Why I dislike Sigil and the Lady of Pain

[DracoSuave]

As an aside, they called the factions "philosophers with clubs"; had Planescape been developed later I think "internet philosophers" might have captured the sense better

Does that mean many or most factioneers are simply argumentative and largely ignorant of actual philosophy? Well, of course!

When you live in a realm where belief that everything is chaos and disorder actually gives you the ability to point at someone and remove their ability to speak coherently, or where your belief that the universe is best when put under your benevolent dictatorship gives you the ability to change minds to befriend you and follow your word... that's what -clubs- means. The Fated have a greater propensity for self-sufficiency, the Sensates have greater immunity to negative experiences... in the planes, what you believe is both a source of power and a battleground.

Interestingly, I think this would be a good use of themes in 4th edition, to reflect the abilities granted by faction.

 

[pemerton]

In otherwords 'simulationism' through 'stripping out the simulationist elements of the game system.'

Is it just me, or did that essay just find a way to define simulationism as simply a complex term for make-believe, stripping out the game system elements itself that attempt to aid in simulation, as opposed to the common definition of a game system being used to simulate elements of a world in opposition to arbitrarianism.

By their reckoning, a game like Amber is more simulationist than a game like Rolemaster...

I don't know Amber well enough - but Rolemaster is, in terms of that essay, "purist-for-system" - whereas eg Call of Cthulhu and Pendragon are paradigms of high concept simulationist games.

In other words, by that definition, you hate games that let you pretend to do things?

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.

If you're interested, there's an active thread about this on the General forums. Come and join in!

 

[DracoSuave]

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.

Aha! That I -do- get.

 

[Ryujin]

I don't know Amber well enough - but Rolemaster is, in terms of that essay, "purist-for-system" - whereas eg Call of Cthulhu and Pendragon are paradigms of high concept simulationist games.

Amber is rather unique, in role playing, in that it's 'diceless.' Your character's attributes are fixed, determining the outcome of any contest. Any way that you spin it, that's about as far from the traditional definition of 'simulationist' as you can get.

 

[Balesir]

S'mon and pemerton already gave some good responses, but I'll add a few specifics:

In otherwords 'simulationism' through 'stripping out the simulationist elements of the game system.'

It's unfortunate that "simulationist" has acquired a "common" meaning that I find ambiguous, loose and not very useful. As far as I can make out, it is usually taken to mean "system heavy" or "sticks to 'simulating' elements from the "real" world", or some combination of both of these. For the main streams of roleplaying - fantasy (where sticking to the "real" world is just limiting) and sci-fi (where the idea of not simulating the "real" world to some degree is anathema) - this usage seems to me to be redundant and unhelpful.

The Forge meaning is much more unambiguous, centred on actual play aims and interesting to me personally as an "ambition of play".

Is it just me, or did that essay just find a way to define simulationism as simply a complex term for make-believe, stripping out the game system elements itself that attempt to aid in simulation, as opposed to the common definition of a game system being used to simulate elements of a world in opposition to arbitrarianism.

It defines Sim as 'make believe' for its own sake. All roleplaying involves make believe to some degree to make it work; for those times when you are focussing on a Sim agenda, exploring that make believe together is the main purpose of the activity.

Taken from this angle, Sim does not need extensive rules, at all. It may take a realm of 'fluff' that describes a setting and base play on "rules" and guidelines that are developed during play based on that fluff. Planescape seems very suited to this approach, to me. The danger of "arbitrarianism" comes in if (1) the game is operated with an "all powerful" GM and (2) that GM begins to see/treat the game as a competitive excercise, either spontaneously or due to some "gamist" behaviour on the part of the players. A good way to counteract this, in my view, is giving a substantial part of the traditional "GM's power" to the players or the group as a whole (something you should never do in a gamist game).

When you live in a realm where belief that everything is chaos and disorder actually gives you the ability to point at someone and remove their ability to speak coherently, or where your belief that the universe is best when put under your benevolent dictatorship gives you the ability to change minds to befriend you and follow your word... that's what -clubs- means. The Fated have a greater propensity for self-sufficiency, the Sensates have greater immunity to negative experiences... in the planes, what you believe is both a source of power and a battleground.

