Why I dislike Sigil and the Lady of Pain

[sciborg3]

No - I don't like games that predetermine he thematic significance of what will be pretended. I like this to come out as an element of actual play.

Can you give an example of this - not necessarily Planescape related? Just having a hard time understanding what you mean.

thanks!

 

[DracoSuave]

The more I hear 'high-concept simulationism' the more I want to hear 'narrativism' which is probably the more appropriate word.

'Simulationism' in this case taken to mean using the game mechanics to simulate aspects of the game world. For example, Traveler using dense mechanics to simulate the random smattering of planets and possible atmospheres, tech levels, etc. That's simulationism.

Narrativism would be using the game mechanics in order to fuel and reward narratives, without necessary regard to simulation of the world itself.

They aren't necessarily in opposition: Mage: The Awakening has game mechanics that encourage gameplay based on narrative principles, as well as character motivations. But it also has a rich simulationist approach to the magic system.

On the other hand, you have narrativist games like Over The Edge which have absolutely no desire to simulate anything, as everything is arbitrary. But the mechanics are based entirely around narrative blurbs about your character's strengths and frailties. What your character is informs the game mechanics more than what a gun can do or how wealth is generated.

But seriously. Forge might as well use the term 'role-playing game' to describe 'simulationism.' And the term 'gamism' is ugly. A better term for it would be 'arbitrarianism' where the game presents a complete system without regard to simulation OR narration. Game mechanics just exist because of the necessity of game mechanics.

Then again, you could just as easily describe it as 'unevolved' or 'first generation' as D&D was around before narrativism or simulationism were found to be desired elements by certain gaming groups. Calling D&D 'non-simulationist' in this regard is like calling the first televisions 'anti-color'. It's not an element of design, it's an element of preceding the element in question.

 

[Balesir]

That's because I disagree with the basic concept behind Forge's use of the term 'simulationism.' Simulation, to me, is about recreating the mechanical world. If you want a word to mean something different, than the long-time acknowledged meaning of that word, create a new one. The confusion isn't mine, it's created by that piece.

Simulation (as a general term) has never been restricted to the "mechanical world". You can simulate social interactions, worlds with alternative physics and carefully defined "magic"; if "simulationism" was restricted to meaning "simulating the real world" we would need to invent a new word (independent of roleplaying gaming) to mean "simulating some other reality". The very fact that saying "simulate another reality" makes sense demonstrates that this is not what the word means.

Absent this clash of meaning, The Forge (and Ron Edwards, specifically) is free to define a specific meaning, within the general meaning, for discussions pertaining to roleplaying systems on his own site. Others may find this meaning useful, and provided it is specified as the particular meaning in use, this is valid, also.

The more I hear 'high-concept simulationism' the more I want to hear 'narrativism' which is probably the more appropriate word.

pemerton has already explained, with admirable brevity, the difference between Narrativism (which he likes) and High Concept Simulationism (which he doesn't). In the first the 'plot' is created/generated by the players, in the second it is set by the genre and the system and is there to be explored by the players rather than created by them. Those two cases might look the same to you, but I see the distinction quite clearly.

'Simulationism' in this case taken to mean using the game mechanics to simulate aspects of the game world. For example, Traveler using dense mechanics to simulate the random smattering of planets and possible atmospheres, tech levels, etc. That's simulationism.

That's a form of simulationism, sure. So is Mage: the Ascension modelling its marvellously innovative magic system - or Pendragon modelling the Arthurian Age or Call of Cthulhu modelling H.P.Lovecraft's horrific imaginings.

Narrativism would be using the game mechanics in order to fuel and reward narratives, without necessary regard to simulation of the world itself.

And without specifying what the theme of those narratives are going to be. Every game will generate a narrative, just as every game will have some sort of coherent "world model". That is one reason why just defining the words "narrativist" and "simulationist" (not to mention "gamist") in the "common meaning" way is not useful for discussion.

They aren't necessarily in opposition: Mage: The Awakening has game mechanics that encourage gameplay based on narrative principles, as well as character motivations. But it also has a rich simulationist approach to the magic system.

M:tA is a cool game, but it is in no way "Narrativist" in the Forge sense. It might be possible to generate some Nar play with it, but the themes of Magick are already set by the game system, they are not amenable to independent exploration. In other words, it's primarily a Simulationist supporting system.

On the other hand, you have narrativist games like Over The Edge which have absolutely no desire to simulate anything, as everything is arbitrary. But the mechanics are based entirely around narrative blurbs about your character's strengths and frailties. What your character is informs the game mechanics more than what a gun can do or how wealth is generated.

OtE, on the other hand, is amenable to Nar play, I think (having never actually played it, mind).

But seriously. Forge might as well use the term 'role-playing game' to describe 'simulationism.'

Sigh - that has been addressed so many times it's wearing really thin.

And the term 'gamism' is ugly. A better term for it would be 'arbitrarianism' where the game presents a complete system without regard to simulation OR narration. Game mechanics just exist because of the necessity of game mechanics.

Other than that you hate what you think Gamism is about, do you actually have any justification for this? Good Gamism supporting rules are anything but arbitrary and will both simuate a coherent world and generate a narrative - neither of which make the result either Simulationist or Narrativist nor even mean that it will primarily support those modes.

Seriously, if you don't want to bother to understand, fine, but don't just attack what you clearly don't comprehend.

Then again, you could just as easily describe it as 'unevolved' or 'first generation' as D&D was around before narrativism or simulationism were found to be desired elements by certain gaming groups. Calling D&D 'non-simulationist' in this regard is like calling the first televisions 'anti-color'. It's not an element of design, it's an element of preceding the element in question.

I get that you dislike Gamism - or, at least, what you label as Gamism in your own mind - but dismissing what other people enjoy as "what you have before you add something worthwhile" because you don't personally care for it is just rude.

 

[DracoSuave]

pemerton has already explained, with admirable brevity, the difference between Narrativism (which he likes) and High Concept Simulationism (which he doesn't). In the first the 'plot' is created/generated by the players, in the second it is set by the genre and the system and is there to be explored by the players rather than created by them. Those two cases might look the same to you, but I see the distinction quite clearly.

A more accurate designation would be system-enforced themism vs player-inspired themism. Neither of these concerns have anything to do with smiluation--Planescape, for example, has absolutely no means to simulate the tone. It simply has the tone and players are free to narrate it or not.

That simply reduces 'high concept simulationism' to the idea that a game has a specific tone.... that makes Ravenloft 'high concept simulationism' because it has a horror tone.

That's a form of simulationism, sure. So is Mage: the Ascension modelling its marvellously innovative magic system - or Pendragon modelling the Arthurian Age or Call of Cthulhu modelling H.P.Lovecraft's horrific imaginings.

No arguing that.

And without specifying what the theme of those narratives are going to be. Every game will generate a narrative, just as every game will have some sort of coherent "world model". That is one reason why just defining the words "narrativist" and "simulationist" (not to mention "gamist") in the "common meaning" way is not useful for discussion.

So the second a game has a set genre, tone, or theme it suddenly turns from narrativist to simulationist, regardless of whether the game system itself has means to support that simulationism?

That's why I say they might as well have 'role playing game.'

M:tA is a cool game, but it is in no way "Narrativist" in the Forge sense. It might be possible to generate some Nar play with it, but the themes of Magick are already set by the game system, they are not amenable to independent exploration. In other words, it's primarily a Simulationist supporting system.

By this definition, D&D is a simulationist system because it carries a continual tone involving the attainment of power and escalation of stakes, inherent to the game system on a fundamental level.

The system does not reward breaking away from the fact you're in a game with levels kicking down doors and slaying monsters.

OtE, on the other hand, is amenable to Nar play, I think (having never actually played it, mind).

OtE is a postmodernist game tho, which the game mechanics are designed to support. In a sense, would that make it a 'Higher Concept Simulationist' game?

That's why I dislike the term... it -really- is so broad it has absolutely no meaning. Once set in stone, it's impossible to find anything that isn't 'High concept simulationist' if it isn't rolemaster-like.

That's where the conclusion 'simulationism might as well mean "roleplaying game"' comes from.

Sigh - that has been addressed so many times it's wearing really thin.

So? Doesn't change its meaninglessness as a phrase by itself, when other, more precise phrases, meaning more precise things, are available.

Other than that you hate what you think Gamism is about, do you actually have any justification for this? Good Gamism supporting rules are anything but arbitrary and will both simuate a coherent world and generate a narrative - neither of which make the result either Simulationist or Narrativist nor even mean that it will primarily support those modes.

