

For example, in sim play, you'll see players "hiding" their character sheets from other players as "in-game" they wouldn't have any way to get such information. The numbers on the paper serves as an abstraction of the imagined universe. In gamist play, it's a measure of character power. In nar play, it's a medium to tell the other players "I want this game to be EXACTLY about *that*". And at this point, it must be part of the rule that each players know what the other players want to extract from the game.

I'll try to rephrase it another way:

In all types of gaming, the players must agree on their definition of "fun" and we assume a given group of players are after the same source of "fun". What happens at the metagaming level is having the players agree on their source of fun. For gamists, the source of fun is "gambling". For sim players, the source of fun is the "exploration of character/system/game world". For nar players, it's a specific "theme" or "premise".

Now, the "gambling" in gamist play may sit at the "in-game level":

Steve playing bob the fighter: Gursk, let's get to the sea of spikes dungeons. I heard there's a dragon laying there with a legendary treasure
John playing Gursk the barbarian: Sure Bob! I'm sure we can survive this dungeon!

Or at the metagame level:

Steve: Hey John, think our 13th level warriors can tackle the red dragon?
John: Dunno but I'd like to see it's treasure. Let's find out if we can down that beast!

The exploration in sim play can sit at the in-game level too:

Steve playing Bob the fighter: Gursk, I gotta get revenge from the dragon that hails in the sea of spikes dungeons. It killed my mommy when I was 6. Will you help me?
John playing Gursk: My Lord Bob, I'm bound to you by honor and will follow you anywhere.

Or at the metagame level:

Steve: My character needs to get revenge on the red dragon. It has acquire the dragon slaying blade and is now ready to tackle the dragon.
John: Since my barb failed his slave roll, I'm enslaved to your character and my guy will follow your guy until the end of the duration of the curse.

And finally the "premise" thing in nar play at the in-game level can certainly sound like the in-game level of a sim game. However, the metagame level is quite different:

Steve: I got a rank 2 destiny score: Slaying dragons Wouldn't it be fun to kill the red dragon?
John: I spent my fate point on being enslaved to your character. It should give me bonus when helping your guy. Let's go!

My example might not be perfect, but I'm trying to illustrate that the PLAYER priorities toward to game to get fun doesn't sit at the same level despite the in-game event being the same or almost.

 

[Bastoche]

Maybe yes, maybe no. Who knows?
All I care now is that my worries are gone and I can peacefully and happily wait for 4E.
"simplicity, playability, fun, and believability" are my key words when DMing. I'm more then satisfied. 4E won't let me down.
LET THE BABY DANCE!

fair enough lol

All it boils down to is: If you're having fun playing the way you play, keep doing it that way!

 

[Raven Crowking]

It was never question of pursuing "Y". But rather of achieving "Y". In sim, you may not acheive while in a given nar game about the "costs of acheiving "Y"", you KNOW beforehand that "Y" will be acheived.

In a sim game, you may in retrospec dicuss about the costs of acheiving "Y" when "Y" did happened. But it's not the GOAL of the game. It's color. An added or bonus feature. In nar game, it's the very goal so the rules are such that Y will happen no matter the costs. And the costs is what the players are exploring.

I'm not saying that what comes out of a nar game never come out of a sim game. I'm just saying that the player's source of "fun" in either game is different and therefore requires different rules.

Jeez, now I'm confused.

In a nar game, you can explore the costs of achieving Y, but not the costs of attempting to achieve Y?!?

So, a sim game is the one in which, when you explore a theme, you can fail, but a nar game is the one in which, when you explore a theme, you can never fail?

Sorry, but the nar games LostSoul is talking about seem a lot more like games to me, and what you are talking about seems a lot more like discussing what happened after the fact. Fun to do with my friends Guiness and Glenfiddich, perhaps, but not so much a game per se.

And, you are right, that in a game where you can fail, exploring themes is often (but obviously not always) not THE goal, but it certainly can be ONE OF the goals.

Again, there is nothing you are describing that cannot be achieved in a sim game, with the exception of having automatically won, and you can still do that by starting the sim after the win and exploring the simulated consequences of the win.

I simply don't see your argument.

RC

 

[Bastoche]

My argument is that in sim game, the emphasis in placed upon exploration (of character, system or universe). What I call "theme" is not what would be called "genre" in sim play (so-called "high concept").

My "Y" example would be better explained via an example game. Let's take dogs in the vineyard. In the game, the PCs are holy gunslingers who brings justice by fighting evil. The game takes place in what is called a "town". There is some people doing bad things in the town which draw God's wrath. For example, crops are dying because some people are doing bad things. When the town event is resolved, the PCs have fought the evil and crops grow again. What the game goal is about is at what cost did that evil was fought? The town will forever be changed from the coming of the dogs (the holy gunslingers) for good or ill, most often ill. Fighting evil comes with a price and what the game is about.

In a sim game, you may still have dogs and town with evil etc. However, the goal of the game is not fighting evil per se. It may be the in-game goals of the characters but it's not the goal of the game itself. It could just be "Let's play in that setting to see what happens?"

What I'm saying too is that if you want to explore a "theme" (not as in "genre" but as in "premise"), if it's not hardwired into the rules, you cannot know if the theme will be explored or not whereas in nar game, you make it happen. You can say a sim bunch of players make sure theme and premise adressing is happening to which I say it's not playing sim.