Yes, I realise all that - but that isn't really "philosophy", as such, is it? It's a set of hypotheses concering a setting where belief has real power - hypotheses that might, themselves, be philosophised about, but that are used/wielded by believers, rather than by philosophers.

Interestingly, I think this would be a good use of themes in 4th edition, to reflect the abilities granted by faction.

I think you could represent the factions using themes, yes, but I think that all PS would be in 4E is a pretty backdrop for a challenge-based or theme-based game. I don't see all that much point in using the setting that way, but YMMV and it should certainly be possible.

 

[Incenjucar]

Interestingly, I think this would be a good use of themes in 4th edition, to reflect the abilities granted by faction.

Absolutely. The benefits you could get from being in a faction in 2E are not entirely unlike themes.

 

[pemerton]

Amber is rather unique, in role playing, in that it's 'diceless.' Your character's attributes are fixed, determining the outcome of any contest. Any way that you spin it, that's about as far from the traditional definition of 'simulationist' as you can get.

I agree it makes it not purist-for-system. But it doesn't settle the question of high concept simulationism. Is the GM's role to set up situations which the players then drive forward in accordance with their own conception of the "point" or "stakes" or "theme" of the conflict? Or is the GM's role to set up situations, and adjudicate them, in such a fashion that the players will have an "Amber experience" (whatever exactly that is)?

Pendragon and Cthulhu are written to be run the second way, which is why The Forge calls them high concept simulationist games. What Balesir is saying in calling Planescape simulationist, and what I agree with, is that Planescape is meant to work something like this too.

 

[Ryujin]

I agree it makes it not purist-for-system. But it doesn't settle the question of high concept simulationism. Is the GM's role to set up situations which the players then drive forward in accordance with their own conception of the "point" or "stakes" or "theme" of the conflict? Or is the GM's role to set up situations, and adjudicate them, in such a fashion that the players will have an "Amber experience" (whatever exactly that is)?

Pendragon and Cthulhu are written to be run the second way, which is why The Forge calls them high concept simulationist games. What Balesir is saying in calling Planescape simulationist, and what I agree with, is that Planescape is meant to work something like this too.

Arguments to the contrary, I tend to disregard the term "High Concept Simulationism" out of hand. To my mind you have simulationism, on the one extreme, and what I would refer to as pure role playing, on the other. Various game systems fall somewhere along that line, either tending toward one extreme or the other, in the same way that the political landscape tends to work.

.... though I actually tend to see politics as a circle, rather than a line, but that's a point for another place and time.

 

[Balesir]

Arguments to the contrary, I tend to disregard the term "High Concept Simulationism" out of hand. To my mind you have simulationism, on the one extreme, and what I would refer to as pure role playing, on the other. Various game systems fall somewhere along that line, either tending toward one extreme or the other, in the same way that the political landscape tends to work.

I think that's because you are thinking of "simulationism" in the rather confusing, non-Forge sense of "simulating the real world" and "mechanics heavy to remove judgement calls". The Forge's use of "Simulationism" does not imply either of these things - it means that the focus of actual play - and what is socially recognised and congratulated during play - is exploration and exposition of the game setting for its own sake. This stands in contrast to "gamism" (where good tactics or good die rolls are lauded and the focus is on overcoming in-game challenges with player skill) and "narrativism" (where introducing crunchy thematic elements is lauded and the focus is on developing knotty theme questions/challenges).

"High Concept Sim" involves exploring a genre or fascinating game setting (which is where I think PS sits); "Purist for System" involves (trying to) develop a setting-based rule set to model a specific, imagined setting. Purist for System agenda includes the "fluff led rules" stuff, broadly speaking; 'rules led fluff' is generally/typically Gamist, instead.

.... though I actually tend to see politics as a circle, rather than a line, but that's a point for another place and time.

...and I agree with you somewhat but, as you say, that's for another venue.

 

[Ryujin]

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.