Where did I say I hated the gamist approach? I'm simply stating what it is: A system designed to be internally consistant as a game, rather than as a vehicle for simulationist OR narrativist purposes. Initial iterations of D&D did this because there simply was no concern for those things... they weren't concepts in rpg design because rpg design was a brand new thing.

Seriously, if you don't want to bother to understand, fine, but don't just attack what you clearly don't comprehend.

I am trying to understand but the phraseology and definitions used are loose and poor at best. I understand enough to understand (and respect) the complaint against Planescape as a game. However the game isn't 'simulationist.' It's a setting that has a tone. That's not 'simulationism' as the tone is not enforced by the system in any way. It's simply there. You can take the information provided, and remove the tone, and everything plays just as well.

How is that simulationist when the system does not attempt simulation?

I get that you dislike Gamism - or, at least, what you label as Gamism in your own mind - but dismissing what other people enjoy as "what you have before you add something worthwhile" because you don't personally care for it is just rude.

I don't dislike simulation. I recognize cause and effect; things that were invented prior to game design incorporating ideas of hard simulation (Rolemaster) or narrative focus (storyteller) simply don't have those ideals in the design, any more than TVs are going to have color before color tvs were invented.

It's not a disparagement at all.

 

[Ryujin]

Simulation (as a general term) has never been restricted to the "mechanical world". You can simulate social interactions, worlds with alternative physics and carefully defined "magic"; if "simulationism" was restricted to meaning "simulating the real world" we would need to invent a new word (independent of roleplaying gaming) to mean "simulating some other reality". The very fact that saying "simulate another reality" makes sense demonstrates that this is not what the word means.

Absent this clash of meaning, The Forge (and Ron Edwards, specifically) is free to define a specific meaning, within the general meaning, for discussions pertaining to roleplaying systems on his own site. Others may find this meaning useful, and provided it is specified as the particular meaning in use, this is valid, also.

Just to be absolutely clear on this, I never said "the real world." I said "the mechanical world" as in the mechanics of the world, in which the game exists. Magic is a mechanic but it isn't a mechanic of the real world, except in sappy love songs from the 1970s.

I stand by my comments.

 

[pemerton]

The more I hear 'high-concept simulationism' the more I want to hear 'narrativism' which is probably the more appropriate word.

Just adding to what Balesir already said - there's a difference between pre-packaged theme or genre (Dragonlance, Cthulhu, Planescape in my reading of it etc) and theme generated during play by the participants in the game.

The Forge calls the former high-concept simulationism, the latter narrativism. Nothing much turns on the words chosen (though I don't feel any great pressure to depart from a fairly clearly established usage). But the difference between the two playstyles is very big.

Can you give an example of this - not necessarily Planescape related? Just having a hard time understanding what you mean.

In Call of Cthulhu, it's a presupposition of the game, which then shapes the flow of play, that meddling in things humanity was not meant to know will put your PC on an inevitable downward spiral.

In my current 4e game, one of the PCs is a chaos sorcerer who is a Demonskin Adept. A question on the table is whether this meddling in things we weren't meant to know will put that PC on an inevitable downward spiral. I don't want the mechanics or the fictional setup of the gameworld to already answer that question. It's something that the whole table (including the player of that PC, and me as GM) will discover by actually playing the game. One method used to force the discovery is me (as GM) putting the player's PC in situations where spiralling downward is a possible option and consequence.

Achieving the second sort of playstyle, rather than the first, depends on a mix both of mechanics (getting rid of mechanical alignment is, in my view, an important first step) and GMing techniques.

 

[Balesir]

So the second a game has a set genre, tone, or theme it suddenly turns from narrativist to simulationist, regardless of whether the game system itself has means to support that simulationism?

That's why I say they might as well have 'role playing game.'

I think, to be fair, your confusion is a mix of (a) you not recognising what the Forge "agendas" actually refer to and (b) some lax usage by me and others of some of the terms when referring to systems and players.

To try to be clear: according to the terms as defined on The Forge, there can be no such thing as "a Simulationist system" or "a Gamist player", etc., etc. The "agenda" refers exclusively to the focus of social recognition during play. Examples to illustrate this might help:

- In my 4E game I see a player manoeuvre their ranged striker character into a position adjacent to a nasty monster in a flanking position with a marking fighter - and then make a ranged attack against it. The monster has an opportunity attack, but if it uses it it will still get hit by the ranged striker attack (with flanking and prime shot bonuses) and will take a Combat Superiority strike (with flanking!) from the fighter. The players applaud the player of the striker. High fives are exchanged. Kudos is awarded. This is a pretty clear example of "Gamist" play; the challenge has been stepped up to, and player skill is moving things towards victory in an "efficient" way.

- In a military style setting, the player characters are conducting an infiltration accompanied by a 'local guide' NPC. The party are ambushed; as the fight draws to a close, one PC turns and one-shots the guide, then looks around the table, declaring "our mission parameters have just changed, gentlemen". Approbation and applause ensues; the interest and tension around the table ratchets up a notch. It seems very likely that Narrativist play is afoot.

- During a Vampire game, the PCs are escaping on motorcycles after "acquiring" some key information from a hostile group. One of the PCs has a mortal pillion passenger who was part of their "cover" in the heist. To evade final capture, the PC deliberately makes a highly risky move that doesn't come off and they crash - the pillion and the pursuers (all mortal) are dead or crippled, but the PC uses blood to recover enough to walk away. The rules are ambiguous about whether this sort of "accident" should trigger a Humanity roll, but the player thinks it should, since, in their mind, the crash was at least negligent on the part of the PC, who knew he would be able to survive it while the pursuers (and pillion) wouldn't. The other players nod and express appreciation of the "in keeping" interpretation of the game events. This is pretty likely a Simulationist agenda in action.

- Playing D&D, a player tries for a difficult DC check and rolls a 20 - a crit! Everyone cheers! This is most likely a Gamist agenda at work.

Note the commonalities: an instance of play, social interaction (often non-verbal as well as verbal) to give recognition and appreciation of a specific type of introduction into the 'play space'. This is the core of what The Forge "agendas" are about.

When we talk about "a Gamist system" or "a Narrativist player", with reference to the definitions used on The Forge, we are, strictly speaking, using the terms wrongly. Usually it boils down to laziness (at least on my part); it's a short form to mean "a system that supports Gamist play particularly well", or "a player who generally prefers a game where Narrativism is the main focus of the game's social agenda". To those who already grok the meanings of the agendas, these phrases are pretty easy to "decode", but in a forum like this it's bad form to use them, because it makes the terms look like they mean something other than they do - mea culpa.

Does that help any, to make it clearer?

 

[Aenghus]

The simple reason I disliked the planescape setting as it was generally run is it runs counter to my own preferences.

My favourite class from 1e to 3e was cleric. And I typically ran conventional, slightly naive LG clerics.

Planescape seems to me to be a deconstruction of conventional D&D, poking fun at the old way of doing things. And my preferred character class and personality was utterly out of place in the setting, fit only as the target of snide humour.

The whole 90's move to "dark and edgy" never hooked me in, and I think planescape is D&D's contribution to that movement.

This visceral reaction probably soured me on everything related to the setting. I saw the factions as silly and the dark humour imbedded in the setting unfunny.

So, not for me.

 

[Piratecat]

Planescape meshes incredibly well to my play style. The best part of my various campaigns have centered around Planescape (Sigil or otherwise) or around the concept of belief influencing reality that I grabbed from the first box set. The themes really resonates with the sort of games I like to play: consequences, dependencies, small actions that create huge ripples, and quickly-changing cultures that require the players to think on their feet.

I also love the fact that you have a way to let low level PCs interact with vastly more powerful creatures. That doesn't mean they'll be shown any respect, of course, but it's a nice conceit. Add to this the conceit of a city-based campaign (my favorite type) with instant dungeon or wilderness adventures on a whim (via portals) and I'm completely sold.

I'll also admit that I like the idea of the Lady of Pain as an unknowable cipher, but that's because I like mysteries. I neither need, want, or particularly care about stats or a background for her. She doesn't generally affect my games, other than the knowledge that everything takes place in her shadow.

...I'll give the cant a miss, though. BerkBerkBerk.

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

The whole 90's move to "dark and edgy" never hooked me in, and I think planescape is D&D's contribution to that movement.

I prefer to think of it as post-irony D&D. There's nothing particularly dark and edgy about a great deal of planescape. I mean... modrons?