Another way to put it is that to "hardcore" sim players, if no theme is adressed, the game is still fun (assuming the "sim" part is fullfilled in play) while it's boring to nar players.

 

[LostSoul]

In a nar game, you can explore the costs of achieving Y, but not the costs of attempting to achieve Y?!?

So, a sim game is the one in which, when you explore a theme, you can fail, but a nar game is the one in which, when you explore a theme, you can never fail?

Hey RC;

I think Bastoche is talking about a game that begins like so:

"The old heroes gathered round one last time before death came calling.

'Fellows, on the eve of our last battle, tell me a story.'

'What would you hear?'

'Tell me of the time you defeated the Dragon of Brestwolk.'"

The Dragon has been defeated, and we learn what the PC went gave up to win that victory. We already know that he's succeeded, we're just going to learn what it cost him.

I think you could do that in a sim game too, though; the focus would be more on the journey, the world, the different stuff to see there, the ecology of the dragon's habitat, etc. More like a travelogue; and while theme may be present, it wouldn't be the point of playing through that adventure.

In the nar game, players gloss over all those facts unless they directly impact the theme.

 

[Bastoche]

Hey RC;

I think Bastoche is talking about a game that begins like so:

"The old heroes gathered round one last time before death came calling.

'Fellows, on the eve of our last battle, tell me a story.'

'What would you hear?'

'Tell me of the time you defeated the Dragon of Brestwolk.'"

The Dragon has been defeated, and we learn what the PC went gave up to win that victory. We already know that he's succeeded, we're just going to learn what it cost him.

I think you could do that in a sim game too, though; the focus would be more on the journey, the world, the different stuff to see there, the ecology of the dragon's habitat, etc. More like a travelogue; and while theme may be present, it wouldn't be the point of playing through that adventure.

In the nar game, players gloss over all those facts unless they directly impact the theme.

Yes. And I'd add that MY way of playing nar is to have players and the GM agree before hand on what the game will be about "We're a bunch of low life scundrels trying to build up a thief guild that will one day take control over the king via political leverage". There's few details about how and when all this stuff happens. But the players agree that whatever will happen in-game is purposfully happening toward that goal. The GM's scenes will be framed toward that end and the players are expected to make their character act toward that goal. They may not succeed, but the point of the game is to atempt that and everything that happens in-game should build up toward a climax where the goal of the game is directly adressed.

In Burning Wheel, for example, the "end goal" can change during play because of player priorities changing BECAUSE is in-game events. In sim play, the character priorites may change because of in-game event, but in principles it has nothing to do with the player priorities toward the game. In sim play, player priority should be the exploration itself. Not the object of exploration nor the end goal.

 

[Raven Crowking]

In a sim game, you may still have dogs and town with evil etc. However, the goal of the game is not fighting evil per se.

You had me until here. Here, my question becomes "Why not?"

What I'm saying too is that if you want to explore a "theme" (not as in "genre" but as in "premise"), if it's not hardwired into the rules, you cannot know if the theme will be explored or not whereas in nar game, you make it happen.

Sure, if you want to explore a theme in a nar game, you cannot know if the theme will be explored unless the players are willing to make it happen. And if you want to explore a theme in a sim game, you can only do so if the players are willing to make it happen.

I am suggesting that you are setting up a false dichotomy about what is possible in each game style.

Another way to put it is that to "hardcore" sim players, if no theme is adressed, the game is still fun (assuming the "sim" part is fullfilled in play) while it's boring to nar players.

Ah, but I am not suggesting that it is incorrect to say that sim cannot occur without theme; I am suggesting that it is incorrect to say that sim cannot handle theme as well as nar.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

Hey RC;

I think Bastoche is talking about a game that begins like so:

In either a sim or a nar game, the players could focus on what the PC went gave up to win that victory. A sim game includes more than theme, but theme can be the focus (indeed, the point) of playing through that adventure. A sim game can simulate "This is what is important to the characters and the world" as well as merely simulate the characters and the world. Theme is a part of a sim game; the importance of that part is a decision made by the players on a campaign, session, and/or adventure basis.

RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

Yes. And I'd add that MY way of playing nar is to have players and the GM agree before hand on what the game will be about "We're a bunch of low life scundrels trying to build up a thief guild that will one day take control over the king via political leverage". There's few details about how and when all this stuff happens. But the players agree that whatever will happen in-game is purposfully happening toward that goal. The GM's scenes will be framed toward that end and the players are expected to make their character act toward that goal. They may not succeed, but the point of the game is to atempt that and everything that happens in-game should build up toward a climax where the goal of the game is directly adressed.

And again, in either type of play this may be the case.

In sim play, player priority should be the exploration itself. Not the object of exploration nor the end goal.

I think that you are artificially and unnecessarily limiting what sim play can be about, and what sim play can accomplish.


RC

 

[LostSoul]

A sim game includes more than theme, but theme can be the focus (indeed, the point) of playing through that adventure.

Hey RC;

I would define that kind of play as narrativist.

Somewhat unrelated: We have a little convention going on in TO in a couple of weeks. Here's some information on that - check it out, if you're interested.

I think some narrativist games will be busted out in the 2nd half of the